What the Pentagon should have looked like on 9-11

@relhak ... I'm sorry but it's JUST as preposterous to subscribe to the official story and think that a plane, with two solid Rolls Royce engines, would simply vaporize on impact. It's silly.

Jet fuel cannot melt steel in an instant.

Obviously, there were no real plane crash in Pentagon that day. The flight was simply invented and REPORTED. Same goes for the passengers of course.

No "passenger list" was ever released. We don't even have an official victims list. MSM created the list for us.

If you can control the news networks, you can create the reports you want. You probably need to enable some of your agents in the Government so that they don't mess up your operation.

So if you can control the news networks, have some agents in the Government at strategic locations, some scriptwriters, some actors and a animation crew and some money, you can create the REPORTS you need for your operation. Mostly legal also. Your operation could be regarded as free speech. Make sure that no one is killed in the operation so that you don't get involved in a conspiracy to murder.

The 911 operation management and its controlled opposition don't like that we talk so much or dispute this victim part of the story. Unless that part is perceived as real, we wouldn't have a War on Terror or all this other nonsense we have to go along with.

I answered to both of these things below when they were asked the first time.

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/

There are many many eyewitnesses who all saw one large jet plane heading toward the Pentagon, and none who saw a missile. However, the witnesses prove that the (very real) plane did not hit the Pentagon. The damage was caused with pre-planted explosives like at the WTC. The plane continued on after the explosion. (The Pentagon is literally one mile from the runways at Reagan National Airport, so extremely low flying planes are a very very common sight on the east side of the building. See here, here, here, and here for examples.)

Here is what April Gallop herself had to say after viewing these interviews: "Well after I reviewed the footage and carefully looked at the information I think it should be considered as credible for public viewing and also very important for people to look at because it shows there is obviously some fabrication in the official testimony. And I think that everyone should sit down and take a look at it."

CIT on the missile theory (source):

It is true that from "very early on" many people looked at the photographs of the Pentagon shortly after the alleged impact and felt that the damage was inconsistent with a 757 crash. It is also true that many people in this category jumped to the conclusion that some OTHER airborn craft/missile/etc must have hit instead, and thus theorized about "what hit".

However, "what hit" is not a question that CIT has ever focused on or promoted. We have only found evidence for a single low-flying craft on the scene at the moment of the explosion: a large commercial-looking aircraft that was banking to its right on the north side of the gas station and therefore could not have hit the light poles or the building. The very question of "what hit" the Pentagon assumes that something did, while it is well known that we are convinced from our investigation that nothing (i.e. no airborn object/craft including the one seen by the witnesses) "hit" at all, and that the damage was caused by pre-planted explosives. We have been very explicit about this for years. (Chandler and Cole basically acknowledge that this is our view later in the essay.)

In fact, we feel that the Department of Defense purposely tried to lead 9/11 skeptics who were already correctly questioning the damage to the building down this incorrect "what hit" path. For example, we do not think that the alleged "leak" of the dubious five frames video was a real "leak" at all, but rather a deliberate disinformation campaign to get people to focus on missile and drone theories of "what hit". Likewise for Donald Rumsfeld's supposed slip of the tongue during an interview with Parade Magazine shortly after 9/11, where he is quoted as mentioning "the missile" which "damaged this building" (the Pentagon). The DoD itself mirrored a copy of this interview where Rumsfeld made this supposed gaff on their own website, and they have kept it online there for years, even to this day, helping to fuel the proliferation of missile theories.

for dose of reason and logic. You will soon be down voted and called a troll...