Concerning the 9/11 Plane vs. Missile Hitting the Pentagon Debate

I am a 9/11 Truther, but sites such as these do need to be dealt with:

That last one concludes that it was "terrorists." Well, who planned what? Just because it looks to that author that it was in fact a plane doesn't mean that the whole of 9/11 was neocon-free of planners. We have to look at 9/11 in its entirety. The Pentagon plane-versus-missile debate is only one small aspect.

One cannot be blamed for having debated the plane-versus-missile question even if that author is correct that it was a plane. That's because the Pentagon has deliberately left the people out to dry concerning their questions. Why is Above Top Secret a better source than the Pentagon for why we might want to conclude that it was in fact a plane versus a missile?

We know that many questions concerning what happened in New York remain unaddressed by the government in any thorough or thoughtful way. Frankly, I can't see the government refuting the Architects and Engineers ( and building-demo experts about Building 7, and this Above Top Secret post certainly doesn't put that to rest.

That said, I still commend the author for his efforts up to the point where he said it was terrorists without saying if he is suggesting that none of 9/11 was an inside job. After all, they let that "plane" hit the Pentagon before one single alarm was set off there. Have they shot down the argument that the Pentagon has anti-aircraft missiles? The government doesn't speak.

Why did Dick Cheney let that plane hit the Pentagon? Was it so he wouldn't take the heat of killing the passengers who might otherwise have survived by who knows what means (taking over the skyjackers or something at the last second)? We aren't given the answers.

We the People of the United States of America are stonewalled by our supposed government (meaning we are supposed to own it and not the other way around), which is an evil thing to do no matter what.

National Security depends on the people being behind their government, which requires that that government give the people every reason to trust it. That government has been doing the opposite of that for a long time.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.