Browse by Category
Graphic image for 9/11 foreknowledge
Graphic: unanswered questions
Graphic of paper shredder- destruction of evidence
Graphic: conflict of interest
Cui bono graphic
Alleged Hijacker graphic
9/11 Commission Shield

Pentagon hit by flying grilled cheese sandwich, video frames show

CleanPrintBtn gray smallPdfBtn gray smallEmailBtn gray small

by Mike Adams

Counterthink.org 

Pentagon and the Pentagon The Pentagon wasn’t hit by a Boeing 757 jetliner. It was hit by a flying grilled cheese sandwich. How do I know? I clearly saw it in the video frames released by the FBI, there on the right. Not everybody sees the grilled cheese sandwich, I admit. Some people see a Boeing 757 jet out of the same blur that I’m pretty sure is a grilled cheese sandwich.

It’s astonishing, really. According to almost every reporter in the mainstream media, a Boeing 757 jet, when photographed, looks exactly like an indistinguishable blur. Let’s face it: The video frames released by the Pentagon make ghost and UFO photos look downright crisp. And yet, somehow, out of this unrecognizable blur, mainstream media stories are claiming they clearly show a Boeing 757 jet and that all 9-11 conspiracy theories are now dispelled.

They must not be looking at the same video frames I’m looking at, which are the ones released by the FBI ( click here to see photos ). Instead, they must be accidentally looking at the Photoshopped mock up video frames created to show what a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon would really look like if, in fact, a Boeing 757 had hit the Pentagon.

But I’m sticking with my grilled cheese sandwich conspiracy theory, which has something to do with the war on cheese and USDA regulations regarding dairy products, I’m pretty sure. Because the FBI has only released selected video frames , not the entire video sequence, which means they are clearly trying to hide the presence of the flying grilled cheese sandwich. Out of 84 confiscated video tapes that might show what really hit the Pentagon, these few selective frames are the best they can come up with?

People will see what they want to see, I suppose. Some people over at Fox News insist they see a Boeing 757 in these video frames. And why not? I once saw the Virgin Mary on a Mexican tortilla. Years ago, I thought I saw Jay Leno on a pancake (before I ate it, that is). People tend to see what they are told to see, or what they’re familiar with. Some folks see letters of the alphabet carved into rocks on Mars .

The great national Rorschach inkblot

I have a question for these people: If they can see a Boeing 757 in a blurry video frame, why can’t they see the far clearer face of a demon rising out of the smoke from the WTC tower? Click here to see the demon face picture (scroll down the page after you click).

For the record, this demon face is just a coincidental image made of smoke and shadows. You can spot demons, or butterflies, or faces, or practically anything if you spend enough time looking at natural phenomena like smoke, rocks, water or even tree bark.

But no matter how long I stare at the Pentagon video frames, I still cannot see a Boeing 757. I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way to see a Boeing 757 in the frames released so far is to hallucinate it . Americans are good a hallucinating, especially when such hallucinations are demanded by the mainstream media. Drugged up on fluoride and medications, about half the American population will see anything you tell them to see, as long as it is consistent with current cultural mythology.

Besides, don’t you think that if a Boeing 757 had been clearly caught on tape smashing into the Pentagon, Fox News would be showing the video with non-stop repetition like it did with the twin towers tapes? If videos existed that bolstered the government’s story, you can bet they’d be circulating. Or maybe, just maybe, they’re holding them back in preparation for a grand public announcement intended to embarrass conspiracy theorists. Or perhaps they need more time to Photoshop the video frames. Either way, we’ll probably never know.

Mass media misdirection

Actually, it doesn’t really matter what hit the Pentagon. This isn’t the whole story. It’s just a distraction to keep people from talking about the WTC 7 building — the one that mysteriously collapsed in controlled demolition fashion due to, we’re told, a couple of small office fires.

The mainstream media won’t touch the WTC 7 question, because there’s plenty of video footage showing its controlled demolition, and there’s no reasonable explanation for what happened other than the use of pre-planned explosive charges. So, using the oldest magician’s trick in the book — misdirection — the media keeps people focused on the Pentagon video frames so they won’t think about WTC 7.

Using the same straw man argument, the mainstream media leaps to the outrageous conclusion that a few blurry Pentagon video frames dispel all 9-11 conspiracy theories and magically explain everything. If a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the thinking goes, then WTC 7 wasn’t demolished with explosive charges, either. I know, it makes no sense, but since when did fear mongering and war marketing have to make any sense?

Now maybe I’m wrong about the Pentagon. Maybe a Boeing 757 did strike the building and then vanish into thin air, leaving behind no trace of its passengers, luggage, seats, undercarriage or engines. And maybe the FBI will yet release some more convincing video frames showing this with unquestioning clarity. Maybe the Virgin Mary really did visit that tortilla. Maybe those Pentagon video frames really do show a giant Boeing 757 right smack in the middle of these frames, but my mind unconsciously deletes the jetliner every time I look at the them.

These are all possibilities that must be considered. Some are more likely than others.

But even if these video frames prove nothing, the big question remains: What could have hit the Pentagon and exploded in such an obvious fireball (which is clearly visible in the video frames)?

The conspiracy theorists say it might have been a single-engine US Navy A3 SkyWarrior jet. Or perhaps a remote controlled (but heavily armed) drone. I think it was a high-speed grilled cheese sandwich flung by the hand of Allah, all the way from Afganistan. That’s the only thing that can explain both the missing airplane wreckage and the smell of burned toast following the incident. Remember all those civilians combing the Pentagon lawn, looking for something? They were actually looking for cheese. Someone moved their cheese, and they don’t know what to do.

There’s also another theory that no one has proposed yet: Maybe it’s something so darned scary that we don’t want to know about it, and perhaps the Pentagon is covering this up just to shield us from something that’s a serious national security issue. For example, maybe some high school science geek built a breakthrough antimatter weapon as his science project, then flew it into the Pentagon using a toy remote controlled helicopter. Or, perhaps a member of the Pentagon staff experienced spontaneous human combustion and happened to be standing next to a fuel storage tank.

Maybe China has an orbital laser platform and used it to blast the Pentagon (which would explain why there’s no airplane in the video frames and no airplane-sized hole in the side of the Pentagon). Maybe a freak-of-nature ball lightning phenomenon occurred. Perhaps an alien race visited earth, fired proton torpedoes into the Pentagon, then escaped at light speed (which would explain the blur on the video frames). Perhaps it wasn’t the Pentagon that exploded, but rather the air around the Pentagon that imploded , sucking the fire right out of the building and leaving no trace of an airplane.

These are all possibilities that must be considered. Some are more likely than others.

Maybe nothing happened at all. Were you really there? Did you see it with your own eyes? I didn’t. It’s all second-hand knowledge, or third-hand, or worse. Some people claim the NASA moon landings were faked or that the earth is really flat. I mean, have you ever walked to the edge to find out? So how would you really know? I know the answer to those two questions because I understand the laws of physics. NASA really did land on the moon, and the earth is actually shaped like a giant grilled cheese sandwich.

It all comes down to a basic question of how do we know what we know? And unfortunately, when it comes to 9-11, the only thing we do know for sure is that the laws of physics were still operating that day, and that tells us a lot about what did and didn’t happen, especially with the WTC 7 building. But it will never tell us for certain what hit the Pentagon, or why.

Neither will we be told why we’re not being shown the full frames of all 84 confiscated video tapes. Perhaps the videos actually show a military official stealing office pens from the Pentagon, and they don’t want to make that public. Maybe they show a giant “X” spray-painted on the side of the Pentagon, as in, “Hit it here!” Perhaps the 84 videos were all mysteriously erased by the terrorists who don’t want the FBI to study their flight path, or the FBI is so strapped for cash that it’s waiting to auction them off on eBay to the highest bidder.

These are all possibilities that must be considered. Some are more likely than others.


See source article here .


Fair Use Notice This page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.