The Pentagon Strike, Popular Mechanics and the 9/11 Truth Movement

The March Issue of Popular Mechanics Magazine is running an article that it claims "refutes the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11". It covers everything from the WTC attacks, to the crash of Flight 93, or as Donald Rumsfeld more accurately put it, the shooting down of the plane over Pennsylvania.
All this might lead the reader of these claims to conclude that they've now dug up an American Airlines Boeing 757 at the Pentagon and have the photographs to prove it.

Not exactly.

Instead, they've quoted structural engineer Allyn E. Kilsheimer, an eyewitness who states,

"It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," [...]
"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box."

Really, and what sort of plane would that be exactly?
He doesn't say.

The online article supplies just one photograph that's been in circulation on the web for more than three years. It shows a small, mangled piece of painted metal, with neatly serrated edges, that is amazingly untarnished despite surviving a 530mph (NTSC) impact and being hurled some distance from the Pentagon by the explosion.
Not only that, but it appears to be painted a light blue colour. American Airlines doesn't paint it's aircraft, besides the logo. They're HIGHLY REFLECTIVE aluminium.
Nethertheless, the magazine states, it is "proof that a passenger plane, not a missile, hit the building."
Actually, it's "proof" there was a piece of metal sitting on the lawn outside the Pentagon. What this piece really belongs to is anybody's guess; a helicopter, a drone, or planted evidence are a few of the other possibilities.

The magazine does acknowledge that photographs clearly show intact windows near the plane's point of impact. And then, just to shoot itself in the foot again, it quotes Ken Hays, Executive Vice President of the company that manufactured the windows, who says of them:

"They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes.

No kidding. And a high speed impact of an 80 ton commercial airliner will certainly create a "wracking seismic force". Enough to drill a hole through several layers of steel-reinforced concrete if we are to believe the ASCE.
However, according to a report that analysed data from nearby siesmic recording stations, whatever hit the Pentagon didn't create the seismic force that the planes that hit the towers did,

We analyzed seismic records from five stations in the northeastern United States, ranging from 63 to 350 km from the Pentagon. Despite detailed analysis of the data, we could not find a clear seismic signal. Even the closest station ( = 62.8 km) at Soldier's Delight, Baltimore County, Maryland (SDMD) did not record the impact. We concluded that the plane impact to the Pentagon generated relatively weak seismic signals. However, we positively identified seismic signals associated with United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed near Shanksville, Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The time of the plane crash was 10:06:05 5 (EDT).
- Seismic Observations During September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack
Full Report (PDF)

Now, how would they explain that one?

There are so many obvious flaws in the Popular Mechanics article, it's hard to know where to turn next, and I'm not going to continue since the article does a good job of exposing it's real intentions itself.
The publication of this article has come not long after some members of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement have done a simultaneous U-turn on the Pentagon evidence. For three years some of the most popular 9/11 websites have been citing the lack of evidence for a 757 crash at the Pentagon as an important and revealing piece of the puzzle for understanding the truth of 9/11. Which it is. As of September 2004, the "interpretation" of the evidence, or lack thereof, has changed and now a 757 DID crash at the Pentagon, or so they say.
Has more evidence come to light that requires we alter our hypothesis of "no Flight 77 at the Pentagon"?

Nope.

So, what are the odds that several unaffiliated 9/11 websites would all suddenly decide to change their mind on one of the strongest pieces of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
What seems to have happened is a coordinated response to the popularity of the Pentagon Flash which appeared in late August, and has been subsequently downloaded and watched by millions of people worldwide.
Surely this is precisely what the 9/11 Truth Movement has been wanting all along, right? Not so, it seems.
Instead, they've decided to "attack" the evidence cited in the video in true COINTELPRO style.
Perhaps the Powers That Be have decided that its creators are digging a little too deep in their search for Truth. Of course, the U-turn also serves to show the public that corruption is found even in so-called "truth movements".
And now, with the "flawed" Popular Mechanics article giving the population another reason to distrust authority, one would be forgiven for wondering what's really going on.

Fortunately then, here is an article that gives a well researched insight into the players and motives behind the 9/11 Truth Movement:

Looking at the current infighting going on at present, it would appear that CoIntelPro agents have done a fine job. No one knows who is who anymore, everyone suspects everyone else, and those members of the public whose minds are not, as yet, welded shut will be the ones to suffer most from the lack of coherent information about what really happened on 911, who really is to blame, or what the real issue is.

For any 9-11 investigator to come out and say that a 757 plane definitely hit the Pentagon is to rob the public of the singularly most important aspect of 9-11 and the one that has the chance to blow the whole dastardly plot wide open.
Full Article.