ON THE PAGE DESCRIPTION CHANGE

Updated 2/9/07

In mid-January I noticed that the previous description for this page "the Hijacking of the 9/11 Truth Movement by the No-Plane-at-the-Pentagon Theory" is not the correct one for what I'm doing here. As one miffed message board poster I ran across characteristically put it: "don't lump me in with the "no planers." I believe a plane hit the pentagon, just not flight 77 or any kind of 757." People with such beliefs are certainly not no-planers, many of them in fact pushing the plane of the year (2004-Global Hawk.. 2005-A3 Sky Warrior. Etc.). True no-planers are rare any more; regarding hte Pentagon, the fraud has become more adaptive, and can now account for a small, selectively-screened portion of the plane wreckage found. They narrow their denial down - "okay, we can allow a plane, just not a 757."

So they aren't old-school 2002 no-planers, but they are also wrong and are pushing the Frustrating Fraud, so this page is for them too. Therefore a new sub-title description: ""the Hijacking of the 9/11 Truth Movement by the No-757-at-the-Pentagon Theory" Okay, it's really more of an anti-theory, but I'm not changing it again.

On Oil Empire’s Link to This Site
Apologies to Mark Robinowitz: I had wanted to e-mail him about it but couldn’t find an address on the site, so what the heck, I’ll just do a quick post on it. He initially posted a description with the link to my site under his 9/11 front page, under the "Best 9/11 Websites" section, which I was greatly honored by.

He later modifiedthe description, in part noting the description change: “This site has been pressured by "no-planers" and has been renamed part of the title from "No Plane" to "No 757" in deference to those who pretend there is any evidence (there isn't) for an alleged crash of a smaller-than-757 plane.” Well it's not really fair to say there's no evidence. They've been pointing at evidence for years and some of it's even fairly good. But taken as a whole, of course, as some Texan might say, "that dog don't bark" or whatever.

And second, my bad for ambiguous wording, there was no pressure from no-planers, other than when Phil Jayhan in a big gray car ran me off the road into a culvert. Just kidding. The “angry message board poster called a no-planer” was just the one I ran across somewhere else that made me stop and go “oh yeah, I’m investigating the bunk A3 Sky Warriror plane theory.” There’s been no personal pressure on me yet (except a little by Bill Giltner but he stopped early). I like to think they know not to waste our time.

For Those Who’ve Hunted The Boeing and Still Can’t See It:
It's not that I'm 100% certain a 757 did hit, but it's intellectually dishonest to claim - as so many have - that the evidence "clearly" precludes such a scenario. I have looked at a large cross-section of the available arguments and evidence and find the no-757 claims based on circular repetition of initially flawed claims, while the now-demonized and off-limits official story matches the physical evidence and most eyewitness accounts, while all other lines of inquiry have been eclipsed and maybe atrophied in the process. Despite their psyop of information withholding, the powers that be seem to believe their official story there will hold up once all the (physical) evidence is released. Regarding the Pentagon at least, I suspect the story will continue to parallel facts on the ground, so long as the question remains whether a 757 was or was not responsible. Yet despite this striking vulnerability, those suckered by the fraud remain confident enough of their case that few if any are keeping an eye out for such evidence - they insist on ignoring the barreling freight train of evidence that's picked up a lot of steam since 2002.

So for the record, I am saying - my best guess - it was NOT a truck bomb, NOT an energy weapon, NOT a Cruise missile, NOT a fighter jet, NOT a Global Hawk, NOT an A3 Skywarrior. It was a Boeing 757, possibly piloted by remote control, possibly even piloted by the Muslim terrorist Hani Hanjour. I would not use the word "drone" to describe the former possibility, as the word implies unmanned and empty. I believe the reported passengers were most likely aboard the plane. Whether or not they were in control, the pilots were probably in the cockpit and the rest of the crew was in place. The hijackers may or may not have been present, the phone calls, as upsetting to some as it is to point out, may have been real or fake. No matter how precisely they were carried out, I believe air defenses/intel/immigration/law enforcement/whoever else was really relevant were purposefully scuttled to allow the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon. I see no reason why the two succesful legs of the attack would have been done significantly differently, and that the physical evidence at the Pentagon, after all the tooth-gnashing is done, will ultimately corroborate the physical end of the official story. Sound crazy? Read on...