This site has been up for awhile. It is all lies?
Have you been to DC? Have you interviewed any witnessess?
Like, I said I have just started to really look at this subject and your story is so full of holes and bs it is not funny.
Peace,
Kris
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html
The Final Word on the Plane
That Crashed Into the Pentagon
It seems that those parties still wishing to keep the distraction away from the Israeli Spy/Phone Tap Scandal are still trying to flog the dead horse of whether a passenger jet really crashed into the Pentagon or not. Word has reached me that those not supporting the "Boeing Hunt" story are being accused of fraud or cover-up. This is a device to force those who are trying to keep the story of the Israeli Spy/Phone Tap Scandal before the public to take time away from that task to respond to the allegations of covering up for the fact that a passenger plane did not hit the Pentagon. It's the disinformationalists' way of trying to force attention away from the spy scandal to something harmless, or as is the case here, to an issue which will later be revealed to be a fraud in order to discredit legitimate questions regarding the official story of 9-11.
This will be the last time I expend effort on this question of whether a passenger jet did or did not hit the Pentagon, and do so only to point out how silly (or desperate) those individuals are who seek to prevent the public from looking at certain issues. After all, if the passenger jet didn't hit the Pentagon, then where did it go?
The government spooks have responded to this question by suggesting that all the passengers for all four planes were actually just one the one plane that crashed or was shot down in Pennsylvania. Their desperation to continue this charade is revealed by the simple observation that in order to accomplish this, passengers for four aircraft at three airports would have to somehow be persuaded and then transported to a single gate at a single airport, then walk onto a plane past a gate with a sign showing a destination which would be wrong for most of the passengers. How could this be accomplished without a noticeable fuss in a crowded airport? The answer is, it cannot. This complex and obfuscated suggestion is just another ploy by the government's propagandists to try to keep the confusion going as long as possible.
Eyewitness Accounts of the Flight 77 Crash at the Pentagon
Click for larger image of the damage to Pentagon
In response to the question of "where is the wreckage of the plane", the answer is that the majority of the wreckage crashed into the ground floor of the Pentagon. It slid INTO the building, into the first floor space, starting a fire in the first floor, whereupon the upper floors crashed down onto the remains of the aircraft. Most of the aircraft wreckage is therefore under the collapsed roof section in the photo.
So where is the rest of the wreckage from the passenger plane? Right in plain view, for those who actually look.
In the above copy of the wide area view, a red rectangle marks an area to be examined. This area appears below.
Click for larger image of the insert
The Pentagon is a building mostly made of concrete and wood. Yet here is a pile of crumpled aluminum debris, and clearly seen mixed in with it are pieces of luggage. Since the Pentagon itself does not travel, we can conclude that the luggage (and the aluminum shards mixed with them) are part of the remains of the passenger jet which hit the Pentagon.
In similar crashes, the resulting debris was in small pieces, 6 feet long at most. You don't SEE huge pieces of airplane sitting at crash sites in head on collisions such as slamming into the wall of the Pentagon. Despite their impressive size, aircraft and relatively fragile objects due to weight considerations.
The government spooks who are trying to distract you from the Israeli Spy Ring and its connections to the attacks on the World Trade Towers will no doubt scream that this photo is a fake, just as they have insisted that all the photos which show debris at the crash site are fakes, but this is just another desperation play to create a controversy to hold your attention away from where they don't want you to look. It's just another way to control you.
End of story.
Photo of main landing gear wheel rim wreckage at Pentagon.
Photo of aircraft wreckage at Pentagon.
Photo of fuselage (green anti-corrosion coating) wreckage at Pentagon.
Photo of landing gear strut wreckage at Pentagon.
Photo of 767 landing gear for comparison.
Photo of tires at Pentagon and at WTC.
BBC report with video of Flight 77 approaching the Pentagon.
See also: "Missing" Pentagon Attack Jet Found At Last!
From the Readers Letters:
I'm the guy that wants to advertise and offered you free internet radio and playerless video licenses. You should respond to this quote about you from:
http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html
"In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon. Now, magically, new photos of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear. Check out the websites of Mike Rivero and Joe Vialls for copies of these fakes. Rivero and Vialls, by endorsing them as real, have surely identified themselves as members of the fake opposition."
During the Jim Garrison trial of Clay Shaw in the JFK assassination, a witness showed up who linked Lee Oswald and Shaw. Despite warnings from his staff, Garrison used this witness. But once he was on the stand, the witness claimed that he fingerprinted his own daughter every night to prevent substitutions by "them". During the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the committee made a point of calling a witness who claimed that the open umbrella by the motorcade route in Dallas was actually a poison dart gun that had fired a dart at JFK to paralyze him, in order to make him an easier target. The actual umbrella was then displayed amidst jokes and laughter and great rolling of eyes, and shown to be merely an umbrella. More recently, Congressional hearings into abuses by the BATF featured one witness, dressed in camo and identifying himself as a member of a free militia, who claimed that the US Government had built and was testing a machine that made tornados.
In all three cases the witnesses were plants by the government whose job it was to taint any real questions of what the government was up to with silliness that the media could use to make fn of the whole issue and those who dared question the official story. The media focused on the "fingerprint man" to ridicule Jim Garrison. (Years later Richard Secord admitted under oath that Clay Saw had been a CIA contract agent after all.) The story about the umbrella at Dealey Plaza was focused on by the media to show how silly the entire issue of questioning the Warren Report was (but fell flat on its face when the HSCA concluded that there had been more than one gunman in Dealey Plaza that day. ) and, of course, "Tornado man", camo and all, was the featured video clip on the news reports of the hearings into BATF, to the exclusion of the family members of dozens of people mistakenly shot by the BATF when the BATF raided the wrong homes. BATF, it should also be remembered, was the agency which, in an attempt to stage a news-worthy raid on "gun nuts", initiated the Waco disaster.
The game is an old one, to plant bogus and easily disproved claims in any inquiry into what the government is doing, in order to ridicule those asking questions. In the old days it worked, because the media was under government control and could be counted on to withhold exposure of the fraud until it could most damage those who asked questions. These days, in the age of the internet, such planted hoaxes do not survive because the questions the media should ask but refuse to do so ARE asked and answered.
For example, the claim is that the 9-11 masterminds used a missile on the Pentagon to simulate the impact of the aircraft then spirited away the actual plane and killed the crew and passengers. Why would anyone bother? If the end result is the death of the occupants, why not go ahead and carry the crash out?
Those who argue that there was no plane at the Pentagon are either spooks, or those whose knowledge of physics is based on cartoons where characters leave clear outline shapes in walls they penetrate. Airplanes are built to fly through the air, not burrow through solid objects. Built for economy, not combat, passenger jets are, compared to a building, as light and as fragile as a glass Christmas tree ornament.
The "No plane at the Pentagon" story has failed to catch on to the degree where it can be used to discredit those who wonder just who was really behind the 9-11 staged terrorist attacks. Those spooks who promoted the story realize that they are at risk of exposure so their only remaining tactic is to try to claim that anyone who does not agree with them must be the government plant. If I directly responded, their goal would be not to conduct a debate, but simply to tie up as much of my limited time as they could in an endless unwinnable argument while they stand there with their hair on fire claiming they cannot smell any smoke.
The internet has become the high ground in the war for the minds of America. The claim that there was no plane at the Pentagon is a diversionary attack by an enemy that survives only by secrecy and deception.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
