Is the 9/11 “Pentagon Hole” a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions?
Article by Erik Larson
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 US military had drilled for 9/11-style attacks, & they came after years of warnings and a “summer of threat” that Al Qaeda intended to hijack planes for missiles; nothing should have hit the Pentagon.
*NOTE* If you currently believe a missile or Global Hawk hit the Pentagon, that doesn’t mean I think you’re “Cointelpro” and intentionally spreading disinfo; as I note in the article, I used to believe “no 757” hit the Pentagon- I’ve used that claim as “evidence” the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is a lie, and I gave out DVD’s that promote the missile/Global Hawk theory. If only certain photos are viewed, the “hole” does appear too small for a 757 to have hit the building. I wrote this article to point out the following: the evidence for “no 757” is at best inconclusive and speculative; the reasons 2 out of 3 people who believe 9/11 was an inside job don’t believe the missile claims; other evidence of malfeasance that is less “ambiguous”, with links for more information; the campaign to promote the theory of "no 757" may be a “psyop”; the goal of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission or full criminal, Congressional and international investigations of 9/11 is better promoted with solid evidence of the falsity of the official story, and proof of wrongdoing on the part of specific people. The Complete 9/11 Timeline, made from thousands of official statements and credible media reports, ties people to other people, places, events and dates; before 9/11 is used to justify any more laws or wars, those who were in charge on 9/11 and in the years before need to be held to account. As Col. Jenny Sparks has noted repeatedly; nothing should have hit the Pentagon- the questions over what hit the Pentagon may be an intentional distraction. If solid evidence of “no 757” or something else hitting the Pentagon is ever produced, I’ll gladly admit my error.
Since 9/11 happened, theories have been circulating on the internet, and by DVDs and books, that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. If all someone had to look at was certain DVDs, books and websites and photos, 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’ gash along the first floor, with the fuselage-sized hole in the center on the second 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 damage that 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 wassmashed 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.
There is also damage at the scene consistent with witness reports of a jet liner; a damaged generator trailersome 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, for instance.
You can see all the above linked photos and more, plus read a much more detailed analysis in the articleThe 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. Of course, this is video released by the Pentagon, it isn’t clear, it could be “photoshopped”, and does not clearly show a 757. Alone this isn’t conclusive; it is another piece of evidence in a cumulative case for a 757 hitting the Pentagon.
Further, nearly all of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts on record are consistent with an 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 or a Global Hawk. 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.
The Pentagon Eyewitness Testimony Extensive collection of eyewitness accounts with sources, compiled by Arabesque.Blogspot.com
9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described A breakdown of what witnesses claimed to see, by Arabesque.Blogspot.com
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?
Click here to read the rest of this article, at 911Reports.com