The "Pod People" And The PlaneThat Crashed Into the Pentagon | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

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




"Lately, in their efforts to plant more bogus information on the web for the media to use to ridicule doubters of the official story, the shills have used over-processed and blurry photos of the 9-11 planes to claim that they carried "pods" on the outside (which the ground crews at all the airports somehow never noticed"
As I recall the "pod people" interpreted their "pods" as proof that the planes were military planes or military controlled. If so, that renders any comments about airport ground crews void. The "over-processed and blurry photos" are proof of their being phony generated images of non-existent planes, made perhaps with the mistake of using military planes as models having the despised "pods".



What do "pod people", if any still exist, have to do with those who believe no plane hit the Pentagon and/or the WTC? I don't see anything in common between the two groups. One believes there was one or more planes (with perhaps a "pod" underneath), the other doesn't. I gather Mr Rivero agrees with the government view that there were planes but doesn't accept the "pods". I assume that he thinks that the WTC was not however destroyed by the planes but by some other explosive means. Therefore I am only guessing that he believes the planes that he believes struck the WTC were only serving the purpose of presenting a plausible explanation for the already arranged destruction of the WTC as well as a theatrical means of creating more anti Arab hysteria. If this is correct he must believe that the evil perpetrators were capable, in advance, of calculating what exactly would happen when two airliners, or similar, strike the WTC at a known velocity. I am guessing he thinks the planes were empty and flown electronically/remotely and that the hijacking story is fiction.



Still can't figure out who the esteemed webmaster is referring to with the term "pod people"

FYI re. the "pod people"


Mike is referring to those that promote the idea that some of the videos which expose the underside of Flt 175 just before it hit the WTC South tower show some type of attached pod slung outside the fuselage which could have contained a missile (which some say was fired into the building just before the plane hit it) or explosives or specialized guidance requirement used to direct the aircraft into the buildings.

Just do a search for "pod flt 175" if you want more details.

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!

Reading . . . .


. . . . is fundamental.

You obviously have not read

Mike Rivero

You obviously have not read the linked article.

Michael Rivero
What Really Happened

Well, Mike,


I ~did~ read the article and nowhere within it does it discuss with any validity why there are no wing, tail, or engine strikes appear to either side, or above that smoking hole.

Additionally, no valid proof was presented describing how it would be that the hole in the wall is a very much smaller diameter than the airframe itself.

So, let us talk about those aspects, shall we?

Did you become a member . . . .


. . . . to stir shit up?!

- CyberDurden

One might enquire of yourself the very same question


The fact of the matter still stands: No one yet has provided ANY reasons why there are NO wing strike marks, NO engine strike marks, or even a tail strike mark ANYWHERE around that hole.

So, RIGHT BACK AT YOU, MR. 'CyberDurden.'

Comment viewing options

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