Let's be paranoid for the moment and engage in this speculation. It was not a 757 that hit the building. It was a smaller plane, one of those planes or jets that are remote controlled. That is why people did in fact see a plane, why they believed it was a computer jet "that would hold about 12 people", and why the hole in the building was not big enough. The only thing left to explain is the 58 people who were supposed to be on the plane, and the calls by the lawyer wife of the congressman. Hmm... How do we explain that?

One last indulgence. I had read from a secondary source that Flight 77

left Dulles airport at 8:10 a.m. and struck the Pentagon at 9:40 a.m. Isn't there too much of a delay here?

Yantsos

I've heard some pretty credible theories the past few months about the attacks not happening the way they were generally portrayed, but this isn't one of them. I know this one is wrong for three reasons: first, as a military contractor, I know several people at the Pentagon who were eyewitnesses. Second, a friend of mine in Arlington less than two miles from the Pentagon saw the plane go in from his apartment balcony. And third, my next door neighbor was riding down Rt. 110 at the time when the plane flew practically over their head; he was able to start videotaping the plane as it came down and got footage of it hitting the building. So no one will ever be able to convince me that it was anything other than a plane striking the building.

D. Adams

Please send this link to the author of the the conspiracy theory and have him pose the question as to why there there was no fuselage and wings found. I was going to send it myself but decided that if I did, someone would say that I "doctored" the answer: CLICK HERE

Also, here are some really great pictures: CLICK HERE

WHERE IS THE PLANE?

Jailfire

All of the supposed proof listed here is second hand information. A friend of mine, a fellow office worker; etc. Why doesn't someone with FIRST-hand knowledge step up to the plate? I personally could see no plane parts in the pictures presented. Surely a firefighter or a construction worker clearing debris, a policeman, somebody, on the job site that day saw the evidence. If this is such a no-brainer where are the parts and pieces?

Stu in Las Vegas

I think that all we have asked for is just "one" undoctored picture that actually shows a crashed plane...maybe it was a small plane but not a huge boeing plane.. I see the building on fire.. but not a plane nor plane parts nor a path of a huge plane sliding on the ground... Just one picture would end all the controversy...

Delores

Agreed that the story of no plane is BOGUS and that there was a plane. The plane that hit the ground in PA hit with such speed and force that there was little left but the smoking crater... what makes the Pentagon hit any different?

Sue

As I watched the video, I did in fact see something hit the Pentagon. However, it was not a 757! My question is this, there are several supposed video's out (Under the control of the FBI, such as the one given to the news media). Why give the one video that has the least to see, unless the government is trying to hide something? It could all be cleared up with something of better footage, such as the that the FBI took from the Hotel, that over looks the Pentagon. And don't give us that shit about it being a criminal case. For the Love of God, everyone already knows that!!!

Richard

Right now I do not believe ANYONE in government, only the everyday people. All of you are deceitful devils and the American people [had] better watch out. The gov’t is corrupt to the core, that’s sad........

kam

If a plane did not hit the Pentagon, what happened to the 180+ passengers that mysteriously disappeared that was on a flight from Dulles? Also, I would tell those that keep this absurd theory alive to visit the Pentagon and look at 395 highway during a normal day at the time the "plane did not hit the Pentagon" and also look around at all the buildings in the "flight of the path of the plane that did not hit the Pentagon". Are thousands of people mistaken? I think not!

CJ

Dear Al,

Thank you! This will take a moment to load but well worth the wait.

Roman

I've given this question some consideration and I, like you, have trouble believing that there could be a conspiracy for this reason. In fact, this is one of the main sticking points of the Eastman allegation. Common sense would tell us that there is no way to pull off such an aggressive plan as suggested, and yet, every time I look at some of those images, my mind tells me that something is wrong. I don't have an answer, but we will keep asking the questions. Hopefully an answer will come.

Concerning flight 77’s chronology, I did some inquiring on this and found that the plane was in a holding pattern for some reason. Beyond this explanation, I do not have one. Here is a brief chronological run down on flight 77:

American Airlines Flight 77

Boeing 757

8:20 A.M. - departs Washington Dulles Airport bound for Los Angeles;

9:24 A.M. - The FAA notifies NORAD that the flight has been hijacked.

9:40 A.M. - crashes into the Pentagon

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Your comments will be on top Saturday.

It is comments like yours that help me to focus more on the idea that what Dick Eastman has suggested is not true. And yet, every time I look at that one photo of the building, provided on line today by another reader who responded, I have to wonder. What I see is green grass almost up to the building. What my eyes see is a single point of contact on the building with no aircraft fuselage whatsoever. Not all of the debris could possibly have disappeared into thin air. Either I'm not seeing a good view of the crash site (although one could say that this picture provides a fairly good view), or someone has doctored the photograph to cast doubt on the official story. How do you account for the picture and the lack of debris? This is the ONLY sticking point that I can see. If there were no witnesses, I'd have no problem believing my eyes. But, with alleged witnesses, it makes it much harder to doubt common sense.

I have moments when I default to common sense and the same arguments that you have presented. This is the direction that the human mind would have us go because NOTHING ELSE MAKES ANY SENSE. But, there is one thing about all of this that keeps popping up. You take the untitled jpg picture that I sent to you (pictured at the top of this commentary), you can almost see grass right up to the building. I do not see any point of impact on the ground that is evident by this photo.

Now, I am entirely conscious of the fact that I am not seeing all the views of this crash site that could be seen if I were there. But, not one picture that I have laid eyes on to date has shown me a point of impact, let alone at least a tail section, which you and I know almost always survives the worst of crashes. I cannot think of a single crash where the tail was not sticking up somewhere. Can you?

What happened to all those people... this is another common-sense thing.

The difference between you and I on this issue is that you have a strong influence of having talked to folks you know [in D.C.] who believe wholeheartedly that they saw a 757. That is pretty powerful stuff, you have to admit. However, what do your eyes tell you if you totally IGNORE all the things your friends on site have said? You see, those of us who live afar, we have no other evidence of a physical nature to hold on to. Surely you can understand this. And, through testimony like yours, it does help; but, of course, it's second-hand testimony. I do not know the folks who told you they saw a 757. You do.

Also, knowing of some of the aggressive weapons now on the shelf designed to counter an enemy's military, or any large group for that matter--like anyone within RF transmission range of the Pentagon on 11 Sept, 2001--I at least have to wonder.

I really do not want to wonder, sometimes. There are times when I would rather go back to sleep, accept the official stories, all of them, and go on with my life as though there were no bad men operating within this world. It's hard to go back to sleep once you've awakened.

Stu,

This is the reason why we're devoting so much time to this issue. Where is the plane? Good question.

Delores,

I have to agree with you and that is why www.giantkillers.org is devoting this much effort and time on this subject. There is something wrong here, but I'm not sure what it is yet.

Sue,

I did not see the crash site in Pa. I will make some inquiries. I do know that, historically speaking, the tail section has survived just about every commercial crash that I know of. I cannot think of one where there has not at least been a tail section. Come to think of it, in my experience, I have not ever seen a crash where there was not at least remnants fuselage of some kind to show for it.

The problem that I have is that 1) my mind says there is nothing wrong here, and 2) my eyes tell me there is something amiss. I do not have the answer to this one. You may.