It won’t go away, even though the truth community has not been allowed to show its evidence via the corporate media. The questions remain and they have to be asked.
THEY HAVE TO BE ASKED….not answered by those who raise them. They have to be answered by a non partisan, non political group of criminal investigators. Yeah, right.
Not a single person reading this would have stood by if a crime perpetated against him or her had been handled the way 9/11 was dealt with. Just take the strike against the Pentagon as an example and wonder why we know NOTHING about what might or might not have happened. Here’s why:
The 9/11 Pentago Attack: Planes Simply Do Not Vaporize – Why Didn’t They Show Us the Wreckage?
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 110,000 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 110,000 ton aircraft to satisfy the skeptics?
Read the full blog here:
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 757 is about 220,000 POUNDS. So you’re off by three orders of magnitude concerning the weight.
The Wikipedia has this regarding American Airlines Flight 77:
The main impact zone of the crash was approximately 19 metres (57 feet) in width. Little wreckage was found from the airliner within this impact zone or inside the building. Most of the fiberglass and other flammable materials were almost certainly vaporized by the fireball which resulted from the explosion of jet fuel upon impact and the resulting fire, which also would have placed a strain on metallic materials. (A similar intense heat is claimed to have caused the collapse of both towers of the World Trade Center.) Those pieces which would not have burned up were dispersed in the explosion or smashed into smaller pieces by the collapse of the upper floors of the building. Pieces of fuselage were found some 30 metres (90 feet) away from the crash site. As opposed to the extremely tall World Trade Center, the Pentagon is a much smaller building, and thus the flight was forced to dive low enough, according to multiple eyewitness accounts, to glance off the ground before hitting the Pentagon, which absorbed much of the impact of the crash. Within the main impact zone was a hole that the object punched in the building, approximately 9 metres (27 feet) in width. The Pentagon is composed of five concentric rings. Thanks to the thick limestone walls and the sturdiness of building materials being used in the renovations at the time, Flight 77 fully penetrated only the outer three rings, although it caused damage to all five rings. At the end of the third ring was a circular ‘punch out’ hole, again 9 metres (27 feet) in diameter. The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 38 metres (114 feet). These wings were most likely broken off and destroyed in the explosion, fire and collapse, although blackened sections of the building, visible in photographs, seem to have been caused by the impact of the burning wings.
–And you also have the problem that AA Flt. 77 definitely took off and never landed. Thus, although you say airliners never get vaporized, this one apparently did. Where do you think it went? Do you think it secretly landed at Area 51 where all the passengers are being held hostage? How do you explain the frantic phone calls to family members from passengers on that doomed flight?
Many things about 9/11 are fishy. But it’s just not reasonable, in my opinion, to keep pushing this particular brand of tinfoil.
It’s beyond unreasonable.
Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and there are dozens of eyewitnesses to that fact. The continued focus on the impact zone distracts from the key question. How could the plane be allowed to fly into the Pentagon, nearly an hour after the first plane hit the WTC?
Hey all- first, YOU CAN’T USE WIKIPEDIA AS A CREDIBLE SOURCE. I say this because all kinds of crap has been found in there. I have myself tried to edit the Kennedy assassination article and my edits just get chopped out. It’s a good place for leads to real info. In school, you’d get a D if you only cited an Encyclopedia, deemed a secondard source. Find primary sources where possible.
Okay – Wikipedia rant off.
There ARE photos of the wreckage. This post at Rigorous Intuition links to the photos, the testimony of people who saw planes enter. Every week I hear of someone’s friend or cousin who saw the plane hit the building. By keeping to THIS track, you distract from the far more interesting facts of the CIA/US relationship with al Qaeda, and the fact that information about our wargames was clearly leaked to whoever ran the hijackings.
I have the same impatience in the Kennedy case when people think the “driver shot Kennedy” because Bill Greer, a former intelligence operator, circulated a very poor copy of the Zapruder film in which it did look like the driver pulled a gun. But in an earlier (not later, earlier) generation copy of the film, there’s no gun, just a light artifact that, as the picture degenerated, starts to look like a gun.
So it is with the 9/11 case. I would submit there are those who have put out the Pentagon not hit story to mislead and distract and turn that into the sole debating point. Who cares? It was a big conspiracy. Our government had plenty of warnings an attack was coming and not only ignored them, but in Moussaoui’s case actually shut them down.
So why waste time when there are real facts to be upset about?
In the JFK, there’s an argument raging as to whether the Zapruder film has been altered. SO WHAT??? Either way, it proves conspiracy. The film we see shows Kennedy’s head going backwards, proving a shot from the front. (Why would someone alter it but leave that in?) But if it was altered, that TOO proves conspiracy. So it’s a non-issue.
The plane hit the least-populated part of the Pentagon at a strange angle requiring a superhuman pilot. That’s interesting. No need to posit a missile to say hey, we need a better investigation. And the flight had been “lost” for quite a while before it appeared zooming down the Potomac.
That the Pentagon could be attacked at all is mindboggling, and shows that our “defense” spending is anything but.
Focus on the wedge issues and never solve anything. OR – focus on the root issues – a presidency that has no interest in protecting its citizens – and you’re onto something vastly more important.
I’m perfectly well aware of what Wikipedia is, thank you very much. I didn’t cite it as a “credible source”–I simply straightforwardly quoted a paragraph from Wikipedia. None of the points in my post depend on the Wikipedia paragraph.
That wasn’t directed at you personally – it’s been something I’ve wanted to say for a long time because I’m always shocked when people cite it as a credible source. Which isn’t to say it doesn’t have credible info, but it’s what is left out or shaded that people don’t see if they don’t know their topic better than Wikipedia already.
Better wreckage pictures. Let the site load – you don’t have to have an account or login to read this page, but the bottom part draws in slowly, so be patient.