Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon

The official government and media conspiracy theory says that American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked by 5 fanatical Islamic terrorists on 9/11, and flown into the Pentagon, killing all 64 people on board along with 125 people in the Pentagon.  From Wikipedia:
American Airlines Flight 77 was American Airlines' morning, daily scheduled transcontinental flight, from Washington Dulles International Airport, in Dulles, Virginia to Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California. On September 11, 2001, the aircraft flying this route—a Boeing 757-223—was hijacked by five al-Qaeda terrorists and deliberately crashed into the Pentagon, as part of the September 11 attacks. 
Less than 35 minutes into the flight, the hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was trained as a pilot, assumed control of the flight. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard were able to make telephone calls to loved ones and relay information on the hijacking. 
The aircraft crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37 EDT. All 64 people on board the aircraft, including the hijackers, were killed, as were 125 people in the building. Dozens of people witnessed the crash and news sources began reporting on the incident within minutes. The impact severely damaged an area of the Pentagon and ignited a large fire. A portion of the Pentagon collapsed; firefighters spent days trying to fully extinguish the blaze. The damaged sections of the Pentagon were rebuilt in 2002, with occupants moving back into the completed areas on August 15, 2002. 
The 184 victims of the attack are memorialized in the Pentagon Memorial adjacent to the Pentagon. The 1.93-acre (7,800 m2) park contains a bench for each of the victims, arranged according to their year of birth, ranging from 1930 (aged 71) to 1998 (aged 3).
Upon further investigation, there is no evidence to support any of these claims.  For starters, let's have a listen to what CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre had to say about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11:

From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.
After the U.S. Justice Department released the rather pathetic photos supposedly showing Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, Jamie McIntrye had a change of heart:

McIntrye's rather Orwellian about face should not surprise anyone.  9/11 was a hectic day, and not everyone had their script in front of them, including McIntyre.  After all, it's been common knowledge for years now that the CIA has completely infiltrated the major corporate-owned media in this country, and that Pentagon psychological warfare specialists have conducted major operations via the corporate-owned media, including operations directed at the American public.  Former CIA director William Colby has been quoted as saying, "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

Below, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, a major leftist limited hangout/disinformation outlet which refuses to address the overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job, interviews Col. Sam Gardiner and Peter Hart, who have exposed the Pentagon's successful propaganda efforts in recent years using the major media of this country.  Criminal elements of the media clearly were and remain involved in the 9/11 deception and cover up.

In Enver Masud's "Pentagon Transcripts, Official Records Belie 'The 9/11 Commission Report'," we learn:
I live less than a mile from the Pentagon, and began examining this issue in early 2002. The first question I asked when I looked at the Pentagon shortly after that tragic day in 2001 was, “where’s the plane?”

I began to suspect the official account of 9/11 when I learned that the U.S. war on Afghanistan was apparently planned prior to September 11, and possibly after U.S. negotiations with the Taliban for a pipeline broke down.

According to the BBC (September 18, 2001), Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. [...]

Writing in “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” Kwiatowski noted, “a strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘missile’.”

Pentagon employee April Gallop, whose “desk was roughly 40 feet from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wall” stated in a sworn complaint (before the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York): “As she sat down to work there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.”

Barbara Honegger, military affairs journalist, reported in her personal capacity that a pilot sent by Gen Larry Arnold (NORAD) “reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.” She added, “Multiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks . . . stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11.” [...]
Masud emphasizes the importance of the September 12th and September 15th, 2001 Pentagon news briefings, and what they revealed:
At the September 12, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense, Victoria Clarke, Ed Plaugher (fire chief of Arlington County), and others, “American Airlines”, “Flight 77″, “Boeing 757″ were not even mentioned.

How significant is this?

With the world’s news media assembled at the Pentagon on the day after the alleged attack on the Pentagon by Arab hijackers flying American Airlines Flight 77 — a Boeing 757 — “American Airlines”, “Flight 77″, “Boeing 757″ were not considered important enough to mention at the Pentagon News Briefing the day after the alleged attack!

Fire chief Ed Plaugher was asked by a reporter, “Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?” Plaugher responded, “there are some small pieces of aircraft … there’s no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.”

When asked, “Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel”, Plaugher responded “You know, I’d rather not comment on that.” [...]

At the September 15, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and others, it was apparent that there were lingering doubts about what had struck the Pentagon on September 11.

When Mr. Evey said, “the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ring”, a reporter asked, “One thing that’s confusing — if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet there’s apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring.” Evey replied, “Actually, there’s considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring. It’s just not very visible.”

Apparently, no one asked how “the nose of the aircraft” (a relatively weak component of the aircraft) remained sufficiently intact to penetrate the C Ring — the E Ring is the outermost ring.
Dr. James Fetzer has explained in detail the fact that a Boeing 757, even piloted by an experienced and well-trained pilot (which was not the case with Hani Hanjour, the alleged Arab hijacker that flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon), could not possibly perform the feats described by the official government conspiracy theory:
The probability that a real Boeing 757 could have hit the Pentagon and not left debris from its wings and tail or even its engines-not to mention bodies, seats, and luggage-is zero. The probability that the alleged trajectory could have been flown in violation of the laws of aerodynamics is even less than zero-since violations of these laws is not physically possible. The probability that the trajectory, if it were possible, could have left a smooth, green, unblemished lawn is zero. The probability that debris would have been planted or that smoke would have been simulated, had this event involved the crash of a real Boeing 757, is likewise extremely low. That all of these things would have occurred if the alleged impact were contrived, however, is very high. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any reasonable alternative. [...]

The conclusion that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon appears to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Despite all of this overwhelming evidence, one of my favorite radio hosts, Mike Rivero of, insists that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and that those of us out here actually looking at the evidence and fully exposing all aspects of 9/11 are basically loons.  Greg Bacon has already thoroughly addressed this nonsense coming from Rivero (who is great on most other issues), but I'd like to make a couple points myself.

Rivero constantly makes two primary arguments to justify his unshakable stance on Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.  His first argument goes like this: the real perps behind 9/11 had to get rid of the passengers and planes on 9/11 anyways, so why not crash them into the Pentagon (and presumably, the World Trade Center Towers)?  And it's sort of ironic- Rivero likes to talk a lot about "belief" and how people should not just simply "believe" or go along with something, but should rather use logic and common sense in all areas of life.  You know, critical thinking and all that.  Rivero is throwing his own logic out the window when it comes to Flight 77.  If he'd take a look at the evidence, there'd be no reason for him to support the conclusion that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon like the government and media said and continue to say.  So, his first argument is based solely on believe, not on logic or critical thinking.  Go figure that one.

For his second argument, he brings up the extremely naive belief that 100s of eye witnesses saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.  Once again, this argument is based in naive belief, rather than a solid analysis of the available evidence and information, which clearly shows that Flight 77 could not hit the Pentagon as described by the official government conspiracy theory.  Further, what Rivero fails to understand is the fact that the Bureau of Traffic Statistics have no record of Flight 77 (or Flight 11 that supposedly struck the North WTC) taking off on 9/11.  Rivero surely knows that there are many problems with eye witness testimony anyways.

Both of his arguments are based on mere belief and blind faith in a critical aspect of the fraud that was 9/11.  Both of his arguments are bogus when it comes to the Pentagon.

The most obvious aspect of the Pentagon deception, in my opinion, was when former Solicitor General and major criminal Ted Olson went on Larry King Live shortly after 9/11 and either made up an entire story or was duped into believing his wife had really called him while Flight 77 was being hijacked.

It's been conclusively proven that in-flight phone calls were impossible in 2001.  Why did Ted make up this story?  Or, who told him to tell these lies?  Where is Barbara now?

Is it apparent to you by now that the media is a major part of the crime gang that pulled off 9/11? Are you aware that Zionist Jews with a particular agenda own most of the major corporate media and entertainment productions in this country?

Are Mike Rivero and others incapable of contemplating the fact that the "hijackings", planes, videos, and many of the victims on 9/11 were a major fraud, just like the rest of the official government conspiracy theory?  It seems rather obvious to me that this is indeed the case.  We still don't know exactly what happened on 9/11, so it would be wise to keep an open mind about everything.  Right, Mike?  


  1. You ask where Barbara Olson is now. Some speculate she had plastic surgery and is now remarried to Ted Olson under another name.

    Remember who Barbara Olson was -- a right-wing pundit who worked for Fox News. It's on her word alone that we got the entire eyewitness account of "terrorists with boxcutters" image (even though there were no Arab names on the passenger list. Explain that??). Now we know that eyewitness testimony is a lie. She could not have made that phone call to Ted. The whole thing was made up.

  2. Hello Jody! You write, "The whole thing was made up."

    Yes, exactly. Everything about 9/11 was made up. 9/11 was a Hollywood psyop on the American people.

  3. Great research. Rivero is disappointing at times.

    - Aangirfan

  4. Thanks Aangirfan, I appreciate it.

  5. I had a college roommate that took her own life - she had a somewhat unusual name and I cannot find her in the SSDI or even an obit. I don't know if not appearing in those types of records means anything at all. Foreigners certainly would not show up in the SSDI unless they had an SSN.

    I think a little more research on why someone would not show up in the SSDI needs to be done before any absolute conclusions can be arrived at.

  6. From Roots web, an ancestry site:

    "As marvelous a finding aid as it is, the SSDI does not include the names of everyone, even if they had a Social Security number (SNN). If relatives or the funeral home did not report the death to the Social Security Administration, or if the individual died before 1962 (when the records were computerized) then they probably will not appear in this database. The omission of an individual in this index does not indicate the person is still living. It simply means that there was no report of the person's death to Social Security Administration."

  7. I wonder if Alicia Esteve Head alias Tania Head and the other 911 actors are jews. Jews make good actors because they're very practiced liars. Their whole life is a lie.

    Is there some way to find out who these frauds really are?

    Tania Head could not do what she did without powerful behind-the-scenes assistance.

  8. Edith Head was a famous Jewish costume designer in Hollywood, so it's likely a Jewish name - it's certainly not Spanish. US Search dot com comes up with an Alicia Esteve Head on 500 w 56th st in NY, though that may be an old address. Anyone whose real name (not an alias) is Tania Head (there are 3) does not appear to be a match.

    "Tania Head" came from a very wealthy family and may have known people in NY who had some influence OR she may have just been a very good con artist who was able to schmooze her way into the trust of people who were influential. Hard to say.

    There may not have been anything diabolical or sinister here - I lived in Japan for a number of years. Every once in a while Japan would get some case like Tania Head - basically a foreigner con artist who was looking for attention. One woman from France claimed she was the sister in law or something of the French Prime Minister - she eventually got found out and deported.

    People with substance abuse issues have certain behaviors - "pulling a geographic" - e.g. suddenly going halfway around the world (or to the next city, or state) and setting up house is one. Being a charmer and a prolific liar are two more. I would assume addiction in this case based on common behaviors addicts exhibit. She may have had multiple addictions (food, apparently) which is also a clue.

    As I said, I am not sure if there is anything more to this than someone's personal "issues". If there was something more to it, then please tell me what it was that was "accomplished" through Miss Head besides wasting a lot of people's time and energy.

  9. Very interesting information about the Social Security Death Index. We may have to pass that along to Phil Jayhan and Larry McWilliams at Let's Roll Forums.

    I'm not sure if Tania Head was Jewish or not, but her story is just amazing to me. The victims, the "jumpers," and the planes were a MAJOR part of the psyop that was 9/11. She helped further engrain the "victims" story into the consciousness of the public. I do indeed think some people died on 9/11, but I think we should look into each and every victim and their story to make sure it's not a fraud like Tania.

    I think it's very important to consider these subjects when looking at 9/11. Very few, even in the 9/11 Truth Community, are open to these ideas.

  10. Rivero's stance on the jet hitting the Pentagon is not only dead wrong,but it's ludicrous..Rivero says:"the 757 jet wings hitting the Pentagon wall at 500 MPH is the equivalent of throwing a Xmas tree ornament against it,and therefore why we see no marks on the Pentagon wall"[but then where are the wings Mikey? they should be then laying on the ground OUTSIDE THE PENTAGON right mikey?? BUT THEY AREN"T..WHERE ARE THEY MIKEY? HUH? the on-air WRH radio show silence is deafening.. then you hear the click as the is hung up on] this is the same guy that constantly rags about the government giving the sheeple obvious fraudulent bovine excrement stories,and telling us we must just beleeeeeeev it because the government says its Rivero is doing the exact identical thing..telling us the most absurd,ludicrous,and ,ridiculous thing I've ever heard[a 757 jet hitting the Pentagon at 500 MPH] and telling his listeners they must beleeeeev a 757 DID IN FACT ABSOLUTELY jet smash into the Pentagon, because Mike 'the genius' Rivero says it did and KNOWS it did!..and if you don't believe him?that a 757 hit the Pentagon AT GROUND LEVEL at 500 MPH w/o the 2 - 5 ton engines making so much as a divot on the lawn,[when its aerodynamically AND scientifically impossible for a 757 jet to get closer than 150 ft to the ground at 500 MPH]then you are "POISONING THE WELL" ditto on "Chemtrails..same chit and same schtick from Rivero..if you believe the government is indeed spraying us[geoengineering the skies],you are also "POISONING THE WELL" ..
    "there is no such thing as chemtrails" says Rivero..
    all one has to do is look up in the sky on almost any given day and see that the exhaust coming from most jets are NOT CONTRAILS but are CHEMTRAILS that linger in the sky for hours,[while regular jet engine exhaust called CONTRAILS,disappear in seconds]
    and some days they spray so much toxic poison,the sky turns a milky white haze,that practically blocks out the sun! Rivero either has a screw loose or is a dis-info py-op agent,still working for NASA to "POISON THE WELL"..and keep the sheep totally pay a man enough money he'll do just about anything.right Mikey?
    not me..not ever..phony pieces of paper and computer digits do nothing for me..yes i need money to pay bills but my faith in Jesus Christ takes care of everything i need,and that is all that matters..a relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and eternal life through and with Christ in the real new world that is coming that Christ will rule over.. no war - no misery - no poverty,pain,or suffering..heaven on earth..finally, as the devil is chained up for 1,000 years and then tried for his crimes by God..hallelujah!


Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.