Websites supporting "A 757 hit the Pentagon"

A

Anders

Guest
This thread is one of three threads with the aim in mind of seeing who continues to support the 757 theory and who doesn’t.

A lot of sites have done research into 9-11 and contributed greatly in bringing awareness to the American Coup d’etat that happened on 9-11. Few sites questioned initially the story about the 757 theory. As time has gone on this has changed.
Since this very likely is the Achilles heel of the whole story and where focused energy would be most fruitful, then it is interesting to see, who continues to push the story about the 757 after all the overwhelming evidence there is to the contrary. Even if a site is pushing this story does not mean that all the contributors to that site are unreliable or that the whole site is rubbish, yet time will tell if there is some pattern going on.

Setting up bogus sites or infiltrating bonafide sites is standard Cointelpro operating procedure. See Richard Dolan’s book UFO’s and the National Security State for more on Cointelpro.

This thread is encouraging posts regarding other sites that also draws the conclusion that a 757 was involved at the Pentagon attack. Please attach a url to evidence supporting that conclusion. Similarly corrections to various posts is essential, if mistakes or wrong conclusions have been made. If there is a key investigator or author of the analysis, then put that in as well.

Links to many 911 sites are given here http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911links.html
So feel free to join in the sorting.

The two sister threads are
Websites supporting "No 757 hit the Pentagon"
Fence sitters on the 9-11 Pentagon attack

The following is a start. The intention is to update the thread as more info comes along.

1) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/122705_identifiying_misinformation.shtml
Author Michael Ruppert.
On his website he beat his chest about how he was amongst the first, who did some real serious research into 9-11, yet it is hard to find any info on 9-11 on his current site. What I did find was, that he adamantly calls the idea that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon a hoax. Interesting.
Is linking to articles from oilempire.us

2) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Web_Links&file=index&req=viewlink&cid=3
Hard to find any thing on this site about the Pentagon. After clicking on their weblink I get Michael Rupperts site.

3) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Paul Thompson, a main contributor to their 911 timeline. Does not appear to question the official story on the Pentagon hit.

4) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)911truth.org/
Pretending to be sitting on the fence, yet wishing that the Pentagon story would go away. Here is what they had to say to the Pentagon release:
While the spin on today's release of Pentagon video is evident in the media's persistent assurance that what we're seeing really is "video footage of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon building," this article from ABCNEWS.com fairly accurately quotes Mike Berger and Barrie Zwicker, in a reasonable manner. Undoubtedly, the preferred story title would have been "New Tape Finally Ends 9/11 Conspiracy Theories"; unfortunately, what we're seeing remains as unclear as ever.
Amongst their links that they support are Oilempire and Fromthewilderness.

5) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)oilempire.us/911.html
Sees the NO-plane theory as an annoying distraction that they say is not at all supported by anything.

6) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)madcowprod.com/greenbayreview.htm
Author Daniel Hopsicker. It is hard to find anything about the 911 story on his site any longer apart from bits and pieces. Some of the links pointing to old 9-11 files are no longer valid. Anyway, he has no doubt that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

7) http:(doubleslash)villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72254,6.htm
Author Jarrett Murphy. A sleek piece of debunking. Mentioning a lot of the controversial points of the average sceptic in good NLP style, and then in a continual vein of ridicule and sarcasm states without saying it directly the official line.
It's odd. For a group of people who harbor so many doubts about the intentions of their own and other governments, the media, and fellow citizens, much of the Truth movement does not suspect for a moment that our defense spending has been a rip-off, that the FBI is a clumsy bureaucracy, that our spy agencies are deaf and dumb, and that our skyscrapers are not 100 percent safe. They do not seem worried that they could be unwitting partners in a more mundane conspiracy to obscure the limits of security and science.
8) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)wanttoknow.info/
Key man here is Fred Burks.
In a recent newsletter 20060227 on 9-11 there was this note
Note: We generally avoid partisan sources, but as so few are reporting the vital questions around 9-11, we've included this article. You can find another informative article from the same newspaper on the same day at http:(dobleslash)villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72254,6.html. For our highly reliable, verifiable information on the 9-11 cover-up, see http:(doubleslash)www(dot)WantToKnow.info/911information
As their key reference for reliable info only is a reference to an article debunking 9-11 sceptics then for me that said a lot.

9) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
Author Michael Rivero. He goes with the 757 theory after a quick analysis with selected witness accounts. For more on an ongoing investigation into Rivero see http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1159

10) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
A site which appears to have taken over from staunch 757advocates such as Hopsicker and Michael Ruppert. Their analysis is very cleverly put together. It uses selected photos and draws on in their words “conspiracy sites” info when it suits the argument. Objective? NO. For a detailed analysis of why see Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11
Has powerful backers, which in this case has a high probability of being Cointelpro. See http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/cointelpro-updates-above-top-secret.html for an in-depth exposure.

11) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)pentagonresearch.com/conclusions.html
Leans reluctantly towards the 757 theory primarily based on what he says is 757 debris (some of the support for that was found on Rense). A lot of the other info in his analysis he finds very inconsistent with the 757 theory, thus the more puzzling his choice.

12) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)rense.com/general32/phot.htm
Rense did initially put on a site from Thierry Meyssan, but with an extremely rare disclaimer on Rense, that this site most likely was a big hoax. He quickly scrapped that site all together and put up the above url on his site. The email address of the investigator Sarah Roberts is quite amusing.
 
A

Anders

Guest
http:(doubleslash)www(dot)prisonplanet.com/911.html#unprotected
I looked at prison planet to found out what Alex Jones says about the Pentagon Attack. In looking at the archives on 9-11 there is nothing at all about the Pentagon attack. As far as I can see he joins the group of people such as Ruppert and Hopsicker, who prefer not to mention the Pentagon attack at all, as they fear that investigating the Pentagon attack would bring disrespect to the whole 9-11 truth movement.

In the last couple of days there has been a couple of articles on Prisonplanet. One http:(doubleslash)www(dot)prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/220506flight77.htm that dismisses the no-plane theory and today another that dismissed the 757 theory, but which nevertheless pleads people not to investigate the Pentagon attack http:(doubleslash)www(dot)prisonplanet.com/911.html#unprotected

Update 20060711: For more on Alex Jones read this thread Viewer's Poll: Alex Jones Voted # 1 Shill
 
E

ExactChange

Guest
I happen to be watching Alex Jones at the moment. He claims that the Pentagon was a double setup. In addition to effecting the WTC, the PTB make the pentagon incident look suspicious on purpose to force it towards being the central issue. All they have to do then is show a plane and then they break the Patriot movment.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
ExactChange said:
I happen to be watching Alex Jones at the moment. He claims that the Pentagon was a double setup. In addition to effecting the WTC, the PTB make the pentagon incident look suspicious on purpose to force it towards being the central issue. All they have to do then is show a plane and then they break the Patriot movment.
I think that the reason the PTB have not come out with a "Hollywood" version of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is because they KNOW that there are satellite photos of what really hit the Pentagon in the possession of the secret services of at least 3 other nations, governments that are not exactly "in line" with the Bush Reich.

What would happen if they produced such a video and then were exposed by the leaking of these photos?

Well, they would certainly be seen for the criminals they are...

And so, my guess is they won't ever produce anything any better than the video they just let out which pretty much showed NO Flight 77. They can't. Their hands are tied and they know it.

So, we can write off people like Alex Jones as either deliberate disinfo or not very bright.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Here's an article debunking the 'conspiracy theories':

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm

Check out the researchers he supports: Hoffman, Hopsicker, Jones, Ruppert, etc.
 
A

Anders

Guest
A new sister thread is up for those sites that are socalled 'fencesitters' That means they are neither fitting in the thread of sites supporting the 757 theory and not in the thread of sites supporting that No 757 hit the Pentagon.
The link is Fence sitters on the 9-11 Pentagon attack

Anders
 

Mike

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Author: G. Edward Griffin First published 2004 Sept 20. Updated 2006 May 26
Freedom Force International.
http://www.freedomforceinternationa...fm?fuseaction=burningquestions&refpage=issues
Here is his perspective:
I would like to conclude as I began: with an appeal to put this issue into perspective. We must not squabble over who has the best interpretation of this piece of evidence or that. Instead, we should unite on the one issue about which there is little doubt. Even if all of these burning questions are eventually answered to our satisfaction, the grim reality is that our collectivist leaders had ample warning of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and did nothing to prevent them. It is not necessary to go further than that to know we have a huge problem.
Even so, how is it possible to cause a huge plane like this to be pulverized into such small pieces? The official explanation is that the structure of the Pentagon recently had been hardened to withstand the impact of missiles and bombs. Therefore, this crash was different from others because the surface did not yield. It would have been like flying into a granite cliff. The plane would have been shattered into a million pieces. Is that a valid explanation? I believe it is.[...]

In 1988, the Sandia National Laboratories conducted a test to determine the ability of reinforced concrete to protect a nuclear reactor from the impact of a jet aircraft. The plane was an F-4 Phantom with two engines, the same type flown by Col. McClain. It was traveling at 480 miles per hour upon impact. The test established that "the major impact force was from the engines." [...]
Therefore, until hard evidence to the contrary is made public, we are compelled to accept the official story that the wings and tail of Flight 77 disintegrated by the force of impact; most of the fuselage inside the building was vaporized by intense heat; and the nose assembly penetrated six walls of reinforced concrete through its own structural strength and momentum.
One obvious flaw in reasoning. Quotes about the engines as "major impact force" in the test, yet doesn't address the lack of damage from the engines at the pentagon. Must have shattered to pieces. Yet if this is the case then how could the piece of engine that he says is from Flt 77 have survived at all.

What he is saying: I don't trust them, but I'm forced to trust their version for the sake of the people.
One of the first decisions I had to make is which stance to take. Frankly, I am convinced that many of those in high positions would not hesitate to deceive us if there were political or personal advantages to do so. When it relates to our freedom, I question everything they say. However, this attitude isn't very popular on Main Street. I decided that, if we are to build a case that doesn't drive good people away before they even hear it, we have no choice but to accept the official government version - except in those cases where there is clear, unambiguous evidence to the contrary.
 
Top Bottom