July 30, 2007

The Pentagon Honey Pot

The Pentagon Honey Pot

A collection of quotes on the Pentagon Controversy

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association – Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research:

The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.

Few people have direct experience with the results of high-speed collisions of aircraft into strong barriers. Most aircraft accidents occur shortly after takeoff or during attempted landings, and do not completely destroy the aircraft. In contrast, uncontrolled crashes into terrain usually reduce aircraft into fine debris, leaving little if any parts identifiable by casual visual inspection. The debris fields of several jetliner crashes pictured here show the surprising paucity of apparent debris many crashes produce.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

The aircraft impact punctured the facade over a contiguous area measuring approximately 96 feet wide on the first floor, and 18 feet wide on the second floor. Damage to the facade extended beyond the punctured areas.

Alex Jones and Paul Watson of Prison Planet:

Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op: Intended to create circus of interest around 'no plane' theories, later debunk them:

For over four years we have remained neutral on the subject, agreeing that unanswered questions need to be explored but warning against the Pentagon issue becoming the core focus of the 9/11 truth movement.  The danger is clearly that the government will use its media mouthpieces in particular Fox News to hype this until it becomes the de facto keystone of alternative explanations behind 9/11.  At the point when that crescendo reaches its peak crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon will be released, knocking down the straw man argument that the establishment itself erected.  The government is steam valving this issue so as to garner as much interest as possible before blowing the entire matter out of the water. We know for a fact that the FBI seized the gas station camera footage and footage from hotels across the highway which would show the entire sequence of events and prove exactly what happened at the Pentagon.  The fact that they have again chosen to release grainy and foggy images which only lead to more speculation tell us two things.

1) The government truly is frightened to death of releasing any images which accurately depict what happened at the Pentagon because it doesn't jive with the official version of 9/11.

2) Or the government knows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and has clear footage of the incident, but is deliberately releasing these speculative images in order to stoke the debate so it can later release the high quality video and use it to debunk the entire 9/11 truth movement.

The media obsession with this one facet of an entire smorgasbord of 9/11 questions, and their refusal to address more hardcore 9/11 evidence, leads us to fear the latter explanation is the case.

Why no discussion of Building 7 and the comments of Larry Silverstein?  Why no discussion of the hijackers being trained by the US government? Lt. Colonel Steve Butler of the Monterey Defense Language Institute was suspended from duty after he accused Bush of allowing 9/11 to happen. Why no discussion of the NORAD stand downBecause none of these issues are honey pots, none of them are speculation because the cards are laid out on the table for everyone to see and the evidence is clear.

What Really Happened

The "Pod People" And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon

At some point in the near future, photographs, or video will be "discovered" clearly showing the impact, and the mainstream media will have a field day ridiculing those "kooky Internet web sites" and their "silly conspiracy theories", all based on a silly theory the government is itself planting on the web.  But if you think about it, common sense tells you their claims are just plain silly. After all, if the passenger jet didn't hit the Pentagon, then where did it go? And since the people behind 9-11 had to get rid of the passenger jet and its contents anyway, there was no reason for them NOT to ram it into the Pentagon. Why risk a swap? Why complicate matters even further?



3) Pentagon Strike

How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?


".... if you think that the "no plane at the Pentagon" claim, even if it is wrong, is harmless... or if you think perhaps even it is beneficial because it converts a lot of people into 9/11 skeptics (and it certainly does), please think again. John Judge and Mark Robinowitz and others are correct that its intention was to alienate people inside the beltway, and make us look foolish among D.C. professionals. It succeeded."
-- Emanuel Sferios, 9/11 Visibility Campaign

If this was all a government conspiracy, why go to the bother of using a missile or fighter to hit the Pentagon when a 757 would do just fine, make a bigger bang, and there would be no need for a cover-up?

There is no question that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Remaining agnostic on this point also gives ammunition to the perpetrators of the stand-down and serves to discredit the other good work that continues to be done about the reality of what happened that day. It is my feeling that this thesis was actually part of an intentional disinformation campaign that spreads red herrings to discredit the real findings.Flight of Fantasy: Flight 77 Didn't Hit the Pentagon 23 October 2002, by John Judge

The ‘no plane’ theories don't make sense—why would they bother to substitute? Why risk being caught in the act, if someone got a clear photo? Why not just remote control a 757 into the empty part of the building? The area around the Pentagon is densely populated, and a clear photo showing something other than the 757 would compromise the entire operation.

I think there's a grave problem of ‘sexing up’ the truth with spectacular yet specious arguments. For instance, some of the splashiest and attractive 9/11 material is devoted to supporting the ‘Pentagon Missile.’ Sure, it gets people's attention - in fact, it dominates the public perception of alternative theories of the attacks - but is it right? Well, no; as I've said, I don't think so. And truth will suffer again and again when those who fell for the missile ‘hook’ come to the same conclusion and chuck the whole thing, and those who were turned off the ‘missile’ refuse to look any further.” -- Jeff Wells, Rigorous Intuition, http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/05/no-way-and-yeah-so-what.html


The “no plane at the Pentagon” theory has been called a hoax or disinfo by many within the movement. At TruthMove, we believe that most of the strongest points behind this argument have been effectively countered by honest skeptics within the movement.

Pentagon Research

Some of the observations here support the ‘official’ story. I can only say I've been diligent and honest in my approach. Whatever I found is what I found. I considered both the official story and the alternative theories every step of the way… There are photos of aircraft debris outside and inside the Pentagon. There are no large aircraft structures that one would intuitively expect from an aircraft the size of a 757-200. Some of the debris can be specifically identified with a 757 aircraft. I personally believe the amount of debris exceeds what could be planted without detection... I find it as hard to believe that a Cessna 172 unqualified hijacker could fly a 757 for the first time with military precision as I do aircraft override theories.

Joël van der Reijden

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

The one thing that I think is important with conspiracy theories, is that they are not based on false assumptions, or on the selective gathering of evidence. The problem is that this is exactly what has been done with the Pentagon crash. And not just a little, it has been taken to the extreme. And that's a problem, because now that more and more people have been getting involved with the alternative 9/11 movement it's getting harder for them by the month to escape the pointless ‘yes 757’ vs ‘no 757’ debates (update: lately, the tide has been turning).

Caustic Logic

Author of The Frustrating Fraud

It is my opinion that these arguments have swelled the movement for all the wrong reasons. The “hard proof” crowd have claimed to find literally hundreds of “smoking gun” clues left laying out in the open. While some have real validity, many, on closer inspection, are fraudulent. Yet somehow the worst arguments get more air play and capture more attention and so the “Truth” movement has become dominated by the desire not to provide the most rational explanation but the one most opposite to the official story.  Beyond providing endless distraction and requiring endless de-bunking (and they keep coming back!), this approach alienates intelligent skeptics, whom we need on our side… Through careful research, I have found almost all evidence points clearly to a 757 as the attack vehicle, piloted by whatever means, and in the process have exposed a long thread of apparent disinformation running from 9/11 to the present and continuing despite all evidence to the current day.

Michael Ruppert

Some of the more outlandish theories—like French writer Thierry Meyssan’s claim that a cruise missile, not an airplane, hit the Pentagon—are only diluting the waters, Ruppert said. There are other theories, too: that there were no planes at all, only holographic projections of planes (used in conjunction with explosives planted by some shadowy group); or that one of the planes that hit the WTC had some sort of anomalous “pod” attached to it that caused extra damage. But this is all “bullshit,” Ruppert said, and is either intentional disinformation or sheer stupidity.