Dave McGowan Has Some Choice Words

on the Pentagon hit as well.

[Editor's Note: A popular hobby of late among some 9-11 researchers seems to involve disparaging the efforts of, and questioning the motives of, those researchers who refuse to ignore the fact that the available evidence is entirely inconsistent with the crash of a jetliner at the Pentagon. These individuals generally refer to certain other Pentagon investigators as "no-plane" theorists. For the purposes of this article, I have adopted a name for them as well: Tattoo theorists. This appellation is, of course, an homage to the "Fantasy Island" character best known for the tag line, "Ze plane! Ze plane!"
Two of the most aggressive of the Tattoo theorists, by the way, are Jim Hoffman and Brian Salter, both of whom were on the other side of the fence, so to speak, until fairly recently. If you have ever known someone who quit smoking and thereafter embarked on a mission to browbeat and berate every other smoker on the planet, then you have a pretty good idea of how the Tattoo theorists operate.]

On February 24, Brian Salter (questionsquestions.net) posted a histrionic denunciation of Pentagon "no-plane" theorists that included the bizarre claim that any efforts to "keep the unnecessary no-plane speculation alive just helps to smear 9-11 Truth activists as hateful maniacs. Maybe that's the idea."

Well, I guess the jig is up. Mr. Salter, it seems, has figured out our diabolical plot. All along, the real goal has been to cast 9-11 researchers as - dare I say it? - hateful maniacs. In fact, the 'talking points' that I receive from my secret CIA backers routinely contain such notations as: "Operation Hateful Maniacs is, as you know, proceeding on schedule; prepare to shift into the next phase of the program, Operation Deranged Psychopaths."

Of course, it could also be that those of us who continue to focus on the glaring inconsistencies in the official story of what happened at the Pentagon are actually pursuing the truth, which is what a "Truth activist" is supposed to do, rather than peddling entirely speculative drivel about a mythical 'plane bomb,' which is what the Tattoo theorists choose to do.

The primary strong-arm tactic of the Tattoo theorists is to cast "no-plane" theorists as part of a Cointelpro-type operation aimed at undermining the 9-11 skeptics' case. The "no-plane" theories, it is claimed, are "straw man" arguments, propped up specifically so that they can be easily brushed aside by "debunkers," thus discrediting the 9-11 movement in its entirety by attacking at points of greatest vulnerability.(snip)

I must say I have run into one of these "Tattoo theorists" myself, and boy do they get upset if you dare suggest something besides a 757 hit the Pentagon.

I have a newsflash for these people. As much as I hate to say it, the 9/11 truth movement isn't going anywhere. So why do these people get so upset if a few people question the fairly odd evidence about the official Pentagon story? What is the big deal? The fact is, the media is going to make us look like kooks no matter what we say. We are kooks to them simply because we dare question the official 9/11 story AND we dare suggest the US government was complicit in 9/11. Even if we just made our case that the government had foreknowledge of 9/11 because of CIA connections to the ISI and to Al Qaeda, they would still paint us as kooks. But frankly, in some respects, any publicity is good publicity. If the media wants to poke fun at the kooky ideas of conspiracy theorists, then let them-- and at least some people in the general public who haven't thought of other interpretations of 9/11 will have their mind opened up a little. Who knows, such a story might even inspire new researchers and new interest in 9/11.

In any case, I basically agree with most everything McGowan has to say in this essay-- particularly in regards to (cough) John Judge. I do think McGowan is overly suspicious of the PentagonResearch.com site though.