[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Mossad Comment on Peace with Palestinians Boost Your Stem Cells And Live Longer With These 3 Beverages Southern Girl Cheap Taser Uruguay Is Considered Less Corrupt Than The US & Spain Cryptocurrency Thefts Surge to $1.38 Billion in First Half of 2024 Senate Joins House in Proposal for Automatic Draft Registration Blumenthal urges USPS to kill next weeks stamp price hike Equal Rights Until It's About Men Bidenomics? Business Bankruptcies Jump 34% In First Half Of 2024 Illinois Is A Drag On US Economy, Continues To Be A 'Taker' From Federal Govt; New Report Shows Bodyguard For Anti-Gun Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Shoots At Would-Be Carjacker Germany: Nigerian migrant grabs 9-year-old boy and stabs 2 police officers, immediately released by the courts Housing inventory up 40% yoy. Signals in construction activity are mirroring the period leading up to the 2008 crash. Poll shows 44% of Americans skipping summer vacations due to 25% rise in air travel costs. uh.... Funny Short Video Iran Paid Anti-Israel Protesters in America The 5 Anti-Aging Spices That Help Heal The Body & Reduce Inflammation Rubio Reveals U.S. Taxpayers Funding Chinese Military Experiments, Will Introduce Bill To Fight It 2000 Doctors THE BAR IS OPEN! Canadians Begin Hiring Guardian Angels to Protect Hospital Patients from Euthanasia Mel Gibson Writes Open Letter in Support to Archbishop Vigan: The Nationwide 500,000 EV Charger Charade Kiev continues its practice of nuclear blackmail in the Russian city of Energodar Department of Interior shuts down millions of acres of Alaska to all oil, gas and mining activity Dusseldorf court rules far-right AfD members cannot legally possess firearms in Germany. 7924 Funny Laugh Out Loud Hilarious Memes Jokes Cartoons [Goof Thread] BBC Chooses Racially Diverse Cast To Play Characters In Drama About 1066 Battle Of Hastings Biden's 10 different excuses for why he screwed up his debate with President Trump.

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: What Hit The Pentagon (Part 2)
Source: freedom4um
URL Source: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=34382&Disp=0
Published: Sep 10, 2006
Author: Confusion
Post Date: 2006-09-10 06:01:09 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11*     Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911, Contradictions, Questions
Views: 238
Comments: 33

Title: What Hit the Pentagon? Source: 911review URL Source: http://www.911review.com/attack/pentagon/hypothesis.html Published: Sep 9, 2006 Author: 911 Review Post Date: 2006-09-09 07:05:37 by Kamala Ping List: *9-11* Keywords: 911 Views: 593 Comments: 135

What Hit the Pentagon?

Where the Pentagon was struck on 9/11/01 is indisputable and is strong circumstantial evidence that the attack was an inside job.

Poster Comment:

Now does everyone see why I and alot of others steer clear of the pentagon. I've got some other bits of articles I'm going to post here. Like I've stated, I lean toward an airliner hitting the pentagon. Also the black boxes found dispute the 530mph speed, I've read 345mph was the speed.

Mark Subscribe to *9-11*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 30.

#9. To: All, *9-11* (#0)

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html#hoffman

Jim Hoffman, 911 Research, co-author Waking Up from Our Nightmare, the 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City

http://911research.com/essays/pentagon/ video.ht ml

Video of the Pentagon Attack: What is the Government Hiding? by Jim Hoffman Version 0.9, May 16, 2006

... saying there is not proof that a plane hit the Pentagon ... necessarily implies the following:

That the scores of accounts of a large plane are either faked or coerced. That the damage to the Pentagon, including an approximately 100-foot-wide expanse of punctured facade walls on the first floor, were somehow produced by a means other than a plane. That fires that smelled like burning jet fuel, running about 200 feet across the facade of the Pentagon, were produced by some other means, or the photographs were faked. That the swath of downed lamp-poles the width of a 757's wing span were sliced and knocked over by some other means, and that smashed objects lying in the paths of the engines were damaged by some other means. That the identification of human remains of the crew and passengers of Flight 77 was fraudulent. That the Flight 77 with its crew and passengers were disposed of elsewhere, and their fate remains unknown. To believe that the Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77 requires one to accept points 5 and 6. To believe that no plane hit the Pentagon, one has to accept all six points. Such a belief isn't consistent with a rational analysis of the evidence.

Jim Hoffman http:// (wtc7.net, http://911review.c om, http://911resear ch.com) observes that the nonsense injected into the 9/11 truth movement attracts people without critical thinking skills, who then alienates logically thinking people from being associated with it. It's a brilliant strategy of disruption.

"What could be more effective [for the perpetrators] than to recruit people into the 9/11 truth movement who are self-motivated to proselytize with nonsense? - Jim Hoffman

I think if not for the success of the Pentagon no-plane and South Tower pod-plane memes in marginalizing 9/11 truth in 2004, we could be in an entirely different position now. - Jim Hoffman

There are several other examples of actions by authorities that I think are calculated to function in the same way as bait for the skeptics:

The first frame of the 5 leaked (and forged) Pentagon CCTV frames that shows the small plane hidden behind the post; baiting people to think "Look! they're trying to hide that it was a small plane". Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile" that damaged the Pentagon; leading people to think it was an inadvertant admission by him of knowledge that the attack involved a missile. The refusal of authorities to provide proof of the identities of the planes that crashed at the three sites, such as identifying part numbers from aircraft debris; exploiting peoples' tendency to confuse lack of proof with evidence to the contrary. The destruction and suppression of evidence -- a pattern seen throughout the response to the attack -- serves the coverup in two ways:

preventing investigators from definitively disproving false elements of the official story. luring investigators into thinking that true elements of the official story are false.

----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pent agon/ind ex.html

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman Version 0.9, March 28, 2006

Introduction The theory that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757 (the kind of plane that Flight 77 was) is promoted by the most widely distributed books, videos, and other media challenging the official account of the 9/11 attack. The no-Boeing theory forms the central thesis of Thierry Meyssan's books L'effroyable Imposture (The Frightening Fraud), and Le Pentagate; is featured by the videos Painful Deceptions, 9/11 In Plane Site, and Loose Change; and is the subject of the Flash animation 9/11 Pentagon Strike. These pieces have been distributed worldwide in quantities reaching into the millions, thanks to a combination of excellent production values, entertaining and captivating styles of presentation, and expert and well-financed marketing. The work of 9/11 researchers who do not embrace the no-Boeing theory has been eclipsed in every medium except the web.

In late 2004 I wrote The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics. In it, I examined the no-Boeing theory from a several perspectives including analysis of its:

psychology history evidentiary support propaganda misinformation

That essay presents a cumulative argument against the no-Boeing theory using each of these perspectives. Critics of this essay failed to acknowledge this and instead zeroed in on one or another point to highlight it as if the entire case against the no-Boeing theory hinged on that point. For example, several critics have mis-stated my position as relying exclusively on the accounts of eyewitnesses, ignoring my detailed examination of the 'physical evidence case' for the no- Boeing theory. In this essay I look exclusively at the physical evidence of the Pentagon attack -- post-crash photographs and verifiable information about the building, the Boeing 757- 200 aircraft, and the physics of aircraft crashes based on case studies. In some cases I mention elements of eyewitness accounts, but only to frame my analysis of the what photographs show about the crash. I show that the physical evidence is consistent with the crash of a 757, noting flaws in popular arguments to the contrary. The many eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack constitute a rich body of evidence that strongly supports the conclusion that the attack plane was either a Boeing 757 or a very similar aircraft. The physical and eyewitness evidence are thus mutually corroborating, a fact that is obscured by common errors in evaluating the physical evidence. Many researchers have dismissed the body of eyewitness evidence out of hand, primarily for two reasons:

Allegations that the body of witness evidence as a whole is plagued by bias, contamination, and unreliability (addressed here) have been widely promoted and have not been effectively countered, apparently because the ponderous volume of the witness reports discourages analysis. Assertions that physical evidence trumps witness evidence in any crime investigation have fostered a reflexive disdain for witness evidence while lending a false sense of infallibility to arguments based on photographs.

Factors such as these have contributed to the creation of a false dialectic, which has eyewitness evidence supporting the Boeing theory and physical evidence supporting the no- Boeing theory. By focusing on the physical evidence here, I hope to sidestep that dialectic and clarify what conclusions the physical evidence actually supports.

Contents Debris is Consistent with a Jetliner Crash Pentagon Facade Damage Fits a 757 Interior Damage is Consistent with a 757 Crash Damage to Surroundings Fits a 757 Specific Debris Matches a 757 Suppressing Evidence of the Crash Serves the Cover-up

----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pent agontrap .html The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics by Jim Hoffman October 7, 2004

The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded. Many researchers have ignored or dismissed this eyewitness evidence in favor of a seemingly overwhelming physical evidence case that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon, based on photographs of the crash site. As I show below, however, each of the pieces evidence adduced in favor of the no-757-crash theory can be reconciled with the crash of a 757. The controversy over this issue has eclipsed the many documented facts linking the 9/11/01 attacks to insiders. Defenders of the official story have seized on this issue as representative of the gullibility and incompetence of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists". [emphasis added]

----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/ev idence/w itnesses/bart.html eyewitness accounts

http://www.911review.com/errors/pen tagon/index.html detailed analyses of how the "no plane" claims are fake http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/ae robatics .html 757 maneuvers http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/wi tnesses. html eyewitnesses http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/no debris.h tml no debris? http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/cr ashdebri s.html crash debris http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/sm allhole. html small impact hole http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/mi ssingwin gs.html missing wings http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/tu rbofans. html turbofans 101 http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/co lumns.ht ml standing columns http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/pu nchout.h tml punchout http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/ob stacles. html obstacles

Michael Green (9/11 Research)

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gree n/compan y.html

The Company We Keep by Michael B. Green, Ph.D. Version 1.2, February 15, 2006

"the entire discussion of what hit the Pentagon is a tar baby designed to trap the 911 truth community in useless speculation."

Vince Sauve

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: What hit the Pentagon? WHERE the Pentagon was hit (nearly empty sector) is key point From: sf911truthalliance at http://riseup.net

Vince Sauve posts:

It is quite frustrating that so many non experts (on crashes or explosives) and non scholars argue stridently for some wild theory completely at odds with the principle of Occam's Razor. For those who haven't heard of Occam's Razor and what it means please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

Excerpt:

Occam's Razor has become a basic perspective for those who follow the scientific method. It is important to note that it is a heuristic argument that does not necessarily give correct answers; it is a loose guide to choosing the scientific hypothesis which (currently) contains the least number of unproved assumptions and is the most likely to be fruitful. Often, several hypotheses are equally "simple" and Occam's Razor does not express any preference in such cases.

For example, after a storm you notice that a tree has fallen. Based on the evidence of "a storm" and "a fallen tree" a reasonable hypothesis would be that "the storm blew down the tree" -- a hypothesis that requires only one assumption -- that it was, in fact, a strong wind that knocked over the tree, rather than a meteor or an elephant. The hypothesis that "the tree was knocked over by marauding 200 meter tall space aliens" requires several additional assumptions (concerning the very existence of aliens, their ability and desire to travel interstellar distances and the alien biology that allows them to be 200 meters tall in terrestrial gravity) and is therefore less preferable.

Folks, the hole in the Pentagon is big enough for all of the bulky parts of a 757 to crash through--about 15 feet on the second floor and possibly 80 feet on the first floor. There is a photo of metal wrapped around a column and other photos of aircraft debris within the building. Why should they fake this? There was debris of shredded aircraft skin on the front lawn. Why should they plant this material? How could they be sure they wouldn't be seen planting it? The first image of the security camera at the guard shack in all likelihood was digitally manipulated to cause dissension and distraction in our 9-11 skeptics/truth community (one clue was that it had the wrong date attached to it). If someone precut the bolts of the light poles and rigged them to fall over, wouldn't that leave a possibility for the automobile drivers to notice that and report some funny business on this matter? Those who say it was stage-managed to look like a 757 crashed there are just making things more complicated for them to pull it off. Why should they stage-manage the Pentagon crash at all? I think it is most logical that the hijackers, if they were truly even on the aircraft, were hijacked themselves by remote control technology. This is what makes the most sense with the available evidence.

People like Eric Hufschmid, who was one of the first to have a big impact on persuading many of us that flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, upon further discovery, have proven to me to be an incompetent researcher. And possibly even worse, he has shown a desire to discredit our work by association. He has shown a real disdain for a democratic republic. He holds himself up as being smarter than most of the public even though all the while he peddles nonsense about the Apollo moon landings as being a hoax. If you don't believe this is the case about Hufschmid just read the junk he has on his web site: http://www. erichufschmid.net Also, if you haven't seen my web page featuring an exchange with Eric over the Apollo business please do so. Be sure to read what he said in his last letter (this reveals his fascist pro military dictatorship leanings): http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/apollo hoax.htm l

I don't mean to give offense to those busy people who are new to this Pentagon research or who just haven't gotten around to a study of what evidence is available and through no fault of their own have been swayed by the presentations of people like Hufschmid. I, at one time, counted myself in that same category. Hufschmid has shown that he has a lot of time available and hence has no excuses for presenting his falsities, even after a couple of us have tried to show him his errors, he hasn't budged.

Vince Sauve

The New American

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/08-23- 2004/facts.htm

In the information society, bad information drives out good information. The proliferation of misinformation causes the dilution of good, factual information. Valuable information on actual cover-ups, for instance, is discredited when other alleged, but non-factual and misleading, conspiracy theories are given undue currency. In short, bad conspiracy theories discredit all assertions of conspiracy, making for fertile ground in which actual conspiracies thrive. [emphasis added]

Kamala  posted on  2006-09-10   7:04:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

There's a lot that we can criticize about Hufschmidt's behavior as of late, but I still think his Painful Deceptions video is damn good.

christine  posted on  2006-09-10   12:27:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

2 or 3 years ago, Eric put out some great info. The book that goes along with his video, is amazing. Photos, diagrams etc.. It is worth buying. Great stuff.

With that said, he has slid into mental maddness. Eric, Smith and their 3 ring circus is to be avoided. Everything their doing is harmful to the 911 truth movement, but like I said in another post, just because at this time I don't agree with his tactics, I'm not going to discount his earlier research.

Kamala  posted on  2006-09-11   6:40:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

        There are no replies to Comment # 30.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 30.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]