Home : WRH Store : Reader Letters : Advertise : Donate

The "Pod People" And The Plane
That 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 and over 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.

The "no-plane" propaganda is a trap set to discredit the 9-11 truth movement. Once the propagandists are able ot trick the majority of the 9-11 truth movement into going along with this nonsense (or failing that, create the public illusion that the majority of the 9-11 truth movement are going along with this nonsense), one of the confiscated videos that clearly shows the 757 slamming into the Pentagon will be made public, to discredit the entire 9-11 truth movement in one fell swoop, silencing those questions the government cannot answer. To play this trick, the "no-planers" are promote an incredibly complex conspiracy to hide a missile, while denying the possibility of an equally complex conspiracy to plant the illusion of one.

Let's take an example from history which nobody here is emotionally invested in. After the John F. Kennedy Assassination, New Orleans Prosecutor Jim Garrison placed Clay Shaw (later admitted by Richard Secord to have been a CIA asset) on trial for the conspiracy. The case was going very well until a witness showed up who claimed to be able to link Oswald directly to Shaw. Once on the stand, however, the witness started blabbing about how he fingerprinted his own daughter every night to prevent "them" from replacing her with a duplicate. Although not shown in the Oliver Stone film, "JFK", it was this one planted witness that "poisoned the well" of Garrison's case, resulting in Clay Shaw's acquittal.

During the House Select Committee on Assassinations, a bogus story was planted that the open umbrella seen along the Kennedy motorcade route just prior to the assassination was a dart gun, used to paralyze the President to hold him steady for the head shot. The actual umbrella was produced and shown to be just a normal umbrella while the committee members rolled their eyes and chuckled indulgently at how silly people who doubted the Warren Report were. (Later, acoustical data proved there had indeed been at least two shooters ion Dealey Plaza and the HSCA was forced to conclude there had been a conspiracy.)

In the 1990s, around the time of Ruby Ridge and WACO, the Congress was forced to hold public hearings on the abuses of the BATF, hearings which were notable for one witness showing up wearing full camo, and demanding the government declassify its secret tornado making machine. That provided the sound byte the media used to make anyone who stood up to the BATF look like a nutcase. The "witness" was later outed as an FBI informant.

Another example of "poisoning the well" is in the Killian documents, which documented George Bush's machinations to avoid the Vietnam draft by joining the Texas Air National Guard. Five of the documents were authentic, but the sixth was an obvious forgery planted on CBS in order to cast doubt on the authenticity of the others.

Ever since this "no-plane" theory has been planted on the 9-11 truth movement, the corporate media inevitably seizes on it as a means to ridicule those who do not accept the official story of 9-11. One obvious example is the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, which used the "no-plane" theory to summarily dismiss any and all doubters of the official story as a munch of nuts that all correct-thinking loyal Americans should ever listen to. Which is what the no-plane hoax is intended to do.

I will sign off this discussion by reminding you all once more that while the US Government will not hesitate to lie, cheat, steal, and hoax you, they never do it without a good reason. As I stated before, there is no reason for the government to substitute a missile for the crashing plane at the Pentagon. But there is plenty of reason for the US Government to trick you into thinking that they did!

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). For that reason, the government shills have come to be known as the 9-11 "Pod People".
In response to the question of "where is the wreckage of the plane", the answer is that much of the wreckage slid into the ground floor of the Pentagon. It slid INTO the building, into the first floor space, starting a fire in the first floor, whereupon the upper floors later collapsed down onto the remains of the aircraft. Most of the aircraft wreckage is therefore under the collapsed roof section in the photo.

So where is the rest of the wreckage from the passenger plane? Right in plain view, for those who actually look.

Click for larger image of the damage to Pentagon

In the above copy of the wide area view, a red rectangle marks an area to be examined. This area appears below.

Click for larger image of the insert

The Pentagon is a building mostly made of concrete and wood. Yet here is a pile of crumpled aluminum debris, and clearly seen mixed in with it are pieces of luggage. Since the Pentagon itself does not travel, we can conclude that the luggage (and the aluminum shards mixed with them) are part of the remains of the passenger jet which hit the Pentagon.

In similar crashes, the resulting debris was in small pieces, 6 feet long at most. You don't SEE huge pieces of airplane sitting at crash sites in head on collisions such as slamming into the wall of the Pentagon. Despite their impressive size, aircraft and relatively fragile objects due to weight considerations.


Click for larger image

The above picture is of the damage done to the first floor of the Pentagon, prior to the collapse of the upper floors.


The claim by the "no-planers" that there is no identifiable wreckage of a 757 at the Pentagon is contradicted by the photographic evidence.

Main landing gear wheel rim wreckage at Pentagon

Aircraft wreckage at Pentagon

Fuselage (green anticorrosion coating) wreckage at Pentagon

Landing gear strut wreckage at Pentagon

Photo of 767 landing gear for comparison

Photo of tires at Pentagon and at WTC


Only in Warner Brothers cartoons does the Coyote leave a cookie-cutter outline of himself as he crashes into the rock face. In the real world (someplace that the "pod people" need to spend more time in) collisions are more complex. Airplanes do not make clean outline holes in buildings they collide with any more than cars make clean outline holes in walls they collide with. The Pentagon, built mostly of wood and concrete, and in that one section having been recently reinforced, is a heavy and solid object. Jet aircraft, designed to be able to fly, are very thin and lightweight. They are, if you think about it, mostly filled with air, like an aluminum balloon. They are not designed to penetrate other objects or to remain intact while doing so.

"Then I picked [the plane] up as it struck very low into the Pentagon. The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion." [Mike Walter - eyewitness]

Take a glass Christmas ornament and hurl it against a brick wall. Do you get a round opening in the brick wall the size of the ornament? No, of course not. Neither will an aluminum plane leave a clean outline of itself crashing into concrete. In the case of the plane, there are subassemblies which are heavy and solid, such as the engines, the frames supporting the landing gear, cockpit avionics, the potable water tanks, APU, etc. On impact, these would break loose from the aircraft and continuing forward, produce smaller holes. But the fuselage would crumple like aluminum foil.

The "Pod People" will no doubt scream that the above photos are fake, just as they have insisted that all the photos which show debris at the crash site are fakes, and just as they scream that the witnesses to the passenger jet at the Pentagon "have to be" wrong. But witness-smearing is the exact same tactic the government has used to silence contradictory witnesses from JFK to the shoot down of TWA 800 to the 9-11 false flag.

As the "Pod People" use the same tactics, they reveal who they really are.

MP3 recording of witness Daryl Donley
MP3 recording of witness Alan Wallace
9/11 BBC TV news broadcast showing a passenger jet approaching Pentagon:

A demonstration of a passenger jet flying low and fast:

"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." [Father Stephen McGraw] estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.

"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car."

"I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said. [mdw.army.mil]

Click image for full size

<< Photo showing light pole debris. Note the cab behind.

Click image for full size


Photo of damaged cab >>

Stills from CCTV video released on May 16, 2006 >>

Click image for full size.

An analysis of the stills.

A concrete wall hit by an F-4 fighter jet at 500 MPH:

"The plane atomized with the impact, it just disappeared into dust - only the tips of the wings escaped total destruction. But the wall, designed to move and absorb energy, did its job well."

WMV video download (978kB)

The above was a test where an F-4 fighter jet (fighters are built more sturdy than passenger jets in order to survive despite combat damage) was slammed into a test wall to evaluate the damage that might be caused if a jet plane was crashed into a reactor containment vessel.

The wall in this test was considerably stronger than the Pentagon wall and suffered little damage. However, that damage was found to be primarily from the engines of the F-4, whereas the rest of the airframe shattered on impact without damaging the wall at all. This test proves that the Pentagon damage would come not from the aircraft as a whole, but from the heavy and dense components such as the engines, landing gear blocks, avionics, potable water bottles, etc.


The government released images from just one camera at the Pentagon, that does not show the incoming object. But there was another camera whose images were never released, but had to be pried loose using a FOIA lawsuit. Those images clearly show the passenger jet skimming along the ground.


In the second picture the impact area of the aircraft has been roughly outlined.

Eyewitness Account of Flight 77's Pentagon Impact

Firefighter Alan Wallace was standing outside his fire station when he looked across the nearby interstate and saw a white airplane with orange and blue trim heading almost straight at him. It slammed into the building just a couple hundred feet from him. "When I felt the fire, I hit the ground," he said. [detnews 9/11/2001]

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757.

Extract from Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself:

The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.***at least 45
The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases there's no indication the witnesses were talking about a small jet.at least 25
The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.at least 22
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the the highways.at least 19
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane went full throttle only at the last seconds.at least 12
The amount of eye witnesses who stated the plane had it's flaps up (not deployed). Witness 1 saw a 757, witness 2 and 4 both saw an American Airlines, witness 3 saw an American Airlines 757. No known witnesses stated the opposite.at least 4
The amount of witnesses who reported the plane was pretty quiet. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock. Another one saw it was an American Airlines jet, saw it had its gears up and saw light poles being knocked down. Others were in their cars, all windows up and the radio on)at least 4
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had its gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole)at least 1
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant!0
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.0
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.0

If you want to read all the individual quotes you can start here.

What happens to an airplane hitting a solid wall.

See also:

Hunt the Boeing - Smoke and Mirrors No Substitute for Proof
9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon
Bogus 9/11 Websites

What Really Happened

Email This Page To A Friend