Macidol Mac music community

Song Information:

Well for the last two days now I have been suffering from flu,and so im going to have to be completely lazy here and go for a complete copy of the leading story at todays Signs of the times (link on the left)

Jim Hoffman: Another Booby Trap for Serious 9/11 Researchers

9-11 researchers
seem to be a dime a dozen these days. After investigating
Mike
Ruppert and Daniel
Hopsicker's motives and methods, we happened to
come across an article by another 9-11 researcher, Jim
Hoffman. Like Hopsicker, Hoffman seems to be believe
that the "no 757 at the Pentagon" crowd are
disinfo
artists.

We found Hoffman's arguments and
conclusions in the following article to be based on
anything but facts or reason. In fact, in making his
case, Hoffman even resorts to using the same twisted
logic employed by the Bush administration to justify
the war on terror.

From magical disintegrating airplanes
to mysterious "detonation waves", it seems
CoIntelPro is in full swing when it comes to the 9-11
Truth Movement...

The
Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:


Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics

by Jim Hoffman

first published: October 7, 2004

revised: November 15, 2004

The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily
the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers
of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early
2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance
in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility
with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that
a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon
and exploded.

Comment: Mr Hoffman is correct in asserting
that the idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is
the most divisive issue among 9/11 researchers. The
divisiveness is a deliberate ploy by CoIntelPro agents
to attempt to rob genuine 9/11 truth seekers of the
singularly strongest piece of evidence pointing to US
government complicity in the attacks. Mr Hoffman is
however incorrect in his assertion that the "no
plane at the pentagon" theory is incompatible with
eyewitness accounts of the event. Indeed, the fact that
many of the eyewitness
reports in question suggest that something akin
to a missile struck the Pentagon on 9/11, and that Mr
Hoffman studiously ignores them, suggests that he should
be counted among the conscious agents of CoIntelPro.
Hoffman continues:


Many researchers have ignored or dismissed this eyewitness
evidence in favor of a seemingly overwhelming physical
evidence case that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon, based
on photographs of the crash site. As I show below, however,
each of the pieces of evidence adduced in favor of the
no-757-crash theory can be reconciled with the crash
of a 757.

Comment:
Some researchers may indeed have ignored or dismissed the eyewitness
evidence. The problem is that the reports are so conflicting that their
usefulness as evidence is largely negated. That said, if we all agree
that the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks and attempted to
cover up that complicity, then those "eyewitnesses" whose testimony
tends to back the official version of events become much more suspect
than the testimony of eyewitnesses whose claims of having seen a
"missile" or "small jet" are unlikely to be part of any disinformation
campaign - unless of course one wants to suggest that some shadowy
group of conspiracy theorists had foreknowledge that Arab terrorists
were going to attack the Pentagon with a 757 and decided to place their
operatives at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 and have them falsely
testify that they saw a missile in order to unjustly implicate the US
government.

Kind of far fetched...

Leaving aside the fact that
Donald Rumsfeld himself has corroborated
the "missile theory", to sort out the
disparity between eyewitness reports we must ask ourselves
a question: Which is more likely, that someone would
mistake a 757 for a missile or that a drone
craft with a wingspan of 117 feet could be altered
in such a way as to successfully fool an eyewitness
into thinking it was a commercial passenger plane?

The controversy over this issue has eclipsed the many
documented facts linking the 9/11/01 attacks to insiders.
Defenders of the official story have seized on this
issue as representative of the gullibility and incompetence
of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists."

Comment:
Is Hoffman really making the point that because "defenders of the
official story" (the White House) are attempting to ridicule the "no
plane at the Pentagon" people that we should therefore drop the issue?
Let's get this straight. The US government dismisses allegations of a
conspiracy on 9/11, highlighting the "conspiratorial nature" of any
allegation that a 757 plane did not hit the Pentagon as a way to
ridicule the "conspiracy theorists", and Hoffman thinks that this
provides grounds for dropping the whole issue?

The Allure of the Unsolved Mystery

The question of what hit the Pentagon has remained
a source of intense interest and debate for almost three
years now, overshadowing many other issues of the 9/11/01
attack. The controversy has thrived in the evidence
vacuum created by official actions in the wake of the
attack, which included the following:



* Minutes after the attack, the FBI seized from businesses
adjacent to the Pentagon videos that likely recorded
the event.

* On the day of the attack, Pentagon personnel participated
in a rapid mop-up of the crime scene, moving and removing
evidence before it could be documented.

* In the weeks following the attack, authorities
controlled the crime scene, destroying or suppressing
nearly all the physical evidence inside the building.


This left primarily two kinds of evidence: eyewitness
reports consistent with the crash of a 757, and post-crash
photographs taken by passers-by showing neither large
aircraft debris nor an impact damage pattern expected
from such a crash. The ambiguous and seemingly contradictory
evidence made the event a kind of Rorschach, spawning
many competing theories but offering no basis for definitive
conclusions.


Comment:
Again, all eyewitness reports were NOT consistent with the crash of a
757. If Hoffman is unaware of the reports consistent with something
other than a 757, then he is a very poor researcher. If he IS aware,
then he is attempting to con his readers. Despite what Hoffman claims,
there is therefore no ambiguity between eyewitness reports and the
physical evidence (or lack thereof) at the Pentagon. The simple fact is
that the impact damage and debris along with the eyewitness reports of
either a "missile" or a "small jet" lend credence to the "no plane at
the Pentagon" theory.

The mystery of the attack has lured researchers into
endless debates, much to the detriment of public outreach
around easily proved issues. Such issues include aspects
of the Pentagon attack other than the question of what
hit it. For example:

* The portion of the Pentagon targeted was mostly
unoccupied due to a renovation program.

* The attack plane executed an extreme spiral dive maneuver
to hit that portion of the building rather than the
part housing high-level officials.

* The alleged pilot of Flight 77 was not competent to
pilot a Cessna, let alone pilot a 757 through a maneuver
that may have exceeded the skills of even the best test
pilot.


Comment: These
above questions are fully compatible, and even dependent
upon, the idea that something other than a plane hit
the Pentagon. It is highly likely that a drone craft
or "missile" was used and targetted an unoccupied
part of the Pentagon specifically because the damage
from a 757 was not controllable. The nature of the approach
and "attack dive" itself is consistent with
something other than a 757 as the air traffic controller
stated:

"We started moving the planes
as quickly as we could," she told ABC's Brian
Ross. "Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an
unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving
at a very high rate of speed... I had literally a
blip (on my radar screen) and nothing more."

O'Brien brought the unidenitified
blip to the attention of her Dulles colleague, Tom
Howell.

He recalled the moment for ABC
News.

"Oh my God, it looks like
he's headed to the White House," Howells remembers
yelling. "We've got a target headed right for
the White House!"


At 500 miles per hour, Flight
77 was rocketing toward what is known as P-56, protected
air space 56, which covers the White House and the
Capitol.

"The speed, the maneuverability,
the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar
room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers,
that that was a military plane," O'Brien said.
"You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."


History of the Issue

The Pentagon no-757-crash theory first came to prominence
in early 2002 when French author Thierry Meyssan published
"The Frightening Fraud," which theorized that
a truck bomb was responsible for the damage to the Pentagon,
and then "Le Pentagate," which held that the
damage was produced by a missile. These well-marketed
books sold millions of copies in Europe. Meyssan's analysis
is notable for wild inaccuracies in characterizing the
damage to the Pentagon's facade. He suggests the impact
hole was 15-18 feet in diameter, and that there was
no damage on either side of that hole. That description
completely ignores the first floor damage, in which
walls were punctured over a width of about 90 feet,
a fact that is easily determined from analysis of photographs
available on the web in early 2002.

Comment: For Hoffman
to dismiss Meyssan's sterling investigative work in
exposing the obvious holes in the official Pentagon
story by citing that Meyssan understated the hole in
the Pentagon facade is utterly disingenuous of Hoffman.
It is no less unbelievable for a 757 to have completely
disappeared into a 90 foot hole, than a 16 foot hole.
The fact is that the main impact hole at the Pentagon
WAS 16 feet wide, and a close examination of the damage
either side of that hole is NOT consistent with aircraft
the size of a 757. The government commissioned "Pentagon
Building Performance Report" itself acknowledges
that there is no damage to the building from either
the wings or the tail of the plane, which would have
reached up to the fourth floor of the building. The
Pentagon report subtly suggests that the wings and tail
somehow "folded up" and followed the nose
and fuselage of the plane into the building.


Meyssan also states that the piece of hull photographed
by Mark Faram does not correspond to any part of a Boeing
757, when in fact it matches the hull just aft of the
forward starboard door, as shown by Dick Eastman.

Comment: Let's
have a look at the "piece of hull" to which
Hoffman is referring:



This is the ONLY identifiable piece
of the fuselage of the alleged 757. As you can see it
lies some distance from the building. The US government
and Hoffman would have us believe that this piece miraculously
escaped the fate of the entire mass of the rest of the
body of the plane, which we are told either entered
the Pentagon and was destroyed in the fire, or "disintegrated" on impact.

Meyssan's "Le Pentagate" was published shortly
after five frames of video from a Pentagon security
camera were leaked. Meyssan and other theorists jumped
on the fact that the first frame seems to show a much
smaller plane than a 757 approaching the Pentagon, without
asking if the video frames were authentic. In fact they
bear clear signs of forgery.


Comment: Indeed.
There is clear evidence that the only video that the
US government released of the "757" appears
to be missing frames, but who are the forgers? Did the
US government, which insists that a 757 hit the Pentagon,
deliberately remove footage of the 757 in order to fuel
conspiracy theories and thereby undermine its own argument??

Meyssan's conclusions were echoed by Gerard Holmgren,
who published the lengthy Physical and Mathematical
Analysis of the Pentagon Crash in October of 2002. Like
Meyssan, Holmgren relied on photographs in which obstructions
hide large regions of first-floor damage. Holmgren's
unwieldy manifesto-sized analysis was widely embraced
by no-757-crash theorists.

Comment: Again
Hoffman seeks to con his readers. Holmgren's argument
does not rest on "photographs in which obstructions
hide large regions of first-floor damage" but rather,
in his
own words, on the fact that:

"the object which penetrated
the Pentagon went in at about a 45-degree angle, punching
a neat circular hole of about a 12-foot diameter through
three rings (six walls). A little later a section
of wall about 65 ft wide collapsed in the outer ring.
Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim
to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of
125 ft and a length of 155 ft, and there was no wreckage
of the plane, either inside or outside the building,
and the lawns outside were still smooth and green
enough to play golf on..."



The sloppy analysis of Meyssan and certain other Pentagon
researchers (such as their reliance on photographs in
which jets of fire retardant foam and smoke obscure
damaged areas) leaves these researchers, and by association
the entire 9/11 Truth Movement, open to attack by detractors.

Comment: See our
previous comment. There is nothing sloppy about the
analysis of Meyssan or Holmgren. They, like so many
others, can see clearly that the claim that Flight 77
hit the Pentagon is the weakest link in the official
version of the events of 9/11.

Other work by skeptics of the 757 crash was far more
careful. In mid-2002, an anonymous author produced a
detailed damage assessment in an article concluding
that the damage was consistent with the crash of a large
plane, but not of a 757.

In
early 2003 Dick Eastman developed a "two plane" theory, which holds
that the damage to the Pentagon was done by a small killer jet, such as
an F-16, while Flight 77 merely appeared to crash, clearing the facade
behind a pyrotechnic display and overflying the Pentagon in a kind of
magician's trick. Eastman was unique among the no-757-crash theorists
in at least attempting to accommodate much of the eyewitness evidence.

Comment: We fail
to see Hoffman's point. The evidence is so extensive
that there are many ways to prove almost conclusively
that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. The bottom line
is, however, the same.


In September of 2003, I assisted Jeff Strahl in developing
a slide presentation which concluded that "whatever
struck the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757." This
talk, which borrowed from the work of Eric Hufschmid
and said anonymous author, further popularized the notion
that a 757 was not involved in the attack.

In early 2004, Richard Stanley and Jerry Russell added
yet another variation to the mix of no-757-crash theories
in The Five-Sided Fantasy Island, advancing a scenario
that combines Eastman's Flight 77 overflight theory
with the idea that demolition charges were used to produce
the damage to the Pentagon.

In late 2004 two new videos promoting no-757-crash
theory appeared. Both combine slick production values
with highly selective presentations of evidence. In
Plane Site, a DVD, advances the no-757-impact along
with the Building 6 explosion myth and highly dubious
theories that the towers were hit by objects other than
Flights 11 and 175. The obvious propagandistic quality
of these pieces was one factor in persuading me to re-examine
my own endorsement of the no-757-crash theory.

Comment: Hoffman
is obviously referring to our own Pentagon Strike Flash
presentation here. While there are certainly some problems
with the "In Plane Site" DVD, specifically
the idea that Flight 11 and Flight 175 were not the
planes that hit the WTC (when they most likely were)
our Pentagon Strike video simply presented the available
evidence which pointed to something other Flight 77
hitting the Pentagon. As we have stated before, it is
not our job to prove that Flight 77 DID hit the Pentagon;
that task lies squarely with those members of the US
government who insist on the official version of events.

Ignoring the Eyewitness Evidence


Proponents of the no-757-crash theory have tended to
minimize the many eyewitness accounts that a 757-like
aircraft flew into the Pentagon and exploded. Many simply
cherry-pick one or two accounts that seem to indicate
a much smaller plane, and ignore the larger body of
eyewitness evidence.

This selective presentation of witness accounts is
exemplified by a tendency to quote only a single phrase
from a single witness: Mike Walter's use of "a
cruise missile with wings." In context, it's clear
that Walter was only using the cruise missile description
metaphorically:

"I looked out my window and I saw this plane,
this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought,
'This doesn't add up, it's really low'. I mean it was
like a cruise missile with wings."

Comment: It is
natural for eyewitnesses to refer to the aircraft that
they saw hitting the Pentagon as "an American Airlines
jet" or even "Flight 77" because we have
all been repeatedly exposed to endless news reports
and government officials talking about "Flight
77" hitting the Pentagon (with the exception of
Rumsfeld of course). The crucial point here is the fact
that Mike Walter defined a massive Boeing 757 as a "cruise
missile with wings"!

Another eyewitness account frequently cited as evidence
that the attack plane was not an airliner is that of
air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien:


"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that
he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of
us experienced air-traffic controllers, that that was
a military plane."

That the controllers observed a plane being flown in
a manner not normal for jetliner does not mean the plane
was not a jetliner. Simple calculations show that the
spiral dive attack maneuver was well within the capabilities
of a Boeing 757. In fact, the body of eyewitness evidence
provides almost no support for the no-757 theories,
but does indicate that the event involved more than
a simple plane crash, such as a sharp detonation wave
not explainable by the crash of a jetliner. Once again,
such substantial evidence that contradicts the official
story has been eclipsed by the no-757-crash theory.

Comment:
We wonder what "simple calculations" Hoffman is speaking of? For
Hoffman, the complicated subject of "detonation waves" consitutes much
more "substantial evidence" than the fact that a massive 757 plane
completely dissapeared into a 16 foot hole in the Pentagon leaving NO
TRACE other than a mangled but otherwise pristine piece of metal.

The "Physical Evidence" Case

Many apparent features of the crash that are documented
by the photographs of the crash site -- and especially
by photos taken before the overhanging section collapsed
-- seem to support an overwhelming case against the
crash of a 757. These features include the following.


1. The lawn shows no signs of gouging from a 757's
low-hanging engines, despite eyewitness claims that
the plane hit the ground before the facade.

2. The impact hole dimensions are not large enough to
accommodate the entire profile of a 757.

3. The lawn shows almost no signs of crash debris immediately
following the crash.

4. Photos from inside and outside the building during
the recovery operation show very little aircraft debris.

5. Damaged columns remain standing where dense parts
of the plane, such as the starboard engine, would have
hit.

6. Unscored limestone and unbroken windows are visible
in areas of the facade where the outer wings and vertical
tail section of a 757 would have hit.


7. There are obstacles in the plane's alleged flight
path, such as cable spools.

This list is far from exhaustive. Many other features
are often cited as evidence against a 757 crash, such
as the positions of downed lamp-posts, the orientation
of the damaged generator, and the position and shape
of the C-ring punch-out hole. The number of no-757-crash
arguments based on these features, and the logical independence
of many of them, seem to many to constitute an overwhelming
cumulative case against the crash of a 757. Whereas
a deductive case is only as strong as its weakest argument,
a cumulative case is as strong as the sum of its arguments.
However, a cumulative case may appear strong without
actually being so if it is composed entirely of arguments
that evaporate under scrutiny. Let's examine four of
the more persuasive arguments, which I've given the
following labels:

* The missing wings and tail

* The vanishing jetliner

* The incorrect impact imprint

* The obstacle dodge


The Missing Wings and Tail

This argument, based on features 1, 2, and 3, holds
that since the outer expanses of the wings and most
of the vertical tail section of a 757 could not have
fit through the facade's impact punctures, they should
have been visible in the post-crash photographs of the
building's exterior.

The argument makes the error of assuming that large
pieces of the wings and tail should have remained intact.
A crash study suggests that the over-300-mph impact
of a jetliner with the Pentagon's heavy masonry facade
would have reduced the entire aircraft -- and certainly
its relatively light wings and tail -- to confetti.

Comment:
We were wondering when he would pull this one out of the bag. Hoffman
has joined the deluded masses of obedient Americans in attempting to
counter the damning evidence that he himself outlines in points 1-7
above with the assertion that the entire plane (minus the pristine
mangled piece of metal on the lawn) simply "disintegrated" on impact.
Most readers will have at some time in their lives seen the results of
a head on car crash. Imagine that two cars, each traveling at 80 mph,
hit each other head on at a combined speed of 160 mph. The likely
result is that much of the body of both cars will be crumpled beyond
recognition. It is not unlikely, however, that the back ends of both
cars will be relatively unscathed. There is a reason for this. The
kinetic energy of the cars is transferred to the initial point of
impact - the fronts. After the initial impact the kinetic energy is
progressively reduced, which is reflected in the lessening damage to
the rest of the car, until finally all of it has been absorbed by the
bodies of the cars and is exhausted. This is the reason for the
relative lack of damage to the backs of cars in a controlled head-on
collision.

We can apply the same logic to
the Pentagon crash. The bulk of the kinetic energy of
the fast moving plane is absorbed both by the front
of the building and the nose of the plane. It is reasonable
to suggest then that the impact point at the Pentagon
and the nose, and some of the fuselage of the plane,
would have disintegrated, but to suggest that all of
the plane would be subjected to the same forces as that
experienced by the part of the plane that makes initial
contact with the Pentagon wall is to suggest that when
we throw a steel rod at a wall, the damage at the end
that impacts the wall should be the same all along the
length of the rod. Clearly, such a suggestion contradicts
elementary laws of physics.


Another error in this argument is its implicit assumption
that the photographs of the Pentagon's lawn show it
to be debris-free. In fact, the photographs have pronounced
foreshortening of regions near the building, which,
together with variations in the terrain, may hide significant
debris fields.

Comment:
"May hide significant debris"? Is Hoffman really presenting this as an
argument as to why we should dispense with the "no plane" argument?
Should we also wait for the US government to allow us access to this
"debris" so that we can prove that the offcial story that Flight 77 hit
the Pentagon is true? We won't hold our breath.

The Vanishing Jetliner

This argument, based on features 3 and 4, holds that
since there are no photographs showing large aircraft
debris at the Pentagon, no jetliner could have crashed
there. Recognizable pieces that were photographed, such
as landing gear and engine parts, are few enough that
they could have been planted.

Comment: Not only
could they have been planted, but the circular rim of
the landing gear wheel that is presented as evidence
by the US government is too small to be part of the
landing gear of a Boeing 757, but bears a startling
likeness to the rim of the wheel of the landing gear
of a Global Hawk.


This argument makes the error of the negative proof:
the lack of evidence showing something's existence is
taken as proof of its non-existence. The seeming disappearance
of the 80-ton plane becomes much less mysterious when
one considers two facts.


* As noted above, in similar crashes, the entire
aircraft is converted to small confetti, most of which
would be unrecognizable.

* There are few publicly available photographs of
the interior of the building shortly after the crash.
FEMA's investigative team was not allowed on the site
until after all the debris had been removed.


Comment: So the
fact that there is no evidence of a 757 having crashed
at the Pentagon is by no means proof that no 757 hit
the Pentagon.


So what would Mr Hoffman accept
as evidence?

It is rather curious that the "error
of the negative proof" is exactly the argument
used by Bush and the Neocons before the invasion of
Iraq. Administration officials argued that the lack
of evidence of WMD's in Iraq cannot be used as proof
that those weapons don't exist.

As another example, Bush can declare
someone an enemy combatant and throw that person in
jail even if there is no evidence proving the individual's
involvement in terrorist activity, because the lack
of evidence doesn't necessarily prove innocence.

The Incorrect Impact Imprint

This argument, based on features 5 and 6, holds that,
since there is no impact imprint of a 757 on the Pentagon's
facade, no such plane could have crashed there. In a
crash at such a speed (over 300 mph) the wings and tail
had too much momentum to deviate much from their trajectory
even as the plane crashed into the facade. Therefore,
even these relatively light parts should have at least
scored the facade's rather soft limestone facing, and
perhaps broken windows.

Even admitting that there are uncertainties about just
how much damage the wing ends and tail of a 757 should
have done to the Pentagon's facade, this argument is
difficult to reconcile with the simple crash of a 757
-- at least of an intact 757. However, if the wing ends
and tail were destroyed before impact, they might not
have left impact impressions. That possibility is explored
in the Unexamined Explanations section.


Comment: Hoffman
is forced to resort to ever more fantastic hypotheses
to deny the evidence that is before his eyes. Now we
are asked to contemplate that somehow Flight 77's wings
and tail were "disintegrated" before the plane
actually hit the building and then presumably blew away
in the breeze.

The Obstacle Dodge

This argument, based on feature 7, holds that the flightpath
determined by downed light poles and eyewitness accounts
takes the plane too low to have cleared obstacles near
the building, such as several cable spools.

The spool that appears most problematic for the plane's
supposed flightpath is the large upright one nearest
the building. In most photographs it appears to be just
a few feet from the building. However, appearances are
deceiving given the foreshortening in the photographs.
One article supporting the no-757-crash theory estimates
that the large spool is about 28 feet from the facade.
It also states that the diameter of the spool is 6 feet,
6 inches.

Given those coordinates and dimensions, and assuming
the plane's trajectory was such that it was losing one
foot of altitude for every ten feet of distance traveled,
then the bottom of the plane's fuselage could have cleared
the spool by a foot and crashed into the facade at an
elevation of five feet, placing the bottoms of the engines
at ground level. Contentions that turbulence from such
a near miss would have toppled the spool are difficult
to evaluate without knowing the weight of the spool,
whether it was secured to the ground, and whether the
spools rolled following the crash.


Comment:
Hoffman is happy to dismiss the strongest evidence showing that Flight
77 did not hit the Pentagon and argue "significant" details about
whether or not a Boeing 757 was able to clear a metal spool or not.

Unexamined Explanations

The last two arguments in the previous section illustrate
just how easy it is to accept a pre-conceived conclusion
from evidence while failing to consider other equally
plausible explanations. I became convinced that the
attack plane was not a 757 based primarily on those
two arguments, and only later re-evaluated my conclusions
in light of other possibilities.

An alternative explanation for the incorrect impact
imprint consistent with the crash of a 757 was proposed
by French researcher Eric Bart. He suggests that the
jetliner was progressively shredded by explosives starting
just as its nose was beginning to impact the wall. This
theory explains the lack of impact impressions of the
jetliner's extremities, since they would have been reduced
to confetti before impact. It also accounts for the
large punctures in the facade, since the remains of
the plane's heaviest portions could have retained enough
momentum to breach the walls and enter the building.

Comment: Again,
the strength of the evidence that Hoffman is attempting
to refute requires that he resort to increasingly outlandish
theories to make his point.


Bart's theory may sound far-fetched, and some detractors
have compared it to the aggressively promoted idea that
the South Tower was hit by a pod-equipped cargo jet
that fired a missile just before impact. However, the
comparison is not deserved. Whereas the pod-plane idea
is based on imaginative interpretations of artifacts
in blurry video images, Bart's theory reconciles the
lack of imprint of the tail and wing ends with the overwhelming
eyewitness evidence that a jetliner flew into the Pentagon
and exploded. Several eyewitnesses even recalled details
that seem to be explainable only by the plane being
shredded before impact.

Comment: Again,
the strength of the evidence that Hoffman is attempting
to refute requires that he resort to increasingly outlandish
theories to make his point.

Bart's theory is consistent with the crash of Flight
77 at the Pentagon, but not with the official story
that it was hijacked by Muslim terrorists, since it
assumes the plane was prepared prior to the attack.

Other researchers, such as Stanley and Russell, have
proposed that the Pentagon attack was engineered to
make it appear that a 757 crashed when none had. Bart's
theory reverses this, suggesting that the crash of a
757 was engineered to make it appear that no such plane
had crashed.

Comment: Now Hoffman
wants us to believe that the perpetrators of 9/11 deliberately
inserted the embryo of the conspiracy theory into their
planning of the Pentagon attack for the purpose of...


The apparent motive for such a deception will likely
escape 9/11 skeptics on both sides of the controversy
about what hit the Pentagon. Most adherents to no-757-crash
theories have ignored Bart's theory and the body of
eyewitness evidence supporting it. Most opponents of
no-757-crash theories have not looked closely enough
at the impact damage pattern to see a problem reconciling
it with the simple crash of a 757. This is exactly the
conflict that the engineered crash may have been designed
to create. Experts at psychological operations, the
perpetrators could have anticipated that skeptics would
divide into two groups: those persuaded by eyewitness
evidence that a 757 had crashed, and those persuaded
by physical evidence that one had not. The ongoing controversy
could then be exploited by the perpetrators to several
ends:


* to keep the skeptics divided

* to divert skeptics' resources from other more productive
lines of inquiry

* to provide a bizarre-sounding theory with which
to tar the entire 9/11 Truth Movement



Comment: And here
we get to the core of Hoffman's argument. The idea that
Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon was seeded by the
conspirators themselves in order to confuse the issue
and keep conspiracy theorists divided. Yet we notice
that rather than refusing to succumb to such manipulation
and cutting through the lies and sticking to the facts,
Hoffman is adding his voice to the cacophony and loudly
arguing against the core evidence which strongly suggests
that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

If you accept the premise that the crash of a 757 was
engineered to create seemingly contradictory bodies
of evidence in order to seed truth-obfuscating conflicts,
it is easy to explain crash-site anomalies beyond the
facade impact imprint. For example, the spool that is
arguably a problem for the plane's approach could have
been stood up immediately after the crash to bolster
the anticipated no-757-crash theory. While this may
seem far-fetched, it is much less far-fetched than suppositions
of no-757-crash theorists, such as that the downing
of the highway lamp-posts was engineered independent
of the attack plane.

Comment: Even
if the Pentagon attack was set up to create seemingly
contradictory bodies of evidence in order to confuse
truth seekers, the fact still remains that something
hit the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11, and evidence
exists to prove more or less conclusively what it was.
At present that evidence suggests that Flight 77 was
not involved. It is indeed far-fetched to think that
the conspirators would deliberately attempt to sow the
seeds of the argument that a Boeing 757 did not hit
the Pentagon when the US government's entire "war
on terror" is predicated upon the argument that
Arab terrorists hijacked four planes and crashed them
into American landmarks on 9/11.

Propaganda

In 2004 two videos promoting the no-757-crash theory
were released: the Pentagon
Strike Flash animation by Darren Williams, and the
In Plane Site DVD by David von Kleist. While different
in format, both share the following characteristics:



* Both cherry-pick and de-contextualize eyewitness
statements while ignoring the eyewitness consensus
that a jetliner crashed.

* Both advance several of the faulty interpretations
of photographic evidence that I debunk in the Pentagon
Attack Errors section of 911review.com.

* Both use a kind of shock-and-awe presentation style
to engage people emotionally rather than critically.


Comment: Darren
Williams Pentagon Strike video, produced by Signs of
the Times, did not "de-contextualise" the events of that day. It simply drew on available
evidence to show that it was highly unlikely that Flight
77 hit the Pentagon and presented "the case for
the prosecution" as it were. If the US government
as the defendant wants to make a counter case, then
all that is required is that it release the confiscated
video tapes that would prove conclusively that the official
story is correct.


Whereas the much shorter Pentagon Strike functions
primarily by selective and misleading presentation of
evidence, In Plane Site presents patently ludicrous
claims as fact. For example, von Kleist quotes a supposed
expert from the Environmental Assessment Association
as saying:

"Looking at the total weight of this aircraft
in conjunction with its velocity, the Pentagon should
have been reduced to the thickness of a pancake."

The logical fallacies, misrepresentations of evidence,
and propagandistic style of In Plane Site and Pentagon
Strike contrast with a far more rational approach by
other videos, websites, and books by 9/11 skeptics that
use physical evidence to refute elements of the official
story. Yet the no-757-crash videos have enjoyed a wider
exposure than the other far more credible efforts. Snopes.com,
an urban-legend debunking website, provides four links
to the Pentagon Strike animation on its Hunt the Boeing!
page. Why are apologists for the official story promoting
this video (if in a backhanded way)? Perhaps because
the no-757-crash theory is more effective at bolstering
the official story than undermining it.

Comment: Here
we have Hoffman doing exactly that which he accuses
others of doing. Snopes.com links to our Pentagon Strike
Flash presentation only after attempting to completely
debunk the arguments therein. As such, the link is hardly
a "promotion".

An Opening For Attackers


Before 2004, the mainstream and alternative media were
virtually free of any mention of the existence of a
community of skeptics challenging the core tenets of
official story of '9/11'. While there were numerous
reports of warnings of the attacks, there was only minimal
coverage of the spectacular failures of the air defense
network, and there was virtually no mention of the physical
evidence of the demolition of Building 7 and the Twin
Towers. That changed on May 26, 2004, when Amy Goodman
interviewed David Ray Griffin on Democracy Now about
his book The New Pearl Harbor on the show The New Pearl
Harbor: A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush
Administration Was Behind The 9/11 Attacks. Although
Griffin mentions an array of compelling evidence that
the attack was an inside job, the majority of the interview
revolves around the issue of what hit the Pentagon,
as Chip Berlet, whom Goodman invited on the program
to debate Griffin, zeroes in on the weakest part of
The New Pearl Harbor. As a result, almost no time is
spent discussing the much stronger parts of Griffin's
argument.

On
September 13, The Nation magazine published Executive Secrecy:
Conspiracy or Failure? by CIA agent Robert Baer. Baer ridicules
"conspiracy theories" that 9/11/01 was an inside job, suggesting that
this "monstrous proposition" and Griffin's choice to "recycle some of
the wilder conspiracy theories" is driven by the evasions and lies of
the Bush administration. First on Baer's list of these wilder theories
is "that the Pentagon was hit by a missile rather than by American
Airlines Flight 77."

On
October 7, The Washington Post published Conspiracy Theories Flourish
on the Internet, which describes Pentagon Strike and its popularization
in some detail, and then uses it to deride 9/11 "conspiracy theories."
The article makes no mention of other areas of research by skeptics of
the official story. Instead, it implies that the idea that "something
other than a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon" is the only
proposition advanced by skeptics to challenge the official story.

Comment: Perhaps
there is some "sour grapes" on the part of
Hoffman here that the editors
of this page were interviewed by the Washington Post and not 9/11review.com. The simple fact is that, if
it were not for the initiative that we took in creating
the "Pentagon Strike" Flash presentation,
there would have been NO coverage of 9/11 "conspiracy
theories" at all. Thanks to the efforts of Darren
Williams, an estimated 300 million people around the
world, most of them previously unaware of the truth
of 9/11, have been given the opportunity to consider
the truth of our reality and the people that control
it.


On November 8, The New York Times published A Hidden
Story Behind Sept. 11? One Man's Ad Campaign Says So,
to describe the campaign of millionaire Jimmy Walter
to publicize skepticism about the official story of
'9/11'. The second sentence of the article introduces
Walter's suggestion that "no plane flew into the
Pentagon," and the third sentence that Building
7 was "detonated from within." While the striking
similarity of the implosion of Building 7 to other building
implosions produced by controlled demolition is one
of the most compelling pieces of physical evidence that
the 9/11/01 attack was an inside job, the juxtaposition
of the idea that Building 7 was detonated next to the
idea that no plane crashed into the Pentagon is an effective
tool for discrediting the former. The New York Times
article provides no links to the video evidence of the
demolition of Building 7, such as that on wtc7.net,
but it gives an explanation for the collapse by fire
science professor Glenn P. Corbett -- an explanation
that people who have not seen the videos are likely
to accept.

On November 10, Air America broadcast a segment featuring
David Von Kleist, producer of In Plane Site, which promoted
the two central memes of his video: the Pentagon no-757-crash
idea and the South Tower pod-plane idea. Because the
no-757-crash idea is taken seriously by a substantial
portion of serious 9/11 researchers -- an acceptance
not shared by the pod-plane idea -- disinformationists
can use the Pentagon no-jetliner idea to leverage the
more ridiculous WTC crash theories, such as pod-planes,
missile attacks, holograms, etc.

Comment: We do
not agree with Hoffman's claim that seriously considering
the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory opens
the door to joining the "pod people". The
important difference between the Pentagon attack and
the WTC attacks is that a reasonable argument backed
by clear evidence can be made for the "no plane
at the Pentagon" theory. This is not true of the
"pod" theory.

With these and other articles and broadcasts, millions
of people are being introduced to the idea that the
attack was an inside job via theories that have no support
in evidence, sound ludicrous, and are easily discredited.
Unfortunately, first impressions are difficult to reverse.

Comment:

See the last comment above. There is nothing "ludicrous" about the fact
that there is no trace of a 757 at the Pentagon.

How the Issue Plays

I frequently encounter the opinion that, regardless
of the errors underlying the Pentagon no-757-crash theory,
its recent popularization and press attention can only
be helpful to the cause of truth exposure because it
gets more people to question the official story and
explore evidence contradicting other facets of that
story. Indeed, many active skeptics were introduced
to the issue through material on the Pentagon crash.

However, it is more likely that the prominence of the
no-757-crash theory will damage the cause, particularly
as it reaches a wider audience less inclined to research
the issue. People introduced to 9/11 skepticism through
the no-757-crash theory will either be stimulated to
examine evidence that the attack was an inside job,
or will continue to ignore such ideas as the delusions
of conspiracy theorists. The vast majority of such people
will likely fall into the second group for several reasons.


* The mainstream press is casting the no-757-crash
theory as a loony construct of conspiracy theorists,
and representative of all 9/11 skepticism.


* The theory sounds ludicrous to most people who
encounter it for the first time.

* The videos promoting it use faulty analysis and
manipulative techniques that will alienate the discerning
viewer.

* The popular videos and supporting websites are
dead-ends, providing no links to responsible 9/11
research sites.


Comment:

Hoffman clearly does not understand the controlled nature of the
mainstream media which dictates what the average person believes as
truth. The fact is that the mainstream press would cast ANY evidence of
government complicity in the 9/11 attacks as a "loony construct of
conspiracy theorists", and as a result ANY evidence of government
complicity in the 9/11 attacks would sound ludicrous to most people who
encounter it for the first time. As we have already stated, we do not
use "faulty analysis or manipulative techniques", we simply present the
evidence in a manner that best conveys the message. As for Hoffman's
statement that: "the popular videos and supporting web sites are
dead-ends, providing no links to responsible 9/11 research sites", we
can only take this to mean that Hoffman does not approve of the
information on "Signs of the Times", which is linked at the end of the
"Pentagon Strike" Flash Presentation or any of its affiliated sites. He
is, of course, entitled to his opinion. We shall let history decide who
was "responsible" in their efforts to bring the truth to those seeking
it.

My conclusion is borne out by the evidence. According
to the Washington Post article, millions of people have
viewed Pentagon Strike. Yet the visits to investigative
websites, such as those listed on 911truth.org, have
not skyrocketed into hundreds of thousands of visits
per day.

Comment:
The 300 million people who viewed the "Pentagon Strike" Flash
Presentation were mostly average citizens who received the video in
their email from friends. Such people are not inclined to change their
entire world view in an instant.

Some have suggested that, regardless of the relative
factual merits, similar dynamics would be in play if
the Twin Towers' demolition was being promoted with
the same vigor as the Pentagon no-757-crash theory.
Isn't the idea that the Twin Towers were demolished
with explosives as incredible as the idea that no jetliner
crashed at the Pentagon? Yes and no. There is a huge
psychological barrier to accepting the conclusion that
controlled demolition brought down the towers, and that
conclusion supposes a conspiracy far beyond the 19 hijackers.
However, there are fundamental qualitative differences.


* The no-757-crash theory supposes that something
asserted by the official story and witnessed by hundreds
of people (the crash of a jetliner) didn't happen;
whereas the towers' demolition supposes that something
beyond the official story and supported by witness
accounts (explosive detonations) did happen. Using
the JFK assassination as an analogy, the no-757-crash
theory is like saying that Kennedy was not shot at
all, whereas the towers' demolition is like saying
that there were additional gunmen beyond Lee Harvey
Oswald.



* The no-757-crash theory requires accounting for
a missing Flight 77 and the fates of its passengers
and crew; whereas the towers' demolition requires
no additional theories to account for the fates of
Flights 11 and 175.


* Millions of people are aware, if subconsciously,
of evidence of the demolition of the Twin Towers,
such as the fine dust that blanketed lower Manhattan,
and the explosive nature of the collapses; whereas
no one has direct evidence that something other than
a 757 crashed into the Pentagon. The lack of photographic
evidence that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon should
not be construed as evidence that none did.


Comment: Hoffman
comments again belie his lack of awareness of the true
magnitude of what we are dealing with and the extent
of the control exerted by government over what the population
believes. The psychological barrier is not found in
the details of the conspiracy but in the very idea of
conspiracy itself. It would be as difficult for the
average citizen to believe that no plane hit the Pentagon
as to believe that the US government demolished the
WTC towers. Both scenarios require an acceptance that
their government would willingly involve itself in the
murder of American citizens. Both scenarios involve
the opening of flood gates that cannot be closed afterwards.


Conclusion

The idea that no 757-sized airliner crashed into the
Pentagon on 9/11/01 is attractive to many skeptics because
it contradicts a fundamental tenet of the official story,
is supported by common-sense interpretations of photographs
of the crash scene, and provides an explanation for
the suspicious lack of physical evidence supporting
the official account. Additionally, there is a substantial
body of literature by no-757-crash theorists that appears
to thoroughly examine the evidence. The complexity of
some of this analysis may discourage other skeptics
from evaluating the evidence for themselves.

As I show in this essay, many common errors in no-757-crash
theories are easily exposed. Most of the no-757-crash
arguments evaporate when scrutinized with attention
to empirical data about the behavior of airframes in
high-speed crashes, and the geometry of the Pentagon
crash scene and vantage points of post-crash photographs.
The remaining arguments are easily disposed of by assuming
the crash was engineered, consistent with the presumed
motives of the perpetrators to discredit the skeptics.
Conversely, the abundant eyewitness accounts provide
strong evidence for the crash of a 757 or similar aircraft.

In recent high-profile attacks on the work of 9/11
skeptics, defenders of the official story have consistently
focused on the no-757-crash theory as indicative of
the gullibility and incompetence of the 9/11 "conspiracy
theorists." Researchers including myself have contributed
to this vulnerability by endorsing this theory without
either weighing all the available evidence (such as
the eyewitness accounts) or considering less obvious
interpretations for the paucity of physical evidence
of a 757 crash. The Pentagon crash is an intriguing
area of research because of its many unresolved mysteries.
The promotion of theories about what hit the Pentagon
in highly visible media do not advance that research
but instead provide our detractors with ammunition with
which to discredit us, and eclipse easily established
and highly incriminating facts such as where the Pentagon
was hit, the astounding failures to defend the 9/11
targets, and the obvious controlled demolition of Building
7.

Comment: The evidence
that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon remains the
strongest aspect of the 9/11 conspiracy argument. There
is little or no doubt that both Flight 11 and Flight
175 hit the WTC. Government officials have already presented
the plausible lie that WTC 7 was so badly damaged that
they had to "pull it". Government and military
commanders can and have presented the plausible lie
that there was simply a catastrophic failure of intelligence
and communication that lead to the events of 9/11 and
the failure to protect America from the "terrorists".
All of these arguments can be presented by real live
people to an audience that is only too willing to believe
the official story, and that their leaders don't lie
and that they have nothing to fear from the people that
are entrusted with their welfare. The crucial point
about the Pentagon attack is that missing planes cannot
talk and no one can stand up and explain away a missing
plane.


Despite Hoffman's claim to being
an honest 9/11 researcher and his apparent interest
in getting to the truth of 9/11, we see that the final
result of his efforts is to lead people away from the
idea that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. We
are under no illusions about the manipulative skills
of CoIntelPro. After all, they have had many decades
of real time experience to learn the intricacies of
how best to deceive the public. Having spent considerable
time and resources in researching the matter, we have
become convinced that, regardless of appearances, the
agenda of CoIntelPro is ultimately always served. As
such, we can only conclude that the success of the efforts
to divert attention away from investigation of the "missing
Boeing" is serving the agenda of The Powers That
Be.

It
is truly interesting that since our Pentagon Strike video was released
in September 2004, certain high profile 9/11 researchers have mounted a
campaign to convince their "comrades" that we should all reject the "no
Boeing at the Pentagon" argument. We have already commented on people such as Mike Ruppert and Daniel Hopsicker
who form the backbone of this movement despite their
infighting. Now Hoffman has joined their ranks. Who
will be next, we wonder?

Song Lyrics:

There was nothing on the lawn at the pentagon
there was nothing on the lawn at the pentagon
evaporated
incinerated
nothing to go on
(repeat a few times)
Flight 77
where did that aircraft go
not through the wall
coz the hole was to small
so where did the people go


Lies from the media whores