The "Pod People" And The PlaneThat Crashed Into the Pentagon

As we run up to yet another anniversary of the 9-11 false-flag attacks, the government's controlled assets on the web are once again pushing the "no plane at the Pentagon" hoax as hard as they can, to give the corporate media an easy means to discredit those who question the official story while avoiding the really tough questions like, "Why did the BBC announce the collapse of World Trade Center 7 twenty six minutes before it actually happened?" Or, "How did President Bush's Secret Service know he was not a target sitting in that school on Florida?"

The media cannot ask, let alone answer, those questions, so the propagandists gin up this "No plane" theory and plant it online to give the corporate media an easy handle with which to ridicule and dismiss the whole idea of doubting the official story of 9-11.

This is an old intelligence trick called "Poisoning the well", the intentional promotion of lies to blend with an embarrassing truth to discredit it. And the intensity with which the propagandists are pushing this no-plane nonsense is easily explained by the fact that they have nothing else at all with which to defend the official story. The sheer fury with which this story has been met both here at WRH andover at the radio show betrays a sense of panic within the government that the American people know 9-11 was a war-starting hoax. "No plane" is the last card they have to play.

Webmaster's Commentary: 

In the wake of Richard Gage's C-SPAN appearance and the comment made by the New York Times Chief Correspondent David Sanger, "We've not found any evidence so far to suggest that the building collapses were caused by anything other than the two airplanes" I am once again being flooded with emails demanding (under threats in some cases) that I simply MUST post the "evidence" that a passenger jet did not really crash into the Pentagon on 9-11.

WEBMASTER NOTE: Right now the corporate media is shoveling ISIS at us as hard as they can, in an obvious propaganda campaign reminiscent of the similar campaign about "Al Qaeda" and "Osama Bin Laden" that preceded 9-11. Given how desperate the US Government is to revive the war agenda, we should be concerned that a new false-flag attack, bigger and bloodier than the World Trade Towers, is being considered.

Optional Banner: 
WRH Exclusive


Pod who?


Never could understand what the term "pod people" had to do with the Pentagon. The only "pods" I am aware are pods some claimed were attached beneath the plane(s) that hit the WTC, a mistake in that no plane(s) hit the WTC but the computer model they used for fake video was perhaps a military plane that did in actuality have a pod. IOW they were analyzing a fabrication.

Questions repeatedly posed, to which you've refused a reply


Okay, Mike, one more again:

[1] Why was the smoking hole in the Pentagon's ~reenforced~ wall smaller in diameter than the fuselage?

[2] Where are the wing, engine, and tail strike marks around that smoking hole?

[3] Why were there no pieces of the wings, or other debris outside that smoking hole in the first photos released. And why did ~some~ debris only show up later (rather conveniently)?

[4] Why were no bodies, seats, interior, or luggage ever found?

Over to you!

You obviously have not read

Mike Rivero

You obviously have not read the linked article.

Michael Rivero
What Really Happened

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.