The Pentagon Attack Controversy

Great controversy has emerged among 9/11 Truth activists over whether a large plane struck the Pentagon, or whether a missile, small plane or bombs were used for the attack. With this controversy in mind, in their remarkably logical article “Why Not Use a Plane?”, 9/11/01 researchers Frank Legge and Ken Jenkins invite the reader to….

“Put yourself in the shoes of the planners and perpetrators of 9/11. They had a hijacked plane, Flight 77, which we know they would be willing to crash, because they crashed three other planes that day. They had a choice: they could actually crash a plane, or they could pretend to do so. To fake it, they would have to fabricate a complete, intricate and complex illusion of a crash.”

After detailing the multiple elements of physical evidence that would have to be faked, without detection as the false evidence was being put in place, Jenkins and Legge ask the obvious question that those who doubt a large plane impacted the Pentagon fail to address:

“Why would these shrewd planners have been foolish enough to greatly increase the risk of exposure and indictment for treason for zero benefit?

It makes no sense to suggest that the perpetrators of 9/11 were so stupid or irrational that they would make such a mistake. These were clearly calculating, venal, psychopathic criminals, but they were neither stupid nor irrational. On the contrary, they proved themselves to be highly competent. So what is the likelihood that they would plan a weird, totally unnecessary deception rather than simply using an airliner? It must be vanishingly small.”

I hold to the theory that the attack on the Pentagon utilized a large remotely controlled aircraft – most likely American Airlines Flight 77, the Boeing 757 referenced in the official account of that event. The material which follows here – and also at The Pentagon Attack Controversy page, found above in the “Smoking Guns and Controversies” section of this website – is offered in support of that perspective.

A strong case – such as what is presented at http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_16.htm  and at http://nj911aware.org/pentagon/ – has been made by serious 9/11 Truth researchers raising other possibilities regarding what exactly it was that struck the Pentagon.  A supposed inadvertent slip up by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in his 9/4/2004 interview with Parade Magazine, further fueled the “No plane hit the Pentagon” theory.  In a similar manner, the former 9/11 Commissioner – Tim Roemer – encouraged such speculation by a seemingly inadvertent slip of the tongue in his 2008 CNN interview.

While I respect those who honestly disagree with me, I believe Jim Hoffman’s research on this subject is impeccable and convincing.  Therefore, I recommend it for your consideration at

 http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html 

along with the rest of the material you will find at http://911review.com.

Here is a brief 3 minute analysis of the only video footage that has been made available of the attack on the Pentagon.  Please watch carefully and then draw your own conclusions about the attack vehicle:

What Hit The Pentagon?

One very reasonable speculation, detailed at the “Oil Empire” website is that Rumsfeld’s “Missile Slip-up”, referenced above, was part of a sophisticated hoax – a deliberate strategy to divide the emerging 9/11 Truth Movement. If so, that strategy has proved to be remarkably effective. Sadly, as a second Oil Empire article goes on to explain in detail, this very visible “Plane vs. Missile” debate has indeed not only deeply divided the 9/11 Truth Movement but also has succeeded in discrediting the 9/11 Truth Movement in the eyes of the very people we are seeking to reach.

Along with dividing and discrediting the 9/11 Truth Movement, the ongoing debate over “What hit the Pentagon?” has also distracted public attention from – and research investigation into – what are ultimately the more significant unanswered questions with regards to the attack on the Pentagon.  These are questions that demand answers! As Hoffman indicates, for example, the following unambiguous evidence, related to the attack on the Pentagon, points to an “inside job” and calls out for impartial investigation:

• The location of the attack: The portion of the Pentagon that was struck – the Naval Intelligence offices –  was nearly empty due to a renovation program that was in progress.  These renovations had upgraded and strengthened this section of the Pentagon’s defensive perimeter.  Was one reason for choosing this particular point of attack to minimize mortal casualties and physical damage?
• The aircraft approach maneuver: The attack plane executed an extreme spiral dive maneuver to strike the Naval Intelligence offices of the Pentagon from the southwest…. Why would the terrorist attempt such a risky and complicated maneuver? (See below for the answer to this question!!)
• The incompetence of the alleged pilot: Flight 77 was supposedly piloted by Hani Hanjour, about whom a flight instructor said: “He couldn’t fly at all”.

Please see these two links http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_14.htm and http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/badpilots.html for details about Hani Hanjour’s skill level and other elements of the formal Pentagon attack narrative that do not add up. Top Air Force and commercial pilots  acknowledge they could not possibly replicate the maneuvers Hani Hanjour is alleged to have made. Hanjour’s seemingly remarkable skill in attacking the Pentagon even led one air traffic controller to subsequently make the following statement:

“The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane…in the room it  was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital.”

Therefore if Flight 77 was indeed what hit the Pentagon (as I believe it was) it must have been remotely controlled.  Without remote control of his aircraft, could an incompetent pilot – who dropped out of flight training school – have flown into the NavaI Intelligence Offices at tree top level? 

• Signs of a cover-up: Numerous actions by officials indicate an ongoing cover-up of the facts concerning the attack. What exactly is the purpose behind officials confiscating evidence, and continuing to withhold it – including video evidence – which could easily resolve the question of “What hit the Pentagon” while at the same time releasing images that deliberately fuel controversy!?  In his professional paper “What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth” Frank Legge, founding member of http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org, offers his intriguing analysis of why our government has not released the video material which could easily settle this controversial question.

Here are additional hard facts that undermine the formal Pentagon Attack Narrative:

1) The attack on the Pentagon “coincidentally?” killed 19 of 21 Naval auditors who were investigating the missing 2.3 trillion dollars in the Pentagon’s finances which Rumsfeld had announced publically on 9/10/01.

2) Norman Mineta’s damning testimony before the 9/11 Commission inadvertently points to Dick Cheney facilitating the attack on the Pentagon as noted in this article by Michael Green!  Not surprisingly this testimony was relegated to a mere footnote in the Commission’s final report.

In conclusion, though the question of what hit the Pentagon will no doubt continue to rage on, I recommend that 9/11 Truth Activists focus more on the impossibility of the formal Pentagon attack narrative being accurate and the obvious motive for attacking the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed that becomes clear when the attack is studied in detail. When discussing the Pentagon Attack with friends and family who still believe the formal narrative, it is this kind of focus that is most likely to promote uncertainty about that narrative and deeper exploration into its inconsistencies.

As you will discover from further exploration of this website, there are a host of glaring reasons to presume an official cover up of the true nature of the events on 9/11/01. For a review of some of these reasons – which you can then pass along to friends and family – I recommend reading this web page.

To investigate the events in of 9/11/01 in greater detail link here.

For more discussion of the Pentagon Attack, and other controversial elements of the 9/11/01 story – as well as the impact of both well intended misinformation and deliberate disinformation – link here.

If you prefer to jump right into the world of 9/11 Truth Activism, link here.