Home | Link 1 | Link 2 | Link 3 | Link 4 | Link 5 |
« Chris Matthews is Bush’s Monica Lewinski
ENOUGH with the “Discredit” Argument »

As each day passes, more and more Americans are becoming aware of the startling evidence that clearly contradicts the official explanation of Sept.11th, 2001 offered by the Bush administration. In fact, as more and more evidence comes to light, incongruities in the official explanation become increasingly and undeniably apparent.

Ironically, the growing number of people new to these unexplained discrepancies poses a new problem for those of us who have been researching 9/11 for many months or years. We will have to find a way to explain the many complexities related to the attacks to those who now doubt the official version of events. We are faced with the overwhelming task helping great numbers of people understand the many contradictions in the 9/11 story they were fed by their government.

Obviously, that is not an easy assignment, even when the great majority of truth seekers agree that the official explanation is little more than a pre-written cover story designed to herd the American public into supporting an agenda that would otherwise horrify and outrage them. However, it becomes far more complicated in light of a topic that causes a great deal of confusion within the research community itself. That disparity relates to the strike on the Pentagon.

Many questions still remain about what actually took place at the Pentagon on September 11th 2001. That’s fine, because the goal of the 9/11 truth community is to raise these questions for further investigation. The problem arises when researchers feel that it is their responsibility to explain what happened at the Pentagon. It is NOT. Rather, it is their charge to highlight the doubts that have been legitimately raised regarding what exactly hit that building.

Some researchers claim that a 110 ton Boeing 757 hit the building, leaving only a 16 foot hole in the facade (prior to its collapse some 22 minutes after the initial impact.) Others claim that an A-3 Skywarrior fighter jet was the actual aircraft. Some say it was an unmanned Global Hawk armed with depleted uranium missiles, and still others claim that the Pentagon was hit by another type of military missile. We can argue each of these theories forever, and accomplish absolutely nothing.

We really have to put and end the internal dispute that is getting us nowhere and work together to bring information rather than more uncertainty to the public that is now just entering the 9/11 discussion. To that end, I am posing ONE pertinent question about the strike on the Pentagon: Why didn’t they show us the wreckage?

Planes do not simply vaporize. Never in the history of aviation disasters has an aircraft ever totally disintegrated. Even exploding space shuttles did not vanish into thin air. Therefore, it stands to reason that whatever hit the Pentagon had to leave some recoverable debris in its wake. Surely, there had be enough identifiable rubble remaining from a 110 ton aircraft to satisfy the skeptics? There is no way to convince me that the few scraps of metal and small engine parts, which according to some researchers are not from a 757, are proof of anything. at all. Neither am I convinced that the handful of uninformative photos that were released were not staged by the people who planned this event. An 110,000 tons aircraft has to leave more convincing evidence than what we have been offered. I defy anyone, anywhere to recreate a plane crash in which110 tons of aircraft are reduced to a select few, barely identifiable parts.

Why was this most important event in America’s history not fully documented by camera crews? Why wasn’t this event filmed and analyzed to its fullest extent for historical and forensic purposes? Why weren’t standard crime scene procedures followed, and why were government officials permitted to tamper with and eventually collect and secrete all of the crime scene evidence? Last time I looked, tampering with or destroying crime scene evidence was a felony. Why wasn’t every inch of the scene photographed by official investigators prior to the recovery process?

There is ample evidence of government complicity in the events of September 11th 2001, but nothing is more suspect than their relentless effort to prevent the public from examining the evidence. The cover up may actually speak louder than the actual evidence of complicity. That in itself may be the most important thing to consider in all of this intrigue and mystery.

It is too late now for the Bush administration to make good and show us the evidence. They have had 5 years to create a library of fabricated films and images. By this time, they actually could have produced a hanger full of faux plane wreckage. We needed to see the evidence at the crime scene at the time of the crime. We did not, and the troubling question remains unanswered: why didn’t they show us the wreckage?

Even without the mounting evidence of their involvement, nothing aside from time travel into the past will remove the aura of government complicity in the events of 9/11. Nothing at all can remove the cloud of suspicion that hangs over this administration because of its undaunted and obvious efforts to keep essential evidence at the Pentagon site hidden from the public.

One side note regarding the actions of a novice pilot attempting to hit the Pentagon: If you were throwing a dart at a toilet seat, would you aim at the side of the seat or would you aim down at the top of the seat, you know…the part that many men try to avoid hitting? Any pilot - especially a less skilled one - looking at the Pentagon as the target of a projectile, surely would have planned a simple, top-down, dive-bomb approach. The Pentagon is shaped like a set of of toilet seats, one smaller than the other, each one residing in the void of the next larger. The side of the Pentagon is 77′ high yet the topside surface target space is approximately 29 acres. What would anyone reasonably aim for - a 29 acre target or the relatively miniscule one - on the ONLY reinforced section of the building designed to withstand a frontal attack?

I offer this as another common sense question left out of the discussion by the people who continue to stand by one of the most unbelievable fairy tales ever sold to the American public since the JFK magic bullet story. It is another QUESTION, not an answer, in the long line of questions no one in any official capacity has been willing to listen to, never mind answer.

In conclusion, I repeat that we have to stop trying to ANSWER the questions that have been raised. Instead, we have to collectively demand the answers. Even more constructively, we must focus on the essential questions that absolutely needs to be answered. In the case of the Pentagon, where is there any concrete evidence of the remains of a 110 ton Boeing 757 among the wreckage at the scene? Why didn’t they collect, examine and reveal the wreckage to the public? Why, why, why didn’t those in charge of finding out what happened at the Pentagon show us the wreckage? We think we know.

Think about it. Jesse - Editor,

Posted by Jesse on Sunday, April 16th, 2006 at 6:21 pm.

13 Responses to “The 9/11 Pentagon Attack: Planes Simply Do Not Vaporize - Why Didn’t They Show Us the Wreckage?”
Another thing that, if answered, could blow the whole 9/11 question wide open is the following:

We have the owner of WTC7 saying ON CAMERA to PBS (”America Rebuilds” documentary) that “the decision was made to pull” building 7, and it was “pulled”. This clearly refers to setting off planted explosives.

Is it true that planting such explosives, to produce the picture-perfect collapse we see of building 7, is a task requiring much more than a day? If so, then obviously WTC 7 had ALREADY been wired with demolition explosives! Is so, the obvious question is WHY?

Would not answering these two questions, about an admission already made on camera, open up the whole ugly can of worms to serious inspection??

Left by davew on April 17th, 2006

Here’s something else…according to the Official Story A,one of the engines kept right on going through six walls(the first one reinforced),made a nice round hole in that sixth wall - and THEN either melted or disintegrated,because in all the photos there’s no big,solid,torn-up hunk of metal that was the engine(which must have been intact at that last wall to make such a round hole)or a large quantity of metal laying around OUTSIDE the hole(again,I don’t believe that that hole could have been made by something that didn’t go THROUGH the wall).Did it finally fall into pieces after making the hole?
But the argument has ALSO been made that THE NOSE OF THE PLANE MADE THE HOLE(Official Story B),compacting when it hit the first Pentagon wall and turning into a giant bullet. This is even more unbelievable,since planes are really just hollow tubes with wings,and there’s no way in my mind that the nose would be in any condition,after smacking into a reinforced wall,to keep going through five more walls,make the round exit hole,and THEN decide to fall apart or melt away.If it was so compacted that it could go through six walls,then (Again and again)I would expect to see this giant bullet OUTSIDE THE HOLE IN THE SIXTH WALL.When real bullets go through something,they may be either found on the ground or stuck in a material.They are often pretty deformed,depending on what they hit while they were flying.BUT THEY JUST DON’T FALL APART IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH ENERGY TO IMPACT SIX DIFFERENT THINGS AND MAKE A NICE ROUND HOLE.
This so-called ‘exit hole’ may be a big part of solving the mystery of the Pentagon ‘attack’.

Left by Passenger57 on April 18th, 2006

“An 110,000 tons aircraft has to leave more convincing evidence than what we have been offered.”

110,000 tons ?

If you want to be credible check your statistics.

Left by Fourbrick on April 18th, 2006

Fourbrick - A mistake removes credibility? If you were a credible human bing you would have simply pointed out my error. 220,000 pounds = 110 tons. I originally wrote the weight in pounds and changed it to tons but I stupidly left in the extra zeros.

When I hear somone use the *****ic “discredit” tag I go balistic. Mistakes do not discredit anything. I don’t say things like this too often…but Fourbrick…you are an ass.

Left by Jesse on April 18th, 2006

Whoa, don’t throw your dummy out of the pram, Jesse!

If you don’t check your facts, you discredit your own arguments.

I did not use an ” discredit tag”, I suggested that to be credible, you must be sure of your facts.

I may well be an ass, Jesse, but if I see a “fact ” that is incorrect, I try to correct it.

Left by Fourbrick on April 18th, 2006

Ok, in Jesse’s favor, he said 110 tons twice, and 110, 000 tons once in that one paragraph. Also one of each elsewhere…. WHO F-ING CARES?
This is a blog, NOT an official paper. I find misspellings and typos in his stuff all the time. So I have a little giggle and move on. I don’t rush right over to bash him. Most of us reading this have been down in this 9/11 sludgepit long enough, and are smart enough (I hope) to think around some small mistakes. It’s not like he’s trying to fool anybody by putting in wrong info, shit happens. Let’s focus on the positive by spreading the word, not slicing our own throats. That is all I have to say about that. No animals were harmed in the writing of this message. Keep up the good work Jesse!

Left by asetech on April 18th, 2006

The administration of your country have posted lists of people killed in a plane
crash, they maintain, hit the Pentagon on 9/11. l i s t s of people k i l l e d .
Are these passenger lists fabrications? They MUST BE if this was missile strike.
How can this dichotomy be explained. Where has every-body come from? Where did they go?
We have seen the photos and the facts of them utterly defy aircraft crash, but
passenger list memorials scream to the people louder than query of magic bullets.
Until this is explained, confusion will reign.Within confusion the laws are writ.

Left by oeo on April 18th, 2006

Here’s a POSSIBLE answer/non-answer : in the government’s own OPERATION NORTHWOODS plan,passengers would board Plane A , take off,land in Place X - and ANOTHER plane exactly like Plane A would take off from where Place X , and that plane(remote controlled) would either be shot down by the US or set to blow up on its own - but before doing so would send a FAKE RADIO TRANSMISSION that they were being “attacked” . Pieces of the plane being fished out of the Atlantic would be on the evneing news , and rile up Americans for an invasion of Cuba.
Left out of this plan is what happens to the passengers on Plane A. Maybe they get killed;they’re already “dead” anyway . Maybe they all have aliasesand are relocated. But let’s not waste time wondering what happened to the passengers just yet, because all that needs to be done is to show that big chunks of the Official Story is a lie,and the whole house of cards comes down.

Left by Passenger57 on April 19th, 2006

Oh,I forgot - the guy who just wanted to “correct” Jesse-your first “correction” said : “If you want to be CREDIBLE . . . ” This is not an insult,Fourbrick,but most people,when they read,somehow their brains overlook minor errors,because in fractions of a second,they know that planes don’t weigh 110,000 TONS and their brain fills in “pounds” . If that doesn’t happen,then they chalk it up as a typo,because it was obvious what the person was trying to convey.But don’t worry,Fourbrick- if planes DID weigh 110,000 TONS,the Bush administration would STILL find a way to make it all go away except for a few hundred pounds of it. I wonder : if you see a typo in a newspaper,do you A) write the paper and tell them about the error, and B)lose faith in the credibility of the paper because of the TYPO ( and not because they stink anyway)?

Left by Passenger57 on April 19th, 2006

People, please! The “no-757-hit-the-Pentagon” claim is the weakest argument in the 9/11 Truth portfolio, BY FAR. Let’s stick to what we DO know, not what we don’t. Hundreds of eyewitnesses said they heard explosions at the WTC. Similarly, hundreds of eyewitnesses said they saw a 757 slam into the Pentagon. Some were DOD personnel, many were not. You cannot trust the claims of one group of eyewitnesses and then completely discount the other group’s claims when it doesn’t suit your purposes. That kind of practice hits right at the very heart of your- OUR- credibility.

Please see these two critical links-
[Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11]
[ The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:
Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics]

Left by Baraka on April 19th, 2006

Hey Folks,
Lets put our focus where it needs to be………The Truth!!!!! ELIMINATON of ” THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY!!!!!!!!!!!!

All The Best

Left by larry uzarski on April 23rd, 2006

110,000 pounds or tons, whatever. Actually, Jesse… You call people an ass all too often. Try not to be so sloppy.

Left by deanasc on May 7th, 2006

You are an ass.

Left by Jesse on May 7th, 2006

Something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.

May 2006 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Apr
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
9/11 (69)
Current Events (132)
Economy (15)
Environment (49)
George W. Bush (136)
Health (3)
Iraq (13)
Israel (7)
Jesse’s Thoughts (371)
Journalism/Media (180)
Military (2)
PNAC (9)
Politics (132)
Radio Show Blog (18)
Religion (1)
911 Bllogger
Main Site Links
TvNewsLIES Front Page
News Page
Sponsor Us
Jesse's Blog Home

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).