As each day passes, more and more Americans are becoming aware of the startling evidence that clearly contradicts the official explanation of Sept.11th, 2001 offered by the Bush administration. In fact, as more and more evidence comes to light, incongruities in the official explanation become increasingly and undeniably apparent.

Ironically, the growing number of people new to these unexplained discrepancies poses a new problem for those of us who have been researching 9/11 for many months or years. We will have to find a way to explain the many complexities related to the attacks to those who now doubt the official version of events. We are faced with the overwhelming task helping great numbers of people understand the many contradictions in the 9/11 story they were fed by their government.

Obviously, that is not an easy assignment, even when the great majority of truth seekers agree that the official explanation is little more than a pre-written cover story designed to herd the American public into supporting an agenda that would otherwise horrify and outrage them. However, it becomes far more complicated in light of a topic that causes a great deal of confusion within the research community itself. That disparity relates to the strike on the Pentagon.

Many questions still remain about what actually took place at the Pentagon on September 11th 2001. That's fine, because the goal of the 9/11 truth community is to raise these questions for further investigation. The problem arises when researchers feel that it is their responsibility to explain what happened at the Pentagon. It is NOT. Rather, it is their charge to highlight the doubts that have been legitimately raised regarding what exactly hit that building.

Some researchers claim that a 110,000 ton Boeing 757 hit the building, leaving only a 16 foot hole in the facade (prior to its collapse some 22 minutes after the initial impact.) Others claim that an A-3 Skywarrior fighter jet was the actual aircraft. Some say it was an unmanned Global Hawk armed with depleted uranium missiles, and still others claim that the Pentagon was hit by another type of military missile. We can argue each of these theories forever, and accomplish absolutely nothing.

We really have to put and end the internal dispute that is getting us nowhere and work together to bring information rather than more uncertainty to the public that is now just entering the 9/11 discussion. To that end, I am posing ONE pertinent question about the strike on the Pentagon: Why didn't they show us the wreckage?

Planes do not simply vaporize. Never in the history of aviation disasters has an aircraft ever totally disintegrated. Even exploding space shuttles did not vanish into thin air. Therefore, it stands to reason that whatever hit the Pentagon had to leave some recoverable debris in its wake. Surely, there had be enough identifiable rubble remaining from a 110,000 ton aircraft to satisfy the skeptics?

Read the full blog here:

http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=355