Saturday, August 10, 2013

Evidence and Testimony That A Missile Hit The Pentagon – NOT a Boeing 757

"If we were merely dealing with the law of averages, half of the events affecting our nation's well-being should be good for America. If we were dealing with mere incompetence, our leaders should occasionally make a mistake in our favor. We . . . are not dealing with coincidence or stupidity, but with planning and brilliance."

Gary Allen, from his book "None Dare Call It Conspiracy."

The following physical evidence and eyewitness testimony is presented in detail below, most of which is video footage:

1.Analysis of the physical damage to the Pentagon and lack of debris. You can’t fit a 125 foot wide Boeing 757 into a hole 16 feet wide. The theory that the plane vaporized is idiotic. And, what happened to the wings that allegedly sheared off? DOT

2.The official story of how the plane arrived at the Pentagon by making a 270 degree turn at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour is absurd. A Boeing 757 could not possibly perform that maneuver according to experts. DOT

3.AA Flight 77 was lost from radar as early as 8:56 a.m. and then allegedly reappeared 36 minutes later at 9:32 am. According to Danielle O’Brien, an air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport, the plane that showed up on the radar was not Flight 77: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane.” DOT

4.No unknown aircraft are allowed within 50 miles of the Pentagon. The Pentagon has its own anti-aircraft missiles that should have fired to protect the building. Only a military aircraft with a special IFF transponder (identifying it as a friend) would have been allowed to approach the Pentagon. DOT

5.CNN reporter on the scene shortly after the impact saying that there was no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon. DOT

6.Aerial footage showing no debris (confirming the report by the CNN reporter), plus more analysis showing the size of a Boeing 757 compared to the size of the hole in the Pentagon. Recall also that the initial hole was only 16 feet wide and the CNN reporter said that the Pentagon structure did not collapse until about 45 minutes after impact. DOT

7.Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and 9/11 Commission Member Timothy Roemer both saying that a MISSILE was used on the Pentagon. DOT

8.Analysis of the Pentagon video footage of the alleged Boeing 757 (it certainly doesn’t look like a Boeing 757) hitting the Pentagon that concludes it was faked. DOT

9.A leaked video showing a missile hitting the Pentagon. DOT

10.Expert testimony that a high radiation reading near Pentagon indicated that a “depleted uranium warhead may have been used” DOT

11.Two witnesses who were at the Pentagon who said there was no debris or jet fuel, and another witness who “was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.” DOT

12.KEY POINT. Many people reported seeing a low-flying plane heading towards the Pentagon. Thanks to a series of videotaped interviews with multiple witnesses by the Citizens Investigation Team, we find out that: (a) a plane did approach the Pentagon, but it was smaller than a Boeing 757, and it approached from a different angle than reported by the 9/11 commission; (b) the plane did not actually hit the Pentagon, but instead flew past the Pentagon at under 200 feet – immediately after the missile hit; (c) the downed flag poles at the Pentagon were staged, which was admitted by the taxi driver whose taxi was supposedly hit by one of the falling poles. DOT

Connecting the dots, a very clear picture emerges: (a) American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) disappeared from radar and never re-appeared; (b) instead, a smaller military craft appeared on radar 36 minutes later that was capable of performing a difficult maneuver and could approach the Pentagon without being shot down; (c) a low-flying military craft approached the Pentagon but merely flew past the Pentagon immediately after the Pentagon was struck by a missile.
A crime of the century, like the looting of trillions and trillions of wealth by the Big Banks and the Federal Reserve needs another crime of the century, like the FALSE FLAG/INSIDE JOB of 9/11, to cover up the theft.

Here's 2.3 TRILLION reasons that the banksters needed to cover up on 9/11.


  1. Yeah, and I think a good study of who the shills are would be those who insist they saw flight 77 hit the Pentagon that day. Like Bobby Eberle (remember Jeff Gannon, the fake white house reporter who was actually a male prostitute? His boss). And that particular area of the Pentagon was targeted. Wouldn't a real terrorist want to kill as many people as possible? Why not just smash thru the roof? Be a lot easier. But the whole thing was impossible for a real 757 anyway. G forces would be way too high to make that turn. So it took *how long?* to get a handful of pitiful frames showing the plane hit the pentagon?

    This whole thing is important because if an actual plane hit the Pentagon, it would tend to exonerate everybody who worked at the Pentagon that day. But if a targeted/homing devise missile or explosives were used, you could have been "in on it" and showed up for work that day, knowing you wouldn't be in any danger in another part of the building.

  2. Yes, wasn't it a stroke of luck that the area destroyed was where the auditors and forensic CPA's were working on the missing trillions stolen from the Pentagon that blew up the evidence and the people, killing the investigation.

    Such luck!


Please stick to the topic at hand. Anyone trying to hijack this blog with long, winding comments about other topics or spam will be booted.

Fair Use Notice

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make 'fair use' of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about 'fair use' and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.

Blog Archive