Odd. What I see (not very distinctly) in those videos is what appears to be a smallish, white aircraft of some kind, but not a huge airliner, and it's going level to the ground, and damn fast. It looks more like a cruise missile to me, which is what some eyewitnesses there on that day have said they both heard and saw. Others said they saw a Boeing 757. Others said they saw a small white plane. The French author, Thierry Meyssan, who wrote that book "The Big Lie" thinks it was a military cruise missile, fired by someone in the American defense establishment.

I went cruising around on the Net and found this article Robbins' article attacking the French author by James S. Robbins of the National Review. He disagrees extremely with Thierry Meyssan and says he was there on that day and saw the 757 dive on the building. In his words:

"I went back to my office around 9:20. A short time later a friend of mine called, an Air Force officer, and we spoke awhile about the strikes in New York. I was standing, looking out my large office window, which faces west and from six stories up has a commanding view of the Potomac and the Virginia heights. (When I hired on my boss said we had the best view in town. True, most days.) The Pentagon is about a mile and half distant in the center of the tableau. I was looking directly at it when the aircraft struck. The sight of the 757 diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen in my memory, but at the time, I did not immediately comprehend what I was witnessing. There was a silvery flash, an explosion, and a dark, mushroom shaped cloud rose over the building. I froze, gaping for a second until the sound of the detonation, a sharp pop at that distance, shook me out of it.

Odd....because what shows in the video is not a
757 diving on the building, but what looks like a considerably smaller white vehicle flying low and dead level, just above the ground, straight into the building.

The government story is that the plane clipped several light poles in its descent, bounced off the lawn or slid across the lawn, and slammed into the building.

But photos of the damage before the fire department even arrived show no damage at all to the lawn, no debris on the lawn, and no 757 sized marks of damage to the outer face of the building...no evidence of the wings or tail striking the building...no evidence of the heavy, wing-mounted engines striking the building.

The damage to the building shown by photos taken on that day before the fires caused the roof to fall in is consistent with the kind of damage that would be done by a bunker-penetrating cruise missile. It's a single hole, such as would be made by such a missile. A 757 would have made a central hole where the fuselage hit, a large hole on either side where each engine struck, and some large extended areas of damage to either side where the wings struck, and some additional damage above the central hole where the tail struck. But what did we have? Just the central hole, period, as would be made by a cruise missile or a much smaller airframe than that of a 757.

So who is lying here? Or who is misconstruing what happened? Is there any way for you or I to know who is lying? Not really. Lies are often told. (Remember the great one about the babies being removed from incubators and left to die by Saddam's "fiendish" soldiers in Kuwait City? It was an eyewitness report by a personable young woman who wept as she told it. Totally convincing. Everyone believed it. It got the American public onside to support the Gulf War in 1991. But it turned out to be a totally fabricated lie, crafted to sway public opinion. She was a good actor.)   

So we have no way of knowing who is lying. We have to go on faith. But at least we do have some pictures taken by the media and by satellite on that day, both immediately after the explosion and some time later, and they might indicate something, right? Those pictures do not indicate to me that a 757 hit either the Pentagon...or the lawn...on Sept 11th.

The whole thing is extremely odd, to say the least.

Do I have a final conclusion about it? No. But it's odd.