text:
"What Hit the Pentagon?"
ProfJones Sat, 08/29/2009 - 12:28pm
Journal of 911 Studies
Noted 9/11 research Dr. Frank Legge has published a revised version of his paper with additional notes and discussion, "What Hit the Pentagon?" The paper is available at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf
His first version of the paper generated a great deal of discussion about this important issue. In presenting this revision, Dr. Legge notes:
"This version has been prepared to take into account a number of issues raised by critics and defenders of the original paper. Discussion of the implications of accepting or rejecting the official position that a 757 hit the Pentagon has been expanded and clarified. I am very grateful for the help provided. All significant alterations have been identified and discussed in footnotes."
No doubt this revised version will encourage further discussion of what hit the Pentagon, and perhaps more importantly, a renewed push to obtain release of withheld video footage that will show unequivocally what hit the Pentagon – and a renewed interest in the whistleblower testimony of Secretary of Transportation (at the time) Norman Mineta.
At Dr. Legge's suggestion, I should also like to announce an informative new site: http://www.scienceof911.com.au/
My congratulations to physicist David Chandler on his continued 9/11 research findings.
My sincere best wishes to all as we approach the 8th anniversary of 9/11.
ProfJones's blog
Good essay Dr. Legge!
"Precautionary Principle" is a term I hope everybody has tucked away now.
Don't get too attached to a particular scenario; there's no point in it and it's sloppy chess.
Dearth on Sat, 08/29/2009 - 7:03pm.
Can Dr. Legge or anyone else bring any light
to the question of what may have happened in the Pentagon at 9:32 a.m.? Any veteran knows that the keeping of correct time is a priority in military operations.
Photos show at least two analog wall clocks were stopped at 9:32, which is the time given for impact of AA77 in the original FAA timeline.
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/clock-stoppers/
"On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson
Michael Fury on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 2:31pm.
Check out Barbara Honegger's work...
Barbara Honegger has done great deal of very convincing research that establishes an explosion[s] that happened between 09:30 or 09:32. I do not have the link to her white paper but I'm sure you can google it...or someone will find a link. BTW...she uses these clocks as some of her evidence.
This-these explosive events happened between seven and five minutes before the "final time of arrival" that the 9/11 Commission settled upon, respectively...and if true, certainly has to motivate many folks to reevaluate their positions, collected information and theories.
Its my opinion that the FDR provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth via a fellow in ENGLAND???..has been hacked and made to fit the story, or perhaps one of the stories that the HI PERPS want told.
The FDR data failed to show the beginning of a descent by AA77 just before it was lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio. This failure to record the descent disqualifies all the data AFTER the descent was initiated. So, any times of arrival established by the FDR that was allegedly on board the alleged AA77 should not be depended upon as being accurate.
Eyewitnesses, and in this case, clockwitnesses are very strong evidence...and Barbara has done some good work here.
Everybody in the 9/11TM should put on some brakes, back off a bit, collect more early information, review ALL the scenarios, most noteably their own, and start over as fresh as they can when it comes to the events at the Pentagon. This is the most well hidden set of events and is subject to more cointelpro and disinfo than any other aspect of the events on 9/11/2001. So, its gonna take some time to unwind this massive ball of string.
The latest review of an older theory...that of an "exploding plane" which indeed was put out there early on, deserves some deep reconsideration as it seems to answer a few questions out here.
The facts will eventually come out and be assembled into something that makes sense...someday.
Additionally, one of the videos from a hotel shows an explosion at the Pentagon at 09:34...and the times of such security cameras are notoriously in error by a few minutes...and it could be in error either way...earlier or later...
love, peace and progress...
Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Robin Hordon on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 3:19pm.
Some sense here...
"Everybody in the 9/11TM should put on some brakes, back off a bit, collect more early information, review ALL the scenarios, most noteably their own, and start over as fresh as they can when it comes to the events at the Pentagon."
Robin interesting post that contains a lot of wisdom and it is obvious that many of us have done exactly what you've said to do....the conclusion we reached closely resembles franks article!
Kind regards John
9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au
John Bursill on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 3:58pm.
Barbara Honegger... really?
Isn't she the DOD employee who claims that al-Qaeda infiltrated the Pentagon and then chose the date of the 9/11 attack after finding out about the war games that were scheduled for that day? I don't find that credible at all.
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
YT on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 9:18pm.
Will The Real Barbara Honegger Please Stand Up
No, that is not Barbara Honegger!
Barbara Honeggar was an advisor in the Reagan administration. She says that a civilian airliner could not breach the Pentagon's air space and avoid the five missile batteries protecting the Pentagon (actually the Pentagon had six such batteries. One battery was hidden on the ground, while five were hidden on the roof). Why? Because a civilian airliner would not be transmitting the required IFF signal necessary to get near the Pentagon. Marine One transmits a military IFF, that is why the Pentagon's missile system allowed military aircraft approach without incident.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
brian78046 on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 11:00pm.
Pentagon Defense
"She says that a civilian airliner could not breach the Pentagon's air space and avoid the five missile batteries protecting the Pentagon (actually the Pentagon had six such batteries. One battery was hidden on the ground, while five were hidden on the roof)."
So does she have any proof of this or just something she believes? Because I've never seen any proof of this "defense shield", and until I do I don't see where I have any choice but to go with this instead.....
"WASHINGTON – Defense Department officials actually considered a terrorist scenario in which Islamic fundamentalist martyrs crashed planes into the otherwise impregnable Pentagon, but they ruled out countermeasures, such as anti-aircraft batteries and radar, as too costly and too dangerous to surrounding residential areas, a senior Pentagon official specializing in counterterrorism told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview."
"What's more, the airspace over the Pentagon, which is next to Reagan National Airport, is heavy with flight traffic, making engagement of threatening commercial aircraft too risky, the official says."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24426
And.....
"If the airliner had approached much nearer to the White House it might have been shot down by the Secret Service, who are believed to have a battery of ground-to-air Stinger missiles ready to defend the president's home."
"The Pentagon is not similarly defended. "We are an open society," said a military official. "We don't have soldiers positioned on the White House lawn and we don't have the Pentagon ringed with bunkers and tanks."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israe...
And ... what would seem to be an "official source".....
"Defense Department historians have published a book on the incident and its aftermath".......
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=47355
The Book says......
"The Pentagon did not have an antiaircraft system on the roof of the building or on the grounds. Even if DPS had received word of an inbound plane, it had no plan to counter a suicide air attack. Had a warning been issued in time, DPS's only effective response would have been evacuation and dispersal of the building's occupants." page 152
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0160783283/centerforcoop-20
So where is the source of these missile batteries?
jimd3100 on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 12:12am.
Sources Galore For Those Who Don't Rely On Pentagon Sources
Actually, the close proximity of National Airport is why there was a missile shield at the Pentagon dating back to the late 1950s. All a Soviet agent(s) (or any nut cases) had to do to take out America's National Military Command Center was to pivot their aircraft upon approach or takeoff from National Airport and crash into the Pentagon.
Barbara Honegger is Senior Military Affairs Journalist with the Naval Postgraduate School, so her credentials/sources speak for themselves.
John Judge also affirms the existence of missile batteries at the Pentagon:
"In addition to that, my parents used to take me to lunch during the day in the center area of the Pentagon in the courtyard in the middle. And I remember asking my father when I was young what certain things were there. And there were surface-to-air missile batteries in that area that defend the building."
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/UQPC061002.html
Thierry Meyssan reports on the Pentagon's missile batteries:
"The presence of these anti-missile batteries was testified to me by French officers to whom they were shown during an official visit to the Pentagon. This was later confirmed to me by a Saudi officer." (Pentagate [London: Carnot, 2002], 112, 116).
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060405112622982
Dean Jackson (Yeah, me!) reports on the Pentagon's missile batteries:
My source happens to be a co-worker I had four years ago here in Washington, DC who had a conversation with a National Airport official. My co-worker (whom I would bug with my conversations about 9/11) affirmed that the National Airport official told him that the Pentagon actually had six missile batteries.
I have FOUR sources on the existence of the Pentagon's missile batteries that all corroborate each other!
The fact that the Pentagon didn't call Thierry Meyssan's bluff and allow him and those French and Arab officers locate the missile batteries on the Pentagon's roof is just one more proof of the missiles' existence.
brian78046 on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 3:23am.
Pentagon sources and others
OK, so you have 4 sources for a missile battery at the pentagon.
1. John Judge's Dad told him so when he was a kid.
2.Thierry Meyssan who claims it was told to him from people who are not Americans.
3. Barbara Honegger says so.
4. You, who got the info a few years ago from someone who said they had a conversation with an "airport official" who told them.
Thanks for the info, I've been trying to find out exactly what the deal is with this pentagon defense thing. I'm not in a position to say what is and what isn't, I'm just trying to get to the truth on the matter. I guess it's up to the individual to decide what is a credible and reliable, and informed source.
BTW: Just curious....But you site Meyssan as a source on your website as well. Why?
"Now let us turn to the eyewitness accounts......a certain Mike Walter. He allegedly said: "I saw a plane. " Now his original words were: "I saw something that looked like a missile with wings".--From interview with Thierry Meyssan
http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=6673
What he really said.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTRsuRao7A
Can you tell us why you think this Thierry Meyssan guy is credible?
jimd3100 on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 8:01am.
Thierry Meyssan/Mike Walter
I site Thierry Meyssan because he is a journalist and prominent political activist in France, and his reputation in France would have been ruined if he were proved a liar on the subject of the Pentagon's missile batteries. His credibility is double affirmed by the fact that all the Pentagon can do is bad mouth Meyssan, but they didn't call his bluff and invite him to take a look at the Pentagon's roof, did they?!
As for reporter Mike Walter, read my article at www.DNotice.org, "It's A Bird! It's A Plane! It's Not Flight 77!".
brian78046 on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 2:44pm.
"His credibility is double affirmed by the fact that all the Pentagon can do is bad mouth Meyssan, but they didn't call his bluff and invite him to take a look at the Pentagon's roof, did they?!"
LOL! Do I even need to point out how obsurd this is?
"As for reporter Mike Walter, read my article at www.DNotice.org, "It's A Bird! It's A Plane! It's Not Flight 77!".
I already did, which is why I was asking why you consider Meyssan a credible source. But you also site Dick Eastman, CIT, and and other crackpots as credible sources too, in the same article.
Meyssan claimed Walter saw a missile. He didn't. He saw a plane. Meyssan is not a credible source, but you don't care about credible sources, and what is true and false. You just want to "prove" the official story wrong". That approach wont be taken seriously by honest researchers, historians, and individuals.
jimd3100 on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 3:49pm.
Read The Article Again. This Time Carefully!
If you had read the article on Flight 77 carefully, you would have read where Mike Walter couldn't have seen Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon because of a line of trees blocking that part of the Pentagon, as affirmed by Pentagon Police officer Sergeant Lagasse.
Where did I say Hoffman and Meyssan are credible in the article? I said they were early skeptics/critics of what really hit the Pentagon!
Meyssan's observation of the existence of the Pentagon's missile batteries (including the number) is matched by other sources that corroborate his account! That puts him in good standing when it comes to the existence of the Pentagon's missile batteries.
As far as Meyssan saying Mike Walter saw a Cruise missile, Walter said the American Airlines Jet looked like a Cruise missile with wings in the CNN interview, so Meyssan may have got a bad translation or thought Mike Walter was saying that the Cruise Missile like object was disguised as an American Airlines jet!
As for CIT, of course they are credible, too! What could be more credible than interviews of eyewitnesses at the Citgo Gas Station, whose line of sight south of the Citgo gas Station is blocked by the station itself, all of whom corroborate that the large aircraft flew by them to the NORTH of the Citgo! One would have to be an imbecile not to recognize that CIT's work destroys the official narrative of Flight 77.
Learn what a source is
"Meyssan's observation of the existence of the Pentagon's missile batteries (including the number) is matched by other sources that corroborate his account! That puts him in good standing when it comes to the existence of the Pentagon's missile batteries."
The fact is, you have no sources. Meyssan claims someone told him. your 2nd source Judge claims someone told him. Your 3rd source B.H. just claims it, and your 4th source-you admit you got it from someone who told you from someone who told them. Meanwhile it's never been confirmed by any person in authority, but outright denied.
"Meyssan's observation of the existence of the Pentagon's missile batteries"........Uh...Meyssan never "observed" anything. He can't even observe a taped interview correctly.
Back To Secondary School For jimd3100
jimd3100, where did I say Barbara Honegger, John Judge, Thierry Meyssan, and my source were primary sources? I didn't. However, all these secondary/tertiary sources all say the SAME thing about the existence of a Pentagon missile system (and the exact number of missiles to boot!), where John Judge affirms that such a system goes back to the late 1950s. The weight and significance of the corroboratory testimonials on this subject is mind-blowingly obvious!
Same person
I was referring to this article.
Specifically, points 6) and 8).
Also see: http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2006/12/barbara-psychic-munchkin.html
YT on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 12:51am.
That article is from 2002.
That article is from 2002. Is she still thinking this? There are a lot of people on here who in 2002 thought terrorists attacked our country. The body of knowledge has grown and they have caught on.
I knew on 9-12-01 that those WTC buildings were taken down. I just thought the terrorists had done it and was waiting for an investigation to find out how they got access. I don't think that any more.
Barbara exposed the October Surprise. I am very grateful to her for that. It explained so so much. Bush behind the scenes kept the hostages captive otherwise Carter would have been reelected. And then suddenly they are released when reagan is innaugurated. Very powerful and fake.
BreezyinVA on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 9:53am.
Thanks for the response, Robin.
Yes, I've read Honegger's paper. Not sure about the logic of her conclusion.
For me the clocks are a simple, tangible, in-your-face challenge. One is even part of the Smithsonian collection. There is simply no way those clocks could be six minutes slow. More evidence the OCT is a fraud.
Michael Fury on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:38pm.
I agree that we should focus on:
1. Nothing should have hit the Pentagon. This implies a stand-down order existed, as
appears to be confirmed by Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission.
2. The authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not.
However, FWIW The light poles were staged.
The light pole in the photo above was supposedly hit by the wing of an airplane going over 500mph. It was broken in two and knocked sideways. The pole would have had lateral momentum that had to be arrested by the ground. There would be lateral gouges in the grass where the pole skidded to a stop. There are no gouges. This pole was laid there.
Pointing out an obvious staged event discredits the official story. This is significant and doesn't depend on witnesses. You can see it with your own eyes.
ETA: Please don't go off on flyover or the rest of it. This is just an observation and it stands on its own.
Chris Sarns on Sat, 08/29/2009 - 8:22pm.
I agree Chris, certain things were staged for sure.
Those light poles, plane parts, 'eye-witness accounts' and so forth.
That's the fortress of the criminals.
It's rather weird to take those 'evidence' at the face value.
Like the other day, a fervent truther(regular here) wrote to me that he and plenty others recognized those parts left at the Pentagon were of B757.
I asked him to give me the link URL to see the photos of the said parts.
He took so long but at the end, he didn't give me any but just the link to Jim Hoffman's site.
Doesn't make sense at all.
It's like us believing their story of "we found a terrorist's passport at WTC" or even at the Pentagon, one of them left his ID card, eh? And you believe that when they say the plane was disintegrated?????
It's like trusting the perpetrator's fabrication.
Why are some of us so (SORRY BUT) naive??
Also, who can rate our comments here?
I don't think I have that privilege...
And please read my comment on the next page, folks! ;o)
9/11 Truth Australia
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Aus911Truth
September 11th was an Inside Job!
http://www.youtube.com/aftertruth
Aus911Truth on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:33am.
Voting on comments
Any registered member can vote comments up or down, if they are logged in.
If you are having a problem with this, please contact 911blogger.
LeftWright on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 12:43pm.
The link is in the upper
The link is in the upper left corner of each message. There should be two arrows not highlighted. You click on one and it becomes red.
BreezyinVA on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 12:51pm.
Thank you John and BreezyinVA ,
Now I see, yet I agree with Robin below.
Aus911Truth on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 7:31pm.
Stop the entire high school voting process...
This is absurd...putting power in the hands of cointelpro and those underinformed so that they can vote down the likes of established professionals and scientists...
This process could not be more foolish, counterproductive, divisive, and of course...it opens up opportunities for the site to devolve to the bottom rung of the ladder of life.
Its a stunning shame that this even was ever considerd.
Add to that element that there are some haughty "censors" imbedded in this site and its astounding that it still has ANY credibility at all.
DUMP THE VOTING PROGRAM...
Let the dialogue cleanse itself and disable the destablizing irritants from this process...
Robin Hordon on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 12:58pm.
DUMP THE VOTING
Or at least have a transparent voting system where we can see how many yays and nays each post receives, like on Digg, or Amazon, or any number of sites.
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb
Adam Syed on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 2:22pm.
There are perfectly good uses for down voting
Closing very long comments being the primary one.
When and why people vote the way they do is something everyone should think about very carefully when voting. My advice is...when in doubt, don't vote at all and just let the discussion unfold as it will.
I find it a bit strange that anyone would allow a subjective rating system to influence their objective analysis of a comment, or put too much emphasis on it, especially on a site where critical thinking and logic are very important.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, we should be able to agree to disagree and revisit a topic if and when new credible information becomes available.
Reinforcing manufactured divisions within the movement is completely counter-productive, imo.
We're all after the truth, brothers and sisters, let's not jump to conclusions and keep our eyes on the prize.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
LeftWright on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 2:37pm.
Are you serious?!?!
The voting system here is a friggin' joke!
I mean come on, John. How hard is it to just scroll down a long comment. It's not as if you're operating a water well exhausting your arm.
Adam Syed on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 5:03pm.
I think that the truth of Robin's position is self evident.
Seeing that Robin Hordon's reasoned comment suggesting that the voting process is flawed has just been down voted, he may have demonstrated his point.
mikezimmer on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 5:14pm.
Show "Absolutely true! Remember, Hitler was VOTED IN." by Aus911Truth
Absolutely true! Remember, Hitler was VOTED IN.
Again Robin is right.
> This is absurd...putting power in the hands of cointelpro and those underinformed
EXACTLY, it's simply to HIDE COMMENTS with correct analysis and information so that others won't see them unless they open - extra click could be fatal to get the right information to some readers.
Remember Hitler was ELECTED, so was Bush and the list goes on!!
If you think "voting" is democratic, it's NOT.
How about attaching the voters' names to the votes?
That might take a little software programming. (which I do not know how to do).
I admit that I am influenced by the opinons of others. If I see David Chandler's name (for example) at the end of a post on physics, I know that I am reading something that is well-thought out. It might be right and it might be wrong - but I can be reasonably sure that it is well-thought out, that it is sincere, and that it comes from someone qualified in physics.
We do not live in a vaccum. We do consider the judgments of others in making our own judgments.
zmzmzm on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 1:40pm.
This is why
I think many people implicitly trust Hoffman's take on the Pentagon, because he had written some of the best WTC essays prior to Steven Jones and Richard Gage coming onto the scene. I find his take on the Pentagon very mystifying, because I think it should be obvious to ANYONE that a large plane did not impact that building. My own personal feeling is that it's just as obvious as the demo of WTC7. But anyway, Hoffman could be totally right on re the WTC and totally wrong re the Pentagon. That's my take.
>>because I think it should be obvious to ANYONE that a large plane did not impact that building.
That is, except for all the people who were at the scene . . .
Victronix on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 6:22pm.
I don't see... and then,
Hi John LeftWright,
Obviously I am logged in to write this, but I still do not see that option available to me.
(I posted this, and then I found BreezyinVA's advice!)
Thank you, I found it. ;o)
There's a big difference
There is no clear proof that the plane parts were staged.
There are conflicting witness statements.
The photo of the light pole is a stand alone piece of evidence. Eloquent in its simplicity and far reaching in its effect. This single photo clearly shows the the government staged the light poles. Like the photo of the south tower leaning 22 degrees, it makes sense to the uninitiated and this is what matters.
Proving the government is lying with a sound bite or photo is essential in getting people to stop and think.
Chris Sarns on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 2:58pm.
Chris, please tell me
Why there was no real wreckage at all on the left side of this photo BUT they found those 'parts' on the other side, and the back of that heli-port tower?
My mate Akira indicating here that those small photos(in the photo on the right) were taken at those locations pointed by those arrows. He also says it was probably very convenient to have that tower with no windows, handy to keep things inside... LOL
And how come somebody hid the photo
that I attached here?????
HOW INTERESTNG!
I reposted the photo, and then the original photo that I attached in above post which I could not see a few seconds ago SHOWS UP!
Guess some might start calling me crazy or whatever for this weird phenomenon?
Aus911Truth on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 11:29pm.
It's probably a big conspiracy
Just like when you couldn't figure out how comment voting worked a few hours ago...
The Word is out....
Come one - Come all- 911blogger.com has changed hands and the new owners are no-plane and cit supporters. Want to start arguments that never end and promote the worst kind of speculation possible? This is the place to do it!
What a disappointment that the site Reprehensor spent so much time on and did such a great job on has been reduced to this in such a short period of time. Sad indeed.
Michael on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 8:30am.
I'm reminded...
Of a song entitled, "The Freaks Come Out At Night..." or in the 9/11 Truth World, "The Freaks Come Out Near The Anniversary When All Of The Eyes Of The World Are On Us In Order To Make Us Look Bad."
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Jon Gold on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 8:41am.
The only question is who are the freaks?
Care to go on the record as to who the freaks are?
Adam Ruff on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 10:43am.
Sure...
Everyone that A) promotes ridiculous theories that have no basis in fact, and make us look crazy B) doesn't care about the credibility of this cause C) promotes already debunked theories D) makes accusations with no basis in fact against people that are actually trying to make a difference E) starts arguments in order to take up everyone's time from activism, and to frustrate people, etc... etc... etc...
Jon Gold on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 11:35am.
So again I ask who qualifies for A, B, C, D, and E here?
Do I? Does anyone who finds CIT's presentations compelling qualify? Who meets these criteria Jon?
Adam Ruff on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 6:43pm.
They should be apparent...
To anyone that actually cares about this issue.
Jon Gold on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 9:34am.
Why not come right out and say who you are talking about?
Adam Ruff on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 7:38pm.
I don't like making accusations against specific people unless they really piss me off, and deserve to be called out for atrocious behavior. I will say that individuals who specifically try to start arguments with other people aren't high on my list.
Jon Gold on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 7:28am.
It should not be forgotten that NOT ONE of those pieces of debris has been identified as AA77 BY SERIAL NUMBER.
And if someone shows you a picture of a piece with a serial number you'll declare it's probably fake.
That's why the whole process in which people around assuming everything is faked is flawed -- without any viable scientific process for determining that anything is faked, then everything can be. And the criteria currently are "they couldn't have seen the plane" or "that pole would never look like that," etc. Those are opinion, which is different from facts and evidence. Unfortunately, facts and evidence take a lot more work than just typing out an opinion on a blog thread.
Victronix on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 6:55pm.
Some...
Fight for the truth, and some fight for their truth.
Jon Gold on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 7:04pm.
We agree here, Jon. Our
We agree here, Jon. Our views differ with regard to who is who.
I'm sure they...
Cha Ching!
Well, we agree here, Victoria:
facts and evidence take a lot more work than just typing out an opinion on a blog thread.
BINGO!!!
And work, Craig and Aldo have done. They've spent thousands of $$$ making numerous trips between California and Washington DC, canvassing the area in Arlington where the plane flew, searching for independent witnesses, tracking them down, scheduling interviews, etc.
What have you, your husband and "Arabesque" done in response? Oh that's right, typing out your OPINIONS on blogs and threads from the comfort of your arm chair.
Sorry, but if anyone deserves the Pulitzer Prize for on-location investigative journalism and hard work, it's Craig and Aldo, not you and Arabesque.
Jim Hoffman...
Was promoting 9/11 Truth long before you ever started posting on 911Blogger.com. As a matter of fact, the founder of this site LOVED Jim Hoffman's work. If I remember correctly, Jim Hoffman turned Steven Jones onto 9/11 Truth, or at least helped him along (maybe Victronix can help me out with the facts). He was promoting 9/11 Truth long before CIT existed, and has produced some of the most cited work in the movement. Show some respect.
I like Hoffman's WTC work. I
I like Hoffman's WTC work.
I myself have promoted 911research.wtc7.net MANY times in the past, though not so much since the advent of Gage's organization.
I simply have PROFOUND disagreements with him on the Pentagon.
What makes him think he's smarter or knows more about the aviation aspects of the Pentagon attack than, say, Balsamo or Hordon?
Jim...
Has done the right thing over the years by pointing out the contradictions to certain claims. To show "weak spots" in certain arguments so people don't go repeating verbatim certain claims as fact that may not be. He tried to get people to be responsible. He also tried to show that the amount of time, and energy spent on the "debate" itself is a waste, or at the very least, could be spent doing more productive things. In my humble opinion, the argument that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon is not a necessary argument to make. We don't need the argument. It's a useless argument, and one that has been used against us countless times. We could, however, make the argument that there are videos that need to be released. We could, however, make the argument that there are conflicting accounts regarding Donald Rumsfeld's whereabouts on the morning of 9/11. We could, however, make the argument that shoot down orders weren't issued until 10:18, and according to Norman Mineta (who verified on three separate occasions that the famous conversation between the young man and Cheney took place before the Pentagon was hit), Cheney was issuing orders that a certain young man thought needed clarification, or maybe didn't agree with that, as I pointed out, weren't shoot-down orders, because those weren't issued until after 9:37 (the official time the Pentagon was hit), and the conflicting Mineta account has never been properly addressed, and the young man was never named, or brought forward to tell us what he knows. We could be promoting NYCCAN, or trying to get journalists to be responsible, and cover this important issue so near to the anniversary. I could be wrong.
Do you know what's sad?
I must have made a variation of the above argument over 100x, and here we are today, still arguing over the same thing... and still having "hit pieces" focusing on this useless argument. Such a bitter disappointment.
Yes Jon that really is the best comment on this thread!
Good meaning people that can't drop what they believe for the benefit of the movement, that must know what hit the Pentagon?
The smell of ego and pride is all over this debate. All Frank has done is once again given people the rationale to drop this aspect of this subject...so we may move on.
Some people just don't get it, it is extremely disappointing to say the least.
Sadly John
Be the 9/11 Truther...
You want other people to be.
But it's so naive to think, Jon
But it's so naive to think that the real criminals will leave us alone.
They are very good at infiltrating to confuse and divide us all the time.
your on to something there Chihaya!
Frank Legge, Jim Hoffman, Dr Jones, Victoria, YT and me etc etc we're all agents trying to hide the truth from you! They pay us really well you know! (sarc)
Look up we're sending the planes to spray you again...look out ;)
psss...Those ex-military general types that can't see any evidence of a plane at the Pentagon are the ones you should follow...they have made great gains for us I'm sure with their influence we will get that new investigation pronto while they spend time emailing you with their extensive evidence!
All those faked photo's Hoffman got, simply unbelieavable he must be right up the top of the perp pile....
Regards John
John Bursill on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 1:13am.
And I'm really tired of people,
Yourself included, who act as the movement's self-appointed police on what is "irresponsible" and a "waste of time." The irony is that Hoffman and company stress what a waste of time Pentagon investigation supposedly is, yet have a profound obsession with steering people away from looking at the evidence presented by CIT and Pilots. Any time the "what happened at the pentagon" issue comes up, whether in a CIT based thread or in this thread, Hoffman (via his wife) swoops in to try to debunk everything and prove AA77's official impact story true. And with an obsession. They don't state their position and move on. They absolutely must have the last word. That's what I find very bizarre, and frankly, questionable.
No dents on the hood of the cab?
Seems odd to me but hey I am just a kook I guess.
that we are all human and thus not perfect.
I have yet to see any definitive evidence one way or the other regarding the Pentagon "attack", so I happily remain neutral and evaluate everything as it comes in.
I just bemoan the fact that some people have invested so much ego in this debate that they lose their objectivity, tolerance and civility (on all "sides", I hasten to add).
We need to be the change we want to see in the world, as that is the only way we will actually create that world.
LeftWright on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 7:40pm.
Show "We must keep in mind Jon," by Aus911Truth
We must keep in mind Jon,
that some fervent truthers like Killtown or Jim Fetzer turned into a no planer.
And think how many more we might have among us so that they the real criminals can stop us from within.
They NEED TO STOP US, right?
And what's a most 'effective way' they can have?
Destroy it from inside!
You are way out of line here Chihaya!
Get a grip please...leave that sort comment for your friends in the military that believe "there is no aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon"...leave hard working truth activists alone!
You are neither qualified nor have any right to make a comment here like that about Jim Hoffman.
Lets judge all by their fruits not what you imagine is true!
Why don't you let all know your views on Chemtrails, UFO's and the Moon landing so they may better judge your standard of evidence?
Do you ever wonder why you keep ending up on the street protesting by yourself?
Keep it real PLEASE and evidence based and we will all have success, being careful is a strength not a sign of an enemy! Rather it is like Fetzer, Reynolds and Woods being speculative and confident of unproven theories is a sign of an enemy!
Opinion is opinion, science is science....who is putting forward the science?
John, you are the one who told me that
you and plenty others identified those 'plane parts' found at the Pentagon were of B757's.
I asked you to give me the URLs to see the photos of them many a time.
You procrastinated for a while, and then finally gave me just Hoffman's site URL saying you're too busy to talk about 'b/s' on the Pentagon.
And you even wrote, "Back off Chihaya"!
What a surprise that was.
When you cannot answer a question, you get 'TOO BUSY' all of a sudden, eh?
And now, attacking me personally instead of presenting facts?
That's our opponent's usual tactics.
Very interesting, mate.
Why have I been doing the action all by myself with my daugher?
That's because those plants didn't want to help me at all.
Why have I been paying out of my pocket to make tons of flyers and hand them out to citizens since NOV07 or rather even before, cause I was doing it without calling it "11th Day Action"?
Some citizens asked me, "Don't you get killed?"
But I keep doing what I've been doing cause I want this HUGE LIE gets revealed.
You need to see what that person is doing rather than what he/she is saying.
That's what I always tell my daughter when you judge someone.
And what is your purpose of doing this here, John?
Not in pursuit of truth, obviously but to mislead others.
To give others wrong impression of me but ignore my questions.
That's how it seems to me, unfortunately.
Same tactics those used on Charlie Sheen, LC guys, Dave vonKleist and so forth.
> Keep it real PLEASE
I say the very same thing RIGHT BACK TO YOU, John.
I'm still waiting for the direct URLs of the photos that you told me of B757 at the Pentagon that you could NOT provide.
Chihaya why do I have to resend things time and time again?
Hoffman's site as I showed you has the photo's, it doesn't matter how many times I link them if you don't see them.
There is photo that everyone has seen of a main landing gear strut and axle assy, there is a couple of wheels and there is a few compressor sections of the motors. These photo's have been sited many, many times. Plus we have the pieces of fuselage all over the lawn of course asking me to continually show you the photo's when they are in the documents you attack is ridiculous...open your eyes and look, please.
You asking Dr Legge and the Journal to pull down Franks article is a disgrace to the Australian Movement. Frank Legge is an Australian hero and you have attacked him time and time again, their is no honour in this a Japanese should understand this better than any here!
The reason you continue to be by yourself at your actions is that people think your paranoid, off topic, opinionated and hard to deal with.
I told you to back off because I didn't want to end up in this situation...but here we are fighting in public :(
Why people can not understand Frank is making the case for our credibility, but you and many here only care for your speculation, opinion and imagination.
I expected this,
I asked you to send me the DIRECT LINK/URLs to the photos you told me but ALL YOU SENT ME was Hoffman's site URL(one).
You never sent me any direct link to any photo and now you say, you did it many a time?
I don't think I saw any new photos of any parts which clearly indicates that they are of B757.
Give us each link and who verified them as part of B757.
You must be able to do so if you really did what you tell us you did.
Also, you talk about small pieces on the lawn, but how can you tell that they are from the fuselage???
I expected this to happen having seen how weird you are and you not making sense, evading etc.
All you can do is to smear me with silly personal attack and ignore facts I presented.
Thank you Prof. Jones for this thread.
I learned a lot about our 'mates'...sadly..
Aus911Truth on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 1:50am.
WTC7 is what turned Prof.
WTC7 is what turned Prof. Jones on. When he saw that it was a big bingo.
BreezyinVA on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 9:23pm.
Could not have said it better.
You hit the nail on the head. This is what always bothered me about the anti-CIT, 911blogger vote gamer cabal, they are armchair critics who have not done the hard and expensive work of actually conducting original research themselves, rather they sit in the comfort of their home office and bash those who have done the work. It really makes me sick.
You are absolutely correct Adam. CIT did an outstanding job of investigating and should be commended instead of relentlessly attacked by a group of keyboard cowboys. I am going to go ahead and buy a copy of their DVDs just to spite the anti-CIT crowd. In fact I thank them now for making it so clear to me who the real truthers are and are not. Cheers Adam and cheers CIT.
P.S. Remember everyone the down voted comments are usually the best!
Adam Ruff on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 9:13pm.
They are attacked because they are pushing their way!
The reason for this reaction has nothing to do with the "work" of CIT it is that they must have there theory heralded as fact when it is fiction.
People like Legge, Hoffman, Ashley, and YT are the salt of this movement and have done far more "work" for us and the victims than have CIT.
You know have shown yourself for what you are someone who has zero understanding for what needs to be protected, our credibility! This is what people are fighting for here not there fricken half assed theory with 12 witnesses that do not support there conclusion!
Please go a explode somewhere else atomic!
What a shock YT is a hero for leveling slanders...
while CIT are scum for defending their work according to John. Yeah that opinion is about as fair and balanced as FOX news. You claim their theory is fiction then prove it is fiction, just saying so isn't enough John. Compile evidence, present it, and see how it stands up under scrutiny. In other words John, investigate, interview witnesses, conduct research, and make your case, you know the way CIT did. Oh and John your OPINION of me is noted and stored in the round file where it belongs with all the JREFer opinions of me. At this point I wear your insult as a badge of honor.
Adam Ruff on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 11:55pm.
I have never attacked CIT for their work, it is the conclusion!
Mate I sent their stuff out and I thought it was worthy research, it was what has happened since with the push to make the "flyover theory" a fact that got me to fight for our credibility.
I have presented some evidence...let me say it slowly for you,
t h e y h a v e 1 2 w i t n e s s e s t h a t D O N O T S U P P O R T their C O N C L U S I O N....do you understand that?
Frank Legge has provided the piece above I do not need to reiterate his evidence it is linked there...or didn't you read it?
Logic dictates....
Since the large aircraft flew towards the Pentagon from the NORTH side of the Citgo Gas Station, then obviously it wasn't the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon. There is no arguing with that point. Whether the large aircraft flew over the Pentagon or veered off is open to debate, but not the fact that it didn't hit the Pentagon.
brian78046 on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 5:03pm.
double post
Victronix, what we need is
> And if someone shows you a picture of a piece with a serial number
What we need here is NOT just a PHOTO but the real piece with a proof that it was found at the site which is most likely impossible I reckon, and its identification verified by absolute third party which is also very hard to have.
If you can get that, then let's talk about it. ;o)
Yes that would be great if it happens please bring a peice!
Chihaya,
I have personally directly compared the wing landing gear of a 757 and a photo taken at the scene....it is from a 757...no doubt.
We will only get access to the wreckage by getting respect from academics and politicians....what you propose is certain to slow that process.
You are without logic.....believing something does not make it a fact!
Then John,
> I have personally directly compared the wing landing gear of a 757 and a photo taken at the scene....it is from a 757...no doubt.
OK, what's the URL of that photo then?
And who are that 'plenty others' who agreed with you?
mmmmm it's in Jims Piece that Frank links to...that I sent you..
a few times....I sorry I thought you could read and see...it ain't rocket science it is talked about in that article. Did you ever read it?
http://911research.com/essays/pentagon/docs/landinggear1_s.jpg
Wow that's so hard to find...I thought you where an expert in these things Chihaya?
people that I know of that have simple looked at the 757 illustrated parts catalogue and seen this is a part of a 757 include all the people that you are attacking...the scholars that have reviewed Franks article, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, A few of my workmates....this is no secret or mystery?
That is a main landing gear strut and axle assy of a 757! Why don't you ask your mates at pilots or your military friends or even CIT to say that it is not? They can come to no other conclusion than I did or any person with eyes in their heads!
That should never have been able to, and nobody was held accountable.
Jon Gold on Sat, 08/29/2009 - 8:58pm.
Nobody was held accountable
In Great Brittan, the people responsible for this colossal failure would have resigned.
In France they would have been fired.
In Russia they would have been shot.
In America they got promoted.
Kinda makes you wonder.
Like...
Jon Gold on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 6:43am.
Questions I still have????
1) Why didn't the tail of Flight 77 damage the facade of the Pentagon? This problem is clearly mentioned in the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR). It states,
"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft's tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."
2) What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon? These are various explanations that I have heard over the years.
A) The nose of the plane caused the hole in the C-Ring. Lee Evey, the Pentagon Renovation Program spokesman stated, "the nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C Ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit." Donald Rumsfeld stated, "I'm told nose is - is still there."
B) The hole was made by one of the planes engines. "a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane." MDW News service.
C) The hole was created by a shockwave from the plane's impact.
National Geographic special, "Seconds to Disaster."
D) A "circle or ball of energy." Purdue University
E) Popular Mechanics claimed that the hole was created by the plane's landing gear. "The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide, not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage."
F) In the History Channel Documentary, "9/11 Conspiracies Episode: Fact or Fiction", Allyn Kilsheimer's explanation was, "The plane became almost like an artillery shell or tank round."
G) Rapid Wall Breaching Kit
H) Unknown
Amongst the Truthers, I'm wondering what are the best or most common answers to these questions?
tanabear on Sat, 08/29/2009 - 9:10pm.
Unanswerable questions
Did you read Frank's article? These questions are infinitely arguable, a diversion, a waste of time. The question is:
How could a hijacked plane they knew was coming hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated military in the world?
Chris Sarns: "Did you read Frank's article?" Yes
These questions are arguable in the same way as, "Who planted the explosives in WTC1,2,7 and how was it done?" In other words, questions that can't firmly be answered now but with more information they could be answered.
Nevertheless, if someone is promoting the official explanation, a hijacked Boeing 757, then these questions should be easily answerable.
Chris Sarns: "The question is: How could a hijacked plane they knew was coming hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated military in the world?"
Yes, this is a good question. But to the believers in the official story they already have an answer.
"At the suggestion of the Boston Center's military liaison, NEADS contacted the FAA's Washington Center to ask about American 11. In the course of the conversation, a Washington Center manager informed NEADS: "We're looking-we also lost American 77." The time was 9:34. This was the first notice to the military that American 77 was missing, and it had come by chance. If NEADS had not placed that call, the NEADS air defenders would have received no information whatsoever that the flight was even missing, although the FAA had been searching for it. No one at FAA headquarters ever asked for military assistance with American 77."
9/11 Commission Report
Of course, I don't believe this story, as NORAD had previously stated that they were notified at 9:24AM of Flight 77.
If you were to question a believer in the official story, which questions do think he would find more difficult to answer? Why didn't NORAD do anything about the hijacked plane? The answer is normally incompetence and confusion or "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." These are bad answers, but as long as they think there is an answer they aren't going to question the official story.
tanabear on Sat, 08/29/2009 - 10:26pm.
Commission offers a strawman and a red herring
The military didn't need to know AA 77 was hijacked; they already knew that 2 WTC towers had been hit by hijacked planes 40-55' prior; where was DCANG, tasked with defending the nation's capital?
Plus, fighters from NORAD's Langley base were sent out over the Atlantic and then after a phantom AA 11. This , following a 'Summer of Threat', which included numerous intelligence warnings and an Aug 6 PDB that warned of surveillance of federal bldgs in NYC and preparations consistent with hijackings, and the info given to the FBI by an Iranian intelligence asset (translated by Behrooz Sarshar) about attacks on 4-5 cities with planes in the next few months and Al Qaeda operatives already in the country, as well as warnings from at least 11 different countries. Samuel Byck tried to hijack an airliner in 1974 from BWI to crash it into the White House. According to NORAD trainer Ken Merchant, NORAD ran a hijack drill every year since the early 70's. And there were numerous examples from the 90's, including intelligence on Al Qaeda plots, to use commercial airliners as weapons against the US. If it simply 'incompetence' and 'negligence' that resulted in multiple violations of US airspace sovereignty (making a laughingstock of the US defense establishment), in addition to the loss of 3000-some lives and billions of dollars in economic and property damage, why were the lying 'nincompoops' promoted, and the whistleblowers threatened, harassed, fired? A full investigation is in order, including into the Commission's cover up.
I know you share these questions and concerns Tanabear- I'm just saying those who believe and promote the Commission's excuse- or who are obsessed with 'what' hit the Pentagon- are avoiding questions that go more directly to the heart of the matter.
Guilty For 9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers - Part 1
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
loose nuke on Sat, 08/29/2009 - 11:37pm.
What hit the Pentagon?
Yes, the official story and the 9/11 Commission Report leave much to be desired when it comes to fully and adequately explaining what happened that day. However, the title of Frank Legge's article is "What hit the Pentagon?" not "How could have something hit the Pentagon?" So the questions surrounding the physical evidence seemed more germane to me than say Norman Mineta's testimony.
I was asking questions regarding issues brought up by ASCE/Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR) but were never answered by the report. The hole in the C-ring and the lack of tail damage to the facade were the most glaring. Did it fall off beforehand, break off upon impact, where did it impact, where was it found etc? None of this was done. It just brings up the issue and then drops it as if it is not important to explain. I believe it is incumbent on the government to prove their claims and state what happened. So why did the PBPR fail to offer an explanation for these occurrences?
tanabear on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 11:04am.
The vertical stabilizer is the strongest clue...
...that a large aircraft did not hit the Pentagon.
Here is the way I look at the airfoils of an airliner hitting the Pentagon facades, outer walls, horizontal floors and cement columns...it applies to the wings and the bird-wing-foldback theory too...but not so clearly.
Lets accept for a moment that the wings and engines made it past the facade and the vertical columns on the frst floor without leaving any aluminum or other metals outside as they struck each column or floor...and lets concentrate on two things here:
1. What would have the vertical stabilizer have struck upon trying to enter the Pentagon?
2. What fuel was available to burn the entire airfoil into nothing traceable?
A given:
The vertical stabilizer would NOT have folded rearward and downward and be pulled inside the Pentagon like a bird would fold its wings. As soon as the vertical stabilizer hit the second, third, and fourth floors, it would have stopped its forward movement and would have compacted itself against these floors leaving almost ALL of its metal elements plasterd up against the floors...outside the building.
At the same time that the vertical stabilizer came to a stop outside the building, lets presume that the fuselage along with the wings had found a pathway into the Pentagon that was less impeded and slid inside towards the "C" ring [I'm not claiming that this happened BTW].
Point 1.
I argue that there would be a "shearing off" of the vertical stabilizer from its fuselage connections and as soon as this started to happen, it would rapidly loose ALL CONNECTIONS with the fuselage mounting elements and the vertical stablizer would STOP up against the three levels of horizontal flooring.
There would be nothing to "pull" the vertical stabilizer into the building...especially all the way down to the first floor. What would do this "pulling"? It had lost all its connections with the fuselage.
Only its own momentum would be the force to take on the horizontal cement flooring...and the aluminum would loose that battle.
OK, so now we have some aluminum crushed up against the three cement floors STILL outside the building...
What fuel would be there to burn the metals into oblivion...into non-existance...into fine residue that did not resemble anything like a verticle stabilizer?
There is no fuel available to do this as the wing and belly tanks were allegedly pulled inside the Penatgon for up to a hundred feet or so, if not more. The fuel was INSIDE the building...mostly to the left and right of the center hole where the vertical stabilizer would have come to rest.
The fuel certainly would have ignited and burned from well inside the Pentagon and would have curled its flame and smoke first into the chasms and hallways newly established inside the Pentagon, and then eventually back toward the outside wall...perhaps as it sought oxygen along the path where the heat was escaping.
Consequently, because of no significant fuel available in the local area, and because the fire engines were right on the scene and were set up to first handle external fires within just a few minutes...
...the vertical stabilizer remnants should have been able to be seen crushed against the cement flooring of the three floors...would be somewhat charred by the black smoke from the jet fuel fires...and they would be hanging right on the three floors for all to see.
...but the remnants of the vertical stablizer simply weren't there.
No vertical stabilizer, no B757...
But I'm still open minded about the various Penatgon scenarios...each scenario has a poison pill in it...each scenario has some strong truths to it...or so it appears.
Robin Hordon on Sat, 08/29/2009 - 11:41pm.
partly right
I think you have this partly right. The tail fin is certainly not strong enough, or strongly enough attached to the fuselage, to enter the Pentagon. What you are missing is the effect of the high speed collision on an object which, to the impacting object, is immovable. In a footnote to this paper there is something about an experiment done with a fighter jet, impacting a solid concrete block. The entire plane was turned into small fragments. One can conclude that those parts of the plane not heavy enough to penetrate the wall of the Pentagon would turn into small fragments, and there was plenty of them.
Frank Legge on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 3:56am.
those parts of the plane not heavy enough to penetrate the wall of the Pentagon would turn into small fragments, and there was plenty of them.
There were NOT plenty of them at all. And please don't show me a really zoomed-in photo which makes a paltry amount of debris appear to be halfway voluminous. A good aerial view of the scene shows a pitifully little amount of debris.
Interestingly, since you mention how the tail would turn into small fragments outside the building, it is interesting that in order to defend the official line about AA77 hitting the building, Popular Mechanics quoted a guy who said "It was absolutely a plane. I held the tail section in my hand." Implying that the tail stayed relatively in one piece. Of course the "testimony" is completely unbelievable because there are no photographs of a tail section, not to mention that the tail of a 757 is rather large and quite heavy.
Adam Syed on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 7:17am.
The only thing heavy about the 757 tail...
is a couple of hydraulic actuators and a HF coupler, the structure is quite weak being lightweight aluminium?
Compare that to an armoured stone building with bomb proof windows Adam...
Lets keep it real here...FRANK IS NOT SAYING IT WAS A 757....get ON TOPIC!
Sandia National Labs test
I believe you are referring to the Sandia National Labs test which shows an F-4 Phantom hitting a concrete block. The wings and the tail disintegrate, but they still cut right through the concrete block pulverizing most of it. You can watch a video of it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz5vhNvskk
Great point to remember...
I viewing that Sandia test many times over, one can see the leading edges of the wings cut right into the concrete block AND see all the cement dust created etc. There is a point here about the light poles that folks seem not to be interested in considering.
Although the leading edge of the Sandia F4 is far narrower or sharper than the leading edge if the outer wing leading edges of a B757, still the B757 leading edges are relatively thin and lets say, butter knife like.
It just seems to me that such narrow leading edges striking the light poles at such high speeds would create a "shearing" action that, although not an accurate comparison, would be like a weed whacker cord striking and shearing a weed. Its the SPEED of the impact mass that is the question here.
The light poles are really very thin aluminum and use what I think is called a monocoque [?] construction in which they gain strength NOT from mass of the metal as would a solid steel anything, but from the spherical shape of the aluminum forming the round poles themselves. And once this rounded shape is collapsed, the majority of the strength of the design is lost. We see this happen when we bend a copper pipe and it folds in the middle, or even when we bend a simple large plastic straw...there is more strength when the rounded [monocoque] shape is intact, and as soon as its compromised, there is virtually no resistance left.
So, this begs the question from my view as to why there were long graceful bends in many or most of the light poles? This indicates a longer and slower bending/shearing process had been applied to the light poles.
Although not applicable to all the light poles in question, the leading edge of the wingtips struck at, near or below where the attachments for the extended light supoorts were connecetd to the vertical light poles themselves. I think that this is important because all of this "stuff" at or above the impact points would provide more mass that would resist acceleration or movement as the shearing force had its affects. Again not perfectly accurate, but when one cuts down a tall weed, the lower the cut point, the less the top of the weed is displaced as the shearing takes place lower down the stem. Seems to me that the poles should have been clipped off so fast that the lower part would remain upright, mostly straight and still attatched to their moorings. But perhaps not...who knows?
Also, cannot some structural engineers do some form of mathematical calculations which would end this line of questioning. Structrural engineers work with this s\tuff all the time. I mean, SOMEBODY had to design the poles in the first place...and they had to be strong enough to serve their purpose of supporting light extentions and survive fair amounts of wind forces. Somebody has to know something about the strength and collapsing issues of aluminum light poles?
And of course, if anyone wanted to create a test with a knife-like shearing blade shaped like the leading edge of a B757 and accelerate it to the 400-500 plus MPH that was the alleged speeds of the B757, and have it impact a similarly mounted and weighted aluminum tube with light extensions...this would be GREAT...and perhaps it would answer alotta questions surrounding the light poles.
Regarding the light poles being pulled down from the ground at night and laying on the ground for the early morning sunrise and rush hour traffic. My money would be that if this happened, such operations could easily be performed in darkness and NONE of the motoirists would notice that the light poles were missing...and from what I understand, most poles were laying in locations that were not very visible to passers by in automobiles.
I'm still open to almost anything at the Pentagon and I'm not subscribing to any position regarding the light poles...NOR am I discarding any of the debate at all. We can find out more about this if we want...and we will some day.
A reminder about what happened at the Pentagon:
If we throw out eyewitness accounts, we do exactly what the HI PERPS want us to do...eliminate critical evidence about what actually happened. We simply have to continue to study all the eyewitness' testimonies, put them all in their respective locations, try to get someone who looked at their watches when this all happened, and try to make some sense out of it all. There will be answers here in spite of conflicting testimonies.
For discovering more eyewitnesses to the airvehicles in and around the Pentagon, CIT deserves far, far more credit than most are supplying. That they act like cornered rats is expected because they have been cornered by the 9/11 Truth Movement...some of them rats...and most likely by those within the various elements, groups and sites who are working on the other side...or are overzealous about their authorship of their hypothesis. A lot of this is neccessary and certainly expected. Character assassination is not needed and too often comes from the other side...directly or indirectly fueled by subjective persons.
This is a word of wisdom to Aldo and Craig...calm down...you got some great goods here...you DO NOT know yet what fully happened at the Pentagon...only the HI PERPS have the best answers...and keep up the good work!
Its good to remember that the Pentagon has cointelpro departments, psy-ops departments, controls 95% of the intel budgets, has a two trillion dollar slush fund hidden somewhere to use at their own will, has virtually NO oversight by congress [as if that would help with criminals in suits looking over the shoulders of criminals in uniforms]...AND...the Pentagon has more to loose than any other entity in the entire WORLD...[other than the international money changers of course]. So, there are agents all over us all the time...but it doesn't matter...the facts will do the work...and we are getting better and better at reaching the public with our information.
Its best to accept that they are around, ignore them, learn to predict and see their work when it surfaces, move on...and keep collecting the evidence. Its too soon for sturdy conclusions...other than the WTCs of course...for now!
So, lets just keep collecting and analizing data and information...the final scenario will contain elements of almost all of the lines of thinking right now. [sans video fakery, and no planes etc]
Except of course that the FAB FIVE FRAMES possibly showing a rocket powered ground vehicle that followed the burned-damaged pathway across the Pentagon lawn...now THAT's just too far fetched to consider...so please don't.
gravity, that experiment was
gravity,
> The tail fin is certainly not strong enough,
Then we must have seen the tail section lying on the front lawn.
Which WE DIDN'T. And,
> an experiment done with a fighter jet, impacting a solid concrete block.
That was not an ordinary 'concrete block' BUT A WALL FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS!!
The wall was 3.7m thick and weighed approx 700 tons.
That was an experiment to test the WALL rather than the jet.
AND even with that super sturdy wall, some parts of the jet remained.
Did we see any like that at the Pentagon?
Akira my mate continues to tell us that the deepest hole(or dent) this F4 Phantom could make on this wall was only 6cm deep(approx 2.4 inches)!
Unfortunately, I should say Frank's piece is so weak and misleading.
STJ site had better delete it so that they can avoid to confuse its readers.
You are soooo far out of your depth...this is nonsense!
You are embarrassing yourself Chihaya please stop!
Well John, then you need to present...
You need to show us proof to prove me wrong.
That test was for Japanese company making those walls for nuclear plants.
Just stating
> You are soooo far out of your depth...this is nonsense!
doesn't prove anything.
When you called Stubblebine & Doug Rokke 'crazy' or 'wacky,' you could not give me any proof to say so.
When you told me that you and plenty others identified the plane parts found at the Pentagon, you could not provide me the URLs to see those photos of the parts you told me.
And now, attacking me without any real reasons.
What's wrong with you, mate?
Sandia National Laboratory's own page reveals,
Footage of 1988 rocket-sled test
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html#rocketsled
F4 test videostream – The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo. To view and download footage or still photos, click on the links or the images below.
(Go to their site to download and watch)
See, they say "rigid reinforced concrete target" as I told you.
Although they deny:
The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure
That's because it doesn't look right if American NATIONAL Laboratory worked for a Japanese commercial company to sell their reinforced concrete walls to nuclear power plants!
Go to Hoffmans site as I have told you and look a the pictures!
Landing Gear of a 757
Go and get an expert opinion on it from your mates that can't see any wreckage there?
Why I have to spoon feed you the evidence when you don't even look at it is beyond me!
When I sent you the articles, Franks, Jims, Victoria's the photos were there?????
You have no case for no plane based on the wreckage...none this is a fact!
A Visual Reference
According the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR), the plane impacted at column line 14. Where is the damage created by the tail of the plane?
tanabear on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 12:42pm.
Why is there no wing metal plastered...
...up agianst the columns and/or the second floor cement structures shown at the tip of the arrows?
The wings would, like the vertical stablizer, have come to a stop right there up against these minimally damaged structures...right where the damage to the facade is shown.
How could the wings remain connected to the fuselage and move inward towards the fuselage hole only to slither in behind and remain still in connection with the fuselage? They couldn't...period!
Barbara Honegger has credible evidence that the first explosion[s] at the Pentagon at 09:30 or 09:32 which is an important number of minutes BEFORE the arrival of whatever was supposed to strike the portions of the Pentagon shown here. This is an important issue that Honegger raises and should be considered as we continue to pick apart the HI PERPS' storylines at the Pentagon.
I think that things are really getting good regarding our research at the Pentagon...Cheney is gonna PRAY that we first get him on torture!
YouTube vid: NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - SENSITIVE INFORMATION
YouTube video regarding Pentagon Attack. I just found it and have only watched the first few minutes but looks good so far.
NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - SENSITIVE INFORMATION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o&eurl
Edit: Why the vote downs? Again, I only watched the first couple minutes but it looked good from the outline given at the beginning. Is the vote down because it is disinfo or what? Just curious...
metallus2 on Sat, 08/29/2009 - 10:47pm.
You are being voted down because the video...
You linked is from CIT (Citizens Investigation Team). I think it is a good video well presented with excellent and very valuable witness interviews. I gave you an up vote but cannot compete with the down voters who have an anti CIT agenda. The vote system here is totally skewed and controlled by a few who don't like CIT, sad but true. I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. Keep on posting metallus2 there is nothing wrong with your video selection you are simply dealing with personalities who cannot put aside personal issues with CIT and admit that they have done valuable hard work in collecting these testimonies and that furthermore they have effectively destroyed the myth that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. These "sour grapes" have invested a lot of time supporting the myth that flight 77 is what hit the Pentagon see so anything or anyone who threatens that false belief (such as CIT) must be attacked. Thus your down votes and mine soon to follow. Cheers mate good post.
Adam Ruff on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 12:08am.
Citizen Investigation Team Rocks!
AtomicBomb, I voted both you and metallus2 up. The CIT Pentagon/Citgo Gas Station interviews are what I call easy to understand evidence. We now have Pentagon Police officers AND civilians all corroborating the NTSB's north of the Citgo Gas Station flyby of Flight 77.
brian78046 on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 12:44am.
I voted all three of you up as well.
Bwahaha, metallus2:
Welcome to the Pentagon "controversy." I use quotes there because there is a HUGE disconnect between perceived reality on this site versus actuality in the real world. What do I mean? When I've been at major 9/11 truth events in real life, peoples' opinion of CIT is overall very positive, and that their evidence and presentation is credible. I completely agree.
No, they are not disinfo.
They have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the plane approached the building from the north of citgo gas station which means that the taxi cab scene, light poles, and damage in the building had to have been staged. There is a faction within the movement, particularly at this site and truthaction, who strongly believe that these "staging" claims, along with the ultimate conclusion that the plane flew over the building timed with explosives in the building, and flew away from the building, sound too far fetched (even if true) and make the movement look wacky. There is a bizarre obsession within this group of people to discredit not just CIT but to also undermine the credibility of the witnesses. But after seeing 13 witnesses on tape all mutally corroborating each other that the plane was nowhere near the light poles and generator makes the case for a fully staged military deception extremely strong. Don't allow your perception of what's good be swayed by the votes on here. I have long argued for an open and transparent voting system on here like that of Digg, where you get to see how many yays and now many nays each post receives, rather than this bogus en totale system.
EDIT: This "faction" I speak of is not just about trying to get people to not look at CIT's work. It is to protect the official narrative that AA77 hit the Pentagon. They get mad if you even suggest that a remote controlled substituted military 757 with no one in it hit the Pentagon. No, in order to not get on their bad side, you must agree that it was the original flight, including the passengers, that impacted the building, unless we get, in the words of Jon Gold, "a signed confession from Rumsfeld" indicating otherwise. (rolls eyes)
"But after seeing 13 witnesses on tape all mutally corroborating each other that the plane was nowhere near the light poles and generator makes the case for a fully staged military deception extremely strong."
Yup. Numerous credible eyewitnesses on tape; many drawing and dating a fairly consistent flight path all north of the Citgo. Haven't seen any eyewitness testimony from the south side approach nearly as strong.
CIT should be applauded for actually taking the time and effort to interview eyewitnesses and for their on-the-ground investigative work which is sorely lacking in 911 truth.
DavidS on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 1:36am.
Brian, Adam, and David thanks for the support.
Yes I agree whole heartedly CIT should be commended for their work. I tried to talk rationally with the "faction" of anti CIT people over at TruthAction about their McCarthy style tactics, which I strongly disagree with, and found it to be a waste of time. They just circle the wagons and attack anyone who does not agree with their discredited and debunked version of the Pentagon attack. They remind me of JREFers personally and use the same kind of snide ridicule and condescending attitudes. The same pack of attack dogs, some under other screen names, post here and work in tandem to supress, via the skewed vote system, all opinions contrary to theirs. It is really a shame.
Reading your comments though has given me a renewed belief that many and perhaps most of those who post here are good people with an honest desire to uncover the truth about 9/11 without bias or personal agendas getting in the way. Remember gang read all the comments voted down because you never know what you might miss if you don't.
Adam Ruff on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 2:38am.
I've always read downvoted comments too; when a comment gets buried below the threshold, it actually serves to give the post a forbidden fruit sense of intrigue, like, "What is it they're attempting to suppress me from reading?" The temptation to click on "view comment" is overwhelming. As such, the "below viewing threshold" feature actually works against the concept for which it was intended.
What a stinking load of crap
I hate to break up the circle jerk here, but if the "McCarthy style" Truth Action "attack dogs" are the only people who have a problem with a group that regularly deceives 9/11 survivors, secretly tapes them after being welcomed into their homes, proceeds to make videos accusing of them of being "in on it", keeps enemy lists of anyone who disagrees with them, insists that their implausible flyover theory is THE TRUTH and then encourages people to take this nonsense to Congress... well, if that's the case then we are genuinely fucked.
YT on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 4:03am.
YT back up your claims about CIT.
YT when you back up your accusations about CIT with something more then opinion I will start listening to you again.
I have thoroughly read your opinions, Arabesques, Col Jenny Sparks, etc about CIT and PFT and found them to be based on personal opinion or on assumptions and in some cases based on facts NOT in evidence. I have also watched CIT's and PFT's presentations and looked at their comment history on 911blogger and on your blog. I have combed through multiple lengthy threads on this issue including old ones long forgotten and I carefully followed all the comments and followed up on the links. I noted in all the threads here on 911blogger, that I looked at, that CIT presented solid compelling information and did NOT engage in personal attacks. Arabesque and others from truthaction did not present compelling counter information and DID engage in personal attacks.
You YT have just made a number of serious claims such as "CIT regularly deceives 9/11 survivors" and you know something THAT is a personal attack and it is exactly what I am talking about with your group. You sling out these disgusting accusations with no evidence to support your claims. That is McCarthyism, pure McCarthyism, and those tactics are just plain wrong.
My own experience on your blog, where I was TRYING to reason with your group about Rob Balsamo, was very discouraging and unproductive so I left and have not come back. I find your group there to be condescending, rude, and extremely arrogant. I will NOT be bullied by you or anyone else and I really don't care if you and your friends game the vote system here and vote down everything I say because the real truth seekers will read it anyway.
In the final analysis CIT has done great work and gathered numerous important eye-witness interviews. Rob Balsamo and PFT have done some excellent work as well with the Pentagon issue and in my expert opinion they have made a strong case for flight 77 NOT hitting the Pentagon. Name calling and down voting are not going to change my mind but solid evidence to the contrary will if you have any. So far your evidence to the contrary has not been at all convincing. Here are two ASSUMPTIONS that your group bases some of their rhetoric on.
Assumption #1: The pentagon witnesses who support your version of events could not be lying or be planted shills because there are too many of them.
(That assumption is foolish because it IS possible that shills and liars are mingled among the witnesses. The assumption also grossly exaggerates the number of witnesses who were in an observation position that would enable them to contradict CIT's evidence. Most were not close enough or able to see the impact zone and some were not on the scene until after the event. The assumption also overlooks the very real possibility that any number of witnesses have been misquoted or misrepresented because their testimony in most cases comes to you second hand from "reporters" who I know for a fact cannot be trusted. CIT on the other hand got their testimony directly from the witnesses themselves so their presentations are far more compelling. This flawed assumption also overlooks the possibility that witnesses have been threatened or coerced into presenting a false story.)
Assumption #2: The photos of "plane" parts at the Pentagon prove flight 77 did hit the Pentagon and there is no way those parts could have been planted.
(This assumption is also fatally flawed. First of all it overlooks the obvious possibility that evidence could very well have been planted. It also overlooks the fact that NONE of the wreckage purported to be from flight 77 has been identified by serial number. It also overlooks the fact that all of the photographed parts with the possible exception of the landing gear (presumably found inside the Pentagon) were small and light enough that they could be carried by a single individual and planted. The assumption also assumes the photos have not been tampered with which is naive in the extreme.)
There are many other assumptions upon which your group's presentations are based but I don't have time to go into any more of them now.
In my opinion the work of CIT and PFT merits further attention and your group needs to get personal opinions out of the mix and get back to seeking the truth instead of attacking people you don't agree with because of petty personal or jealousy issues. When it comes down to just the facts CIT has made a much better case.
For the record I am NOT convinced yet of CIT's flyover hypothesis and I don't agree with everything they have asserted.
I'm not going to be bullied by you Adam
And I'm not going to jump through your hoops. Everything I've said about CIT can be easily verified by anyone who gives a damn. I don't have a "version of events" at the Pentagon, so the majority of your long-winded screed is irrelevant. Please stop assuming that you know what I think about what happened at the Pentagon if I haven't told you - you'll save us both a lot of time. Rob Balsamo came to the Truth Action forum and acted like a drunken troll. He didn't like that people were criticizing John Lear's involvement with Pilots for Truth, so he sent out a mass email calling Truth Action "cointelpro". Then he had one of his cohorts repeat the same action a week letter, with another mass email accusing "cointelpro". This is unacceptable - period. But maybe you'll be fine with it, just like you were fine with Tarpley calling Truth Action "cointelpro" two years ago? Funny how things stay the same...
If you're insinuating that me and AtomicBomb are the same person
You're dead wrong.
No, I'm not
I'm fully aware that you are two different people, thanks.
Jules on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:13am.
Your group attacked Balsamo and CIT now you protest
Your group attacked Balsamo and CIT now you protest when I point out the fact that your tactics are wrong. So are we just supposed to trust you that you have proven your case that CIT is disinfo? Well for the reasons cited above I think CIT has made a better case then you have.
I encourage anyone to look at the thread on truthaction about Lear and Balsamo that I commented on.
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3528&start=60&postdays=0&po...
What I said was that if you have a problem with Lear then prove what he said about 9/11 to be in error the way Dr. Jones did with Judy Wood. He did not call her a nut job or try to smear her associates just because they knew her he simply used the scientific method to illustrate the problems with her theories. Your group on the other hand attacked Balsamo simply for having Lear in his organization and because Lear has beliefs about UFO's. That is classic McCarthy guilt by association tactics and that is what I objected to.
The proper thing to do would have been to impeach Lear's information about 9/11 related issues with your own better facts ala Dr. Jones. You should have left Lear's other beliefs out of it and you NEVER should have attacked Balsamo because Lear happens to hold strange beliefs about non 9/11 related issues.
Then after attacking Balsamo he showed up to defend himself and you have the nerve to accuse him of acting badly. Then after his response began to sting your mod bans him so he can't even respond to your rants and smears. That speaks volumes.
No thanks YT I want nothing more to do with your blog. Your group can't man up to mistakes or admit that occasionally they are wrong which to me is a sure sign that there is an agenda rather then a pure quest for truth going on there. Real truthers can say "I was wrong" while agenda driven people who have too much ego invested in their position do not seem to be able to.
Don't forget I was standing right next to you in San Diego when Luke went after David Ray Griffin as a NWO shill because he happened to muse aloud once that a world wide bottom up democracy based on justice and fairness would make the world a better place. So based on that Luke and WACLA and perhaps even you believe DRG is a NWO shill promoting a one world government ruled by the illuminati huh? That was absolutely stupid, DRG is simply THE MAN when it comes to 9/11 truth and Luke and WACLA and anyone who thinks DRG is NWO are just absolute idiots. His research is light years ahead of Luke and WACLA and your group all combined. The man deserves our sincere thanks for what he has done for 9/11 truth not a rude attack.
Get this through your heads at TruthAction:
PFT know more about airplanes and how they work then your group does.
Robin Hordin knows more about Radar tracking and FAA procedures then your group does.
Dr. Jones knows more about physics then your group does.
DRG knows more about 9/11 then your group does.
AE911TRUTH knows more about buildings and structural behavior then your group does.
CIT knows more about Pentagon issues and eye-witnesses then your group does.
So instead of attacking CIT or DRG or PFT with ill conceived and poorly thought out pseudo logic maybe you can show some humility and admit that they have some valid points and TALK to them instead of attack them. It would help the cause of 9/11 truth a great deal if you could put your egos aside for the greater good.
What you and WAC do better then anyone else is take effective action based on the knowledge gathered. In spite of the way you have treated me and the way WAC treated me and many others I wish you success and in fact am actively promoting the work you do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDhSKByU3I4
Wow you sure take up a lot of space with your nonesense
I think Lear's nuttiness and Rob's nasty behavior speaks for itself - hopefully folks will read for themselves.
the way WAC treated me
You mean when you stole their website and held it ransom for thousands of dollars?
Inserting yourself in another subject you know zip about?
You might want to check in with Bruno, Jeremy, Katy, and Stewart (the 4 remaining of the original 8 WACLA founders) before you open this can of worms YT.
You know exactly what Bruno told you about the WACLA situation (his version) nothing more but in typical fashion you THINK you know the whole story after hearing one side of it and are willing to dive right in making accusations that you can't back up.
Here is a little hint for you about what really happened - I invited Bruno to go with me to NYC for 9/11 to meet Luke and found WACLA. Did you get that? I invited Bruno not the other way around. As one of the founding members of WACLA I paid 500$ of my own money to have the website developed. So if the website belonged to anyone it is me. Never the less the webmaster kept control of the domain, not me, so I did not "hold the website hostage". He too was a founding member of WACLA and was not happy at all about how he was treated. If you would like to contact Drew, and for once in your life get your facts straight, he is currently webmaster of Oathkeepers. Lastly, Bruno seized control of the YouTube account FIRST before anything happened. He seized the account that belonged to the whole group not to him alone. Got it? That is what sparked the whole issue.
YT you are inserting yourself into an issue you don't know squat about, again! I won't go into it any further here but I will be happy to open a thread up about it and air all the dirty laundry in public. I can back up my statements buddy, you can't. Like I said though you might want to check in with WACLA first to see if they want to go down this road because I have a sneaking suspicion that they don't because they know damn well what really happened and they know I can back up what I say. Go for it buddy, I have plenty to expose and the way I was treated I have no problem exposing it. In fact it might do the truth movement a lot of good to expose the TRUTH about how it really operates.
Now proceed with your childish down vote game where surprise surprise your blatant personal attacks like the one above are overlooked and actually up voted while anyone who disagrees with you or your little cabal about anything is down voted regardless of how good their post is.
Tell it to the judge, big guy.
Rule #6 comes to mind.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
Uh huh... keep diggin
I guess I don't have the kind of time to devote to nonsense as those of you who are continually submitting massive, book chapter size entries to this blog. There's a reason why both http://www.wearechangela.com and http://www.wearechangela.org are DEAD sites, unable to be used by the 9/11 truth activists who operate under that name - and the reason is that they were held ransom for thousands of dollars and when you didn't get the money, you shut them down.
If you can't handle the response to your slanders ...tuff.
You are using basic hit and run tactics. Nothing special and this thread proves it. I responded to your points while you evaded mine and just keep leveling more baseless slanders instead of addressing the substance of what was said. Classic rule #6. You are essentially a JREFer YT. By the way the wearechangela.com domain is quite available which you would know if you bothered to check any facts before opening your big mouth. I informed Bruno of that a while ago and he has not purchased it for 8$ bucks I think it is. Perhaps I should pay for it AGIAN and post this whole sorted mess on the home page? Tempting, you had better have Bruno purchase it quick. By the way if you don't have time for this why do you insist on having the last word every time?
Gaming the vote system is just laughable truthaction, grow up.
I've found this interesting
I've found this interesting and do notice that when you explain more of the story you are met with a yawn. !!
I also notice that he tried to throw this over the cliff by posting an old link about the missing link. Just what we need. Dilute the issues.
I posted about an event being held at an Arlington, VA library being put on by the government and was voted down. I thought at least those who have so much faith in the government's version might be interested. Maybe they could find more witnesses that saw a plane actually go in. This blog is very knee jerk. I plan to go, not because I believe the government but because I want to see what they do with it.
WACLA is a "can of worms"
I'll vouch for that. Adam is right. And as a founding member, myself, I should know.
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
Randy on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 12:08am.
Thank you Randy. You are the best of us.
I appreciate you saying that. In my book you are the best of us all who started WACLA.
Ah, so you're Adam
Ah, so you're Adam too!
Adam Syed on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 11:55pm.
http://www.youtube.com/user/unspunnewz
Adam Ruff on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 9:30am.
Nice. I joined. Bill Maher
Nice. I joined. Bill Maher needs to eat his words some day.
BreezyinVA on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 10:04am.
the CIT video is compelling
I think the contents of the CIT video is compelling. In fact, of everything I have read on this subject, this is by far the best analysis for the direction and angle the plane took towards the Pentagon, and clearly demonstrates how unlikely it is that the streetlights could have been knocked down. I agree that more evidence and testimonials would need to come forward in regards to the fly over scenario, but I think it is plausible.
YT, I'd appreciate it if you could deal with their analysis rather than focus on their alleged shortcomings and their behavior on blogs. I say alleged because I only read your accusations. You may be correct for all I know, but the 13 testimonials in the video give compelling evidence against the OCT.
And I have to agree, CIT did their homework, came fully prepared with questions, printed images, and new exactly how to interview these folks so that there was no confusion about their testimonies. In short, they did their homework. (to this day, i am still in shock over how poorly the Loose Change crew interviewed Barry Jennings, with all due respect to Dylan et al). This video is solid work, and we all need to deal with it openly and honestly, even if your allegations are correct. That behavior is uncalled for no matter what.
cburn on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 8:21pm.
I already posted several links to in-depth articles about CIT
Do you want me to post the links again? I can do that for you.
Peter Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Pentagon Flyover Theory (and Neither Do I)
To Con A Movement
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce
ERROR: 'The Jetliner that Appeared to Crash into the Pentagon Actually Flew Over It'
CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the 'Smoking-Gun' Anti-Controversy
CIT Watch
Thanks for the links
After spending some time on them, this is the video that put to rest the fly over theory:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/pentagon-flyover-theory-rip.html
The Double Tree video clearly shows the explosion from the opposite side of the pentagon and no plane whatsoever.
cburn on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 12:33am.
The video does NOT refute the flyover.
You posted this twice cburn and it most certainly does NOT refute the flyover hypothesis. There are big giant trees to the right of the explosion which completely block the view. Arabesque is not an unbiased source, he has a blatant anti-CIT agenda.
Adam Ruff on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 2:11am.
Actually I think it does
Take a look at Ranke's own images. The alleged flyover happens to the right of the impact zone, and he bases this assumption on the fact that his eyewitnesses reported the plane banking to the right at the last minute. You can't have it both ways.
The Double Tree video clearly shows the right side of the impact zone from the back (from the point of view of this video, it is to the left of the rising smoke). And there is plenty of leeway time to see that nothing flies over.
Then go back and look at the impact zone again from the front, and take a look at were the helicopter pad is located. The guy in the tower makes it clear in his testimony that the plane was banking towards the impact zone, to his left from his point of view.
Finally, after reading the way these guys handle their critics, they simply don't come off as very trustworthy, IMHO.
cburn on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 5:41pm.
You go man!
Finally, some truth to power at blogger.
I do have a question about two somewhat contradictory aspects of your post though:
in my expert opinion they have made a strong case for flight 77 NOT hitting the Pentagon.
For the record I am NOT convinced yet of CIT's flyover hypothesis
If there really was a large plane approaching the Pentagon, which there clearly was, and if it did not hit, what else other than a flyover could it have possibly done? Maybe I'm dense here, but it seems those two options are the only ones... unless the plane hit a force field and de-materialized into anti-matter.
Let me clear it up.
I do not believe flight 77 hit the Pentagon nor any other jumbo jet and I do consider the flyover a strong possibility but in my opinion there is not enough evidence (1 witness statement) to make the flyover compelling. So those are not contradictory statements. There is no compelling evidence the flyover did not occur either just statements made by witnesses that have the problems I talked about above. So it would be fair to say I am leaning towards flyover but don't have enough supporting evidence to back it up. CIT's argument that the north approach proves the light pole scene was staged is compelling and lends a lot of support to the flyover idea.
If you include second hand testimony, there are 2
If you include second hand testimony, there are 2 flyover witnesses.
Erik Diehle ran out of his office building and heard people talking/screaming amongst themselves and one of them reportedly said: "A bomb went off at the Pentagon and a jet kept on going!"
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3
I do hope that as time goes on, the number of flyover witnesses will increase.
Thanks Adam for the info about the second flyover witness.
I was not aware of Erik Diehle, thanks for the tip I will look into it.
It's A Bird, It's A Plane, It's a....Plane Bomb!
I believe this theory has been promoted by French researcher Eric Bart. Jim Hoffman seems to somewhat endorse this theory. Jim Hoffman writes,
"French researcher Eric Bart compiled an extensive body of eyewitness accounts, and provided it on his website. Bart's theory, entitled on his web page "It was a plane bomb" (IWPB), fits the eyewitness accounts better than any competing theory, and is potentially compatible with the photographic evidence of damage to the facade. Despite the strong evidentiary support for Bart's theory it has received relatively little discussion, eclipsed by the attack drone and two-plane theories.
According to this theory, the jetliner was shredded by shaped charges on the aircraft a split second before impact. It accounts for several features in the eyewitnesses' reports of the moment of impact that are difficult to reconcile with the official crash account, such as of the jet exploding or disintegrating before reaching the building.
The plane bomb theory can also account for the lack of imprint of the jetliner's profile on the Pentagon's facade. The ends of the wings and the vertical stabilizer -- the parts of the plane that did not leave impact impressions -- could have been shredded by the explosive charges, perhaps ahead of the fuselage. These relatively light components would have produced only a few tons of confetti, which is not captured in the limited number of photographs taken soon after the crash."
Of course, I don't necessarily agree with this theory. I merely put it forward as possibility. It probably accounts for the actual evidence better than the other theories, but it just seems kind of strange to me.
This is very interesting...indeed...
I had not come across this theory until now...and its very, very intriguing as it does solve a few issues of concern.
Although if its true, the airvehicle could not have been the original AA77 which is part of what I claim...that there is no solid proof that it was AA77 that approached the Pentagon...or that AA77 crashed into it leaving identifiable debris linking AA77 to the crash site...so, I may appear to be prejudiced...but not so...I'm just really curious.
BEYOND the interesting theory itself...[which appears to have some solid legs regarding the explosions, the minimal damage to the Pentagon, and the debris field]....I find that the most intriguing element is that this theory was put out there very early in the game...and then dissappeared by "other" theories and evidence etc...much of it possibly being a displacement caused by the FDR that came through England? to Pilots for 9/11 Truth...or others??? Anybody have a chronology here?
Anyway, I will argue for a bit that IF this theory was close to the mark, the HI PERPS would do whatever they could do in order to get this theory "buried" somewhere..somehow. They are damn good at this stuff and could easily accomplish this "burial".
Its a reasonable possibility...and I hope to read more about it soon.
Lighten up cosmos...
Wer'e playing with the BIG BOYS now, and this allows me to tolerate the impoliteness by some...but NOT to accept or condone it. I'm into a more collegial approach to most of this but that these guys have "knuckled up" upon occasion is understandible. We all get it, we all see it, we all compensate for it.
CIT has done more in discovering these new eyewitnesses than most others in the 9/11TM have accomplished on their own.
And, you still haven't answered me as to why your site has blocked me from commenting or posting on it.
Seems that you have much more to do within your "own house" than you currently think.
The CIT guys don't ROCK...because of their rude and crude conduct...but they have discovered some good stuff that is going to help the cause down the road.
love, peace and progress...with
PUBLICALLY FINDED ELECTIONS using HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS on a NEW PAID FEDERAL VOTING HOLIDAY...and for
9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE
Good posts, Robin
One thing: about their "rude and crude conduct"... I can tell you this much. If I lived in CA, spent thousands of $$$ doing what they have done traveling to Arlington and canvassing the area for eyewitnesses... all for some armchair critics to take ridiculous pot shots (complete with ridiculous red herrings and straw men) at my work... and not just take pot shots once or twice, but have a seeming OBSESSION with trying to steer people away from looking at my work... I'm sure I'd get rather snarky too. Not only that, I'd probably create a detractors' list, so that my detractors' names and faces would be conveniently saved in one place for posterity.
>>Wer'e playing with the BIG
>>Wer'e playing with the BIG BOYS now
That's right, forget science -- Frank Legge is an editor at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, has a PhD, and has published numerous papers -- and basic common sense about the fact that they have the videos and we don't, because now it's all about "Big Boys", tolerating mistreatment, etc.
I'll stick with Frank Legge's approach.
Interestingly,
I noticed that even Legge conceded that it's entirely within the realm of possibility that the debris was planted.
That suggestion is offensive to the Truthaction / anti-CIT crowd. Suggesting "planted debris" causes anti-CITer jimd3100 to go: "How embarrassing."
I wonder what he's gonna say next. "Frank Legge's paper. How embarrassing."
>>I noticed that even Legge
>>I noticed that even Legge conceded that it's entirely within the realm of possibility that the debris was planted.
Sure, anything is possible. For example, you might think you are sitting at a computer when actually you are floating in a pod, a la the Matrix. We can't know for sure that we aren't all in pods, can we.
Frank is a chemist, Victronix
Frank is a chemist who worked for the Agricultural Department for many years, and yet he's not an expert on weapons, damage assessment etc.
He's a nice old coger(spelling? Aussie term, meaning old man) though. ;O)
Robin, you seem to be having a problem with telling the truth
Yesterday, you were telling everyone that you were being censored on 911 blogger for talking about Israel and I pointed out how that wasn't true - you were put on moderation for attacking the site admin. Now this:
Actually buddy, I kindly and patiently answered your strange queries about your alleged problem registering AT LEAST THREE TIMES. I even attempted to walk you through the process twice - at which point you would drop out of contact. Really, if you're going to lie about stuff like this - what does it say about the rest of what you're doing here?
cosmos...
You are 0 for 2 in your at bat against me.
I followed all your instructions and still do not have access to your site.
And you have no idea about the sequence of events regarding me being censored and not censored by the guys behind the 911blogger curtain...but I do...and you are wrong again.
They finally have allowed me to comment on other's posts AFTER I absolutely tore them a new a_ _hole for disallowing my pertinent comments while allowing the TRIPE sexual-like comments regarding a beautiful young truther who is out there working the BIG picture to HER demogarphic...a demographic that I am very aware of as I'm in the streets between 1-3 times per week and mingle and talk with this GREAT group of young people.
The blogger censor team has been pathetic in the management of this site.
This management group at blogger NEEDS to be held accountable for their prejudicial behaviors towards people wishing to engage in the informational research, sharing concepts, exposure of the truth and accepting the fact that one way or another, Israel was deeply involved with 9/11.
Its THEY who are the weak link here...NOT the bloggers...and they need to get a clue...to resign actually!
I still have a submission that presents my affidavit in support of Aprl Gallop and they will not allow it [so far] even though I am receiving a fair amount of positive comments as I share small portions of it one at a time on this thread.
And regarding how I'm doing on "other" contributions to seeking 9/11 TRUTH for World PEACE and sharing everything that I know from my activism, aviation and ATC careers...I think that I'm holding my own and WELCOME any and all criticisms or questions about anything and everything that I write. You should lighten up on such personal criticisms anyway.
NONE of us KNOW the full story behind the events of 9/11...the WTCs are the best at the moment...but we have miles and miles to go before we clear away the fog.
Anyone who thinks differently is a tad naive. 9/11 is one of the biggest and most complicated events in world history and we are taking on the Pentagon...geesh!
The Pentagon spends billions trying to keep hidden what we keep exposing...this is a real good scrum indeed...
The FACT is:
You were never censored on Truth Action and in fact I personally took the time to try to help you overcome your unique inability to register an account for yourself AT LEAST THREE TIMES. I'm extremely skeptical of your strange misrepresentation of the facts of that situation, to say the least. And just so nobody has to take my word about why you were put on moderation at 911blogger, they can read the comments here where you attack Reprehensor in defense of a VERY shady "Jews Did 9/11" video that came out just in time for last year's anniversary.
This email address has been banned...
...are the exact words that come up when I try to re-register. And when I try to follow your instructions given to me several times, it states that the email does not fit the user name...Robin Hordon.
Just did this five minutes ago...for about the 10th time.
I stand by my comments that Zionism is THE biggest force in place to block the wide spread exposure of 9/11 truth for a variety of reasons.
I'm not one who feels that the "Jews did 9/11"...but there is absolutely no doubts that Israel was involved...and the Mossad.
And I'm not one who is denial of the holocaust [s]...especially the native american holocaust enacted by the "anglos" who arrived in the Americas [?] from western Europe hundreds of years ago.
And I do think that ALL holocausts should be able to be studied from as many angles as any researcher might find compelled to do.
And I do not think that anyone who studies or questions facts about the "jewish holocaust" should be in prison for doing so. This is draconian...but not too surprising.
I do stand with Palestine and Palestinians if one has to make a choice.
But my real choice is peace on earth and would like for everyone to stop killing people...especially innocent children.
The problem here is militarization of the planet for profit and control...and protection of those profits and profiteers by the few people, families or groups of people who seem to be running the whole show.
The Pentagon is nothing more than a world wide "protection racket" that has a far too cozy a relationship with the international money exchangers...whomever they really are.
Sorry cosmos...thankfully I'm not a "three strikes and your out" kinda guy...because that's the "count" on you...
You have very SERIOUS issues on your website and in your organization as does everyone attached to 911blogger...gatekeepers all!
If we had stuck only to the facts from the beginning of 9/11 Truth seeking, we would still be AT the beginning.
EXPANSION is needed as risky as it might be.
Thankfully, such gatekeepers are now so easily noticed...
Love, Peace and Progress...and
911 TRUTH for World PEACE
Robin Hordon on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 5:28pm.
metallus2
Check out the links in this post for some of the many problems with CIT.
Looks like I opened a can of worms
Wow I must say, I was not expecting this. I didn't even have time to watch the linked video in my post above, let alone start researching the divisions in our movement regarding which theories and people/groups are to be trusted. (I regularly browse the "Google Top 100 Videos" and that video just happened to be there and since I haven't made time to watch it I decided to leave the link for the 911blogger community to evaluate). What I will say is this. We can all debate the fine details of what may or may not have happened on 9/11. But in the end, the most important thing that should keep us together is that we all want a new investigation, and if we find we are spending more time arguing about pet theories we may want to reevaluate our priorities. Plus, a new investigation would most likely sort out many of the inconsistencies that we all find ourselves arguing about anyway. Now to me, that video looked legit from the outset, but now I realize I may have to do more research before posting random video links here.
metallus2 on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:37am.
It's a legit vid, metallus.
Nor is it a "random video link." ;-)
In fact, it's likely the hottest doco in the movement right now. As I've said before, when I've spoken to numerous people in various cities' 9/11 events, support for this video is almost universally positive.
Since you obviously missed it in the blogs, the video has been endorsed by David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Ed Asner, Sander Hicks, Peter Dale Scott, Aidan Monaghan, and more. These people carefully watched the entire video and likely (esp DRG) looked at the rebuttal blogs too, before giving their endorsement.
The reason you likely have missed our past discussions of CIT is because 911blogger has a policy of putting "controversial" material only on the blogs page, not on the daily news page. But since the current blog entry was placed in the news section, it's reaching a wider audience.
As someone who supports the work of CIT, I'd say: Check out the links YT posted. Check out Hoffman's and "Arabesque"s so-called "rebuttals" of CIT's work. I'm confident that you and anyone else will see their blogs for what they are: straw-man central.
Vigorous debate is the foundation of 9/11 truth
and is welcome at 911blogger.
Please keep the focus on the facts and keep the debate as civil as possible.
We all know that what happened at the Pentagon is the single most controversial topic within the 9/11 truth movement.
Most disagreements arise as individuals make subjective decisions regarding how to weigh the known facts and thus give greater weight to different things and arrive at a different conclusion. Note that any conclusion regarding the Pentagon is provisional because there are so many open questions on the table and that the perpetrators, and those under their control, are the only ones who can really answer most of these open questions.
In light of the above, it really is in our collective best interest to adhere to the scientific method as closely as possible, to keep the debate as professional as possible and, at the end of the day, to simply agree to disagree when no agreement can be reached.
As more credible information becomes available, then that will inform the debate, enliven the discussion and perhaps even alter people's understanding of a particular event.
Just imagine where we would be right now if no red/grey chips had been found in the WTC dust....
Please note that the placement of this comment is not in response to any specific comment by anyone, I just wanted to add this statement into the thread in the hope of engendering more civility and objectivity at this time.
We are all seeking the truth, brothers and sisters, let's keep our eyes on the prize.
Well stated, John. We need to stress civility and keep the focus on science and activism. We should accept that we won't all agree on what happened. But with that in mind, we should refrain from too much speculating and theorizing. Advance the ball of science. It's the best 9/11 chess at this point.
RL McGee on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 7:21pm.
A few tardy questions for Dr. Legge:
Thank you for your work on this issue Dr. Legge, but I have a few questions regarding your research.
1. What evidence do you have that establishes the airvehicle in question as being AA77?
The only evidence that I see establishing that the primary target in question is AA77 is a "presumption" that the debris found at the Pentagon was that from AA77, and further, even if the evidence in question is that of a B757, it has not been shown to be that of the specific B757 flown on 9/11/2001 as AA77.
Additionally, AA77 was lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio and at no time, in no air traffic facility, and by no air traffic controller has ANY target anywhere at any time been positively re-radar identified as being AA77. FAA Order 7110.65 Air Traffic Control explains clearly about what specific steps must be taken to positively radar identify a primary radar target. Not one of these steps was ever taken and not one air traffic controller has ever made claim that it was AA77 that they saw...a B757 perhaps?
However, it is possible that the primary target seen by Danielle O'Brien at Potomac Tracon or Dulles Tower was indeed AA77.
Contrastingly, this target was continuously identified as being "unknown" by ALL participants observing those events during the morning of 9/11/2001.
It was only shortly AFTERWARDS that the HI PERPS got the media to spin this "unknown target" into being AA77...which is something that the HI PERPS need us all to believe.
It appears to me that the proof that the primary target involved in the Pentagon attack was developed by making an unproven claim that the crash site debris was that of AA77...and then REVERSE ENGINEERING THE STORY backwards along the flight path to the point where AA77 was lost to positive radar contact over eastern Ohio.
It is important to note that on RADES radar reports there WAS an eastbound high speed primary target that "popped up" over mid-West Virginia some eight minutes after AA77 was lost to positive radar contact over Eastern Ohio.
These points are over 100 miles apart and it disturbs me that such a presumption has been made that this NEW target was AA77. This target could be ANY airvehicle capable of flying at airliner speeds.
Additionally, as substantiated in my Affidavit supplied on behalf of April Gallop's lawsuit against Cheney, Rumsfeld and Meyers, there are significant questions as to which facility, or what information was used to establish that the primary target seen making a right turn into the Pentagon started that turn out from 7000 feet of altitude. Where did this 7000 foot number come from? It was NOT from the FAA radars because there was no civilian transponder operating on that primary target. Did this altitude come from the FDR? [which had been tampered with] Did it come from a military IFF transponder if it were a military airvehicle? If so, this in itself would disengage the missile air defense system protecting various locations in WDC.
The NTSB Flight Path Analysis for AA77 shows, as does air traffic controller testimony and FAA radar data, that AA77 had begun to descend below FL350 [35,000 feet] while in a left turn just before being lost to positive radar contact. In order for FAA radar tracking programs to display and Air Traffic Controllers to be able to "see" that AA77 had begin a a descent, the altimeter needed to show that it was at least 400 feet BELOW the assigned altitude of FL350...and it did so...and the controllers saw it...and so testified.
This is significant information because it establishes that the FDR and data provided by the NTSB and FBI [I think], is NOT RELIABLE because none of that data show this descent.
This now establishes in TWO separate places that the FDR associated with the "alleged" AA77 has been hacked. The second is that the last modification to FDR data took place just four hours before it was found at the Penatgon crash site...and this was many, many hours after 09:37 [or whatever time they "allege" that AA77 hit the Penatgon on 9/11/2001].
So, all your analysis, support or exposure of anyone using data from the FDR to either conclude or present anything is wiped out because the FDR and data has been compromised.
More about the "alleged" AA77...
An interesting discovery in researching radar data for the PLA [The Plains] radar site establishes that the floor of the primary radar coverage over central West Virginia where this high speed eastbound target "popped up" is between 7000 and 9000 feet. This means that a high speed eastbound target that was west of this point flying at 7000 feet would be UNDER the radar coverage and thusly somewhat invisible, but then as it moved easterly, it soon became visible because it soon was above the 7000 foot radar floor thus enabling the straight line radar signals to "see" that target.
The coincidence of "7000 feet" where this primary target "popped up" and the establishment [somewhere?] of the 7000 foot altitude at the beginning of the right turn at the Penatgon is beyond just "coincidental" for me as an air traffic controller. We watch this stuff all the time and understand radar coverages, IFF transponders, primary targets, and civilian transponders etc.
Additionally, both myself and Barbara Honegger feel that the primary target involved may have been a military asset with an IFF transponder as it successfully penetrated the air defense systems in place protecting WDC...which would happen automatically once the air defense systems recognized a "Friendly" or military transponder. There is an entirely different scenario that can explain the Cheney-Mineta dialogue...some other time perhaps.
Also for deep consideration, Barbara Honegger has credible evidence that the first explosion[s] occurred at the Penatgon at 09:30 -09:32 which is between seven and five minutes before the airvehicle was to have arrived at 09:37.
So, in conclusion, since there is absolutely NO HARD EVIDENCE that AA77 actually hit the Pentagon, and that in contrast, all the evidence is the exact opposite...ie:...that it was not AA77 that hit the Pentagon, how is it that you make the claim that the primary target in question WAS AA77...and so continue to establish within your writings?
If you cannot prove that the primary target in question was AA77, then please remove all positive affirmations as such and insert "alleged" or some other disclaimer when identifying AA77 as being the target that hit the Pentagon.
Regarding the HUGE question of what happened to AA77 IF it didn't hit the Penatgon, here is my simple and resonable postulation: A modern day version of Operation Northwoods...
There is ample time and suitable geography to "swap in" a high speed airvehicle in the eight minute gap in time between eastern Ohio where AA77 was lost to positive radar contact and when this high speed eastbound primary radr target "popped up" over central West Virginia.
AA77 being lost to positive radar contact over eastern Ohio constitutes the "swap out"...and radar "black holes" can be created by computer inputs [see my affidavit which should be posted on this site].
1. AA77 was captained by Chic Burlingame...
...who a year or so before 9/11/2001 was serving national guard or other military duties at the Penatgon and engaged in a red team-blue team analysis of the vulnerabilities and strengths of what would happen and how the defense systems in place would handle the events IF a civilian airliner was used as an airbourne missle that attacked the Penatgon...
...and he could have been the trusted agent needed to "swap out" the airliner.
Again, that Burlingame was captian of AA77 on 9/11/2001 is odd enough so that not just air traffic controllers would think this beyond coincidence. Its way too "pat" for me anyway.
2. AA77, after being lost to positive radar contact and flown by Burlingame, could have easily diverted to another airport...just like what happened to the 3500 or so aircraft that were landed as soon as possible at the nearest airports on 9/11.
BUT...in this situation, AA77 would perform the beginings of this activity in a radar black hole...nobody could see which way the B757 was headed...or at what altitudes it was flying at. AA77 was lost to all but Burlingame and the HI PERPS.
Presuming that Burlingame was the trusted agent-pilot, after turning off his transponder, AA77 could easily slow down enough to match speeds of smaller airaft and would have ended up looking like just another VFR [visual flight rules] aircraft...a puddle jumper as they say. AA77 could easily blend in with the "unkowns" out there...and secretly make its way to the previously established and secured landing site completely unnoticed.
The passengers would receive, from Burlingame, the very same story, and "explainable" altered flight routings as did all the other passengers in the 3500 aircraft receive from their captains on 9/11... IE: special circumstances ...rerouting... strange airports and not going to original destination...due to a national emergency...fasten your seatbelts...you are safe...we will be alright.
And, if the HI PERPS indeed killed 3000 people in NYC, WDC and PA as we allege, then they would have absolutely no trouble in disposing of the passengers of AA77 after it landed at such a secure military or other airport facility. The passengers would know nothing different than many other passengers all around the country that day...until it was too late for them.
3. It is not often "figured out" that in Operation Northwoods, the captain of the aircraft that was "swapped out" had to be a trusted agent in that in order for the swap to work, the original aircraft had to secretly land somewhere...safely...or there would have been another crash to deal with.
This is why the Burlingame connection is just too coincidental for me.
Hence, the "swapping in" scenario in between the Appalachian Mountain ridges in central West Virgina was a perfect geographical location in which the HI PERPS could have easily accomplished this below radar coverages within the eight minute gap...and remian unknown and lost to all but the HI PERPS and Burlingame. And THIS airvehicle could have easily been "remotely flown" if it were a military air vehicle.
BTW...I believe that a C32 is a military version of the B757...AND...the fuselage parts seen on the lawn of the Pentagon seem to have the silvery portion PAINTED on and not bare aluminum as American Airlines has established in its fleets.
In conclusion to all the above:
...Please provide proof that the primary target was indeed AA77...or change the way you write your work...and...
...there is now a very viable scenario where a "swap out-swap in" action could have taken place with AA77 being swapped out, given the times, distances, locations and scarcity of radar coverages on 9/11/2001.
Regarding ground effect:
It is a bit surprising to me that pilots have not yet challenged you about the "flaring out" or raising of an aircraft's nose during deceleration for a slow touchdown BECAUSE OF GROUND EFFECT on a runway and your transferring this physical phenomina to the ground affect of a high speed aircraft flying parallel to the ground.
When pilotng for a small airline in the Cape and Islands in Massachusetts, I have actually flown a small 200K twin engined aircraft just above the surface of the ocean for significant distances and there is no doubts at all that the closer I got to the surface, the LESS the aircraft was able to get closer to the water [ground in this case]...and as a result, the more I had to push the nose DOWN to lessen the capabilities of the airfoil's lift...BECAUSE...of the ground effect. The closer I got to the water, the more I had to lower the nose and incapacitate the airfoil's lift...and this was only at 200K at about 50-100 feet above the water.
In talking to pilots who fly high speed aircarft, [and even similar aircraft to the B757, if not the craft itself], they make it clear that the very same "ground effect" occurs when they near the surface at high speeds. From what I have been told, airliners who have all their landing flaps deployed and who are 20-30K above normal touchdown-landing speeds for that flap configuration, have a hellofa time getting the airliner's wheels onto the runway...which would then deploy the spoilers.
If you have flown on airliners and sat just behind the wings, you will notice that upon landing, once the main wheels are on the runway and spinning, there is an immediate deployment of "spoilers" which are wing panels that move upwards above the wings thus destroying the airflow over the wings and therefore, the additional lift generated by the wings being so close to the ground. These spoilers are neccessary BECAUSE of the increased lift generated as "ground effect". The airliners need to get as much weight on their main wheels as soon as they can to increase braking capabilities by their wheels.
So, looking at the ground effect in the opposite direction, if nearing the ground DID NOT increase ground effect, or total lift per se, then they would NOT need the spoilers because they would be closest to the ground.
The only way that an aircraft can get through this ground effect is with a steep vertical dive in which there is virtually no ground effect bewteen the wings and the ground/surface...aka...like it appears happened at Shanksville.
Further, when one looks at how closely the "alleged" airvehicle seen going across the Pentagon lawn is to the ground, and considering its high speed, its almost impossible to eliminate ground effect as simply as you do.
Taking the discussion AWAY from aviation and into NASCAR...
...just look at those high speed ground vehicles and their specially designed airfoils...
...the airfoils are designed to create NEGATIVE LIFT...ie...to push the vehicle downward into the racetrack for superior traction...
...and then...
...look at what happens when one of those vehicles gets its airfoils headed upwards or sidewards...they immediately begin to fly...WHY?
...because the lift and GROUND EFFECT under the vehicles becomes so strong UPWARD, that the cars begin to fly...and soon to flip over...and this happens with an airfoil designed to work in the opposite direction...so, ground effect is IMMENSE...
The points here are that the closer to the ground an airfoil designed for upward lift gets, the greater the total pressure builds UNDER the airfoil...and the harder it is to get closer to the ground WITH that airfoil...
I suggest that you conduct more research regarding ground effect on the lift generated by airfoils getting closer to the ground. The total lift becomes HUGE...
Ok folks, only I, Robin Hordon can swing 9/11 Truth research into NASCAR...[just a joke in the middle of some serious stuff here...]
Curious; what are you basing these claims on?
Robin- "Additionally, AA77 was lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio and at no time, in no air traffic facility, and by no air traffic controller has ANY target anywhere at any time been positively re-radar identified as being AA77."
"...the eight minute gap in time between eastern Ohio where AA77 was lost to positive radar contact and when this high speed eastbound primary radr target "popped up" over central West Virginia."
According to the Commission Report, and these documents from 9/17/01 and 2/24/04, AA 77 was never actually "lost" to primary radar contact, it was just not visible to Indianapolis, due to some technical reason:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14354195/T8-B17-FAA-Trips-3-of-3-Fdr-FAA-Memo-...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18663555/T8-B19-HQ-FAA-2-of-3-Fdr-Info-Paper-A...
I am familiar with the first memo and now can't...
...open either.
There is a significant difference between an aircraft remaining in positive radar contact and the nation's matrix or network of radar facilities being able to "see" a radar target by one or more of the radar antennae that exist all across the country.
Positive radar contact is a relationship between an air traffic controller and a "known" target in which the ATC constantly monitors and follows, uninteruptedly, a radar target thus assuring that the specific target being observed is the aircraft in question. Once this "linkage" is broken between ATCs and a target and the aircraft falls OUT of positive radar contact, there needs to be repeated steps, or new steps taken to re-establish that the target in question is indeed the aircraft in question. This never happened with AA77 and its only supposition that this target was that of AA77. However, surely it could be, but it cannot be conclusively proven.
Regarding the first report which I was able to read before something blocked my access [not unusual for me], I am aware of this report and FYI, I was both an ATC and I worked in airspace and procedures so I have seen many such typical FAA doublespeak reports over the years.
Going by recent memory as I cannot open these docs...[I will rewrite and redefine should I get access]
Throughout the report there is the constant use of non-positive words such as "presumed or predicted", or other words carrying similar meanings and this is not acceptable for positive radar identification. So, the report itself subtly makes this disqualifying point about itself several times but a layperson may not pick it up.
The first point that needs to be made is that its a report created by someone who is NOT CERTIFIED to make such a report...and this is a disqualifier right off the bat. I'm not sure if the term "AF personnel" means Air Force personel, or or Airways and Facilities personnel...IE: the maintenance crews for the FAA.
If it was Air Force, as some have suggested, that's an interesting coincidence that there would be a military person milling around to help out. If its Airways and Facilities personnel, they too are not qualified to create such a report. It would not have been all that difficult to get a certified FAA employee or team of employees to create such a report. Why this did not happen is my first red flag of doublespeak.
Then, there is double speak cleverly written in that the QRI radar data is first noted as providing the best data available...and then later on a positive statement that the QRI radar data did not provide conclusive primary radar data in ascertaining the aircraft position and flight path. So, since first words count in "psy-ops", so does the first read through for the inexperienced and unknowledgeable.
Regarding the QBE radar data, John Farmer provided his analysis when matching the radar returns for the QBE radar and the geographical positioning provided by the FDR that was "allegedly" from AA77 found at the Penatgon.
You must know of Aidan Monaghan's work regarding the lack of a serial number trail for the FDR in question..if not please read his work...again no POSITIVE trails as there always has been in such FDR or "black boxes". This is both significant and thematic to everything associated with the flight of AA77...which did depart IAD as noted and observed.
The QBE radar data and the FDR geographical positioning are virtually IDENTICAL being only about 400 feet off at a distance of 100 plus miles from QBE.
This is an impossibility because the radar sweeps and timing of the transmit-receive apparatus for long range radar [or even short range radar] are not accurate enough to display targets that closely aligned to each other. Therefore, I must conclude that one of these two sets of data have been copied from the other, and since the FDR did NOT pick up the beginning of a descent just before AA77 was lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio, I first suspect the FDR as being fabricated at that point. However, I cannot conclude which is the original data from which the other was copied.
This was an interesting discovery from Farmer's work...which BTW, just before he backed away from being engaged and public about his analytical work, had noted that there was a 90 second or so "gap" between the QBE radar data and what is known as "point B" in this paper...aka...where other radar sites were able to now "see" an eastbound high speed primary radar target following the suspected flight path of AA77? [I suspect that this data was from PLA. [The Plains radar antennae site]
This 90 scond gap means about a 10-14 mile gap where there was no target and I look at this in the same way that Pilots for 9/11 Truth look at the fact that the FDR data stops one second before "alleged" contact with the Pentagon. The FDR should have gone all the way to impact PERIOD!...and that it didn't suggests that the FDR data was hacked. If there were a flyover, and the FDR from that aircraft were recovered, or if an entirely different FDR was fabricated and placed at the crash site, the HI PERPS would have had to STOP the FDR recording to show a contact time. And this is where human clumsiness exposes manipulation or fabrication of such electronically precise data. The same can be said about the CVR that was allegedly that of UA93 where the cockpit voice recordings end a few minutes before the "alleged" crash time.
So, there is a theme of data manipulation by the HI PERPS all along this 9/11 journey. BTW...I believe that the FBI managed-created-controlled some of the data that was released by the NTSB about AA77's "alleged" FDR and/or the animation that somebody produced. Just another example of tampering with stuff in attempts to get their story straight...the story that the HI PERPS want told.
Finally, assembling a radar map as shown here is very easy to accomplish but truth be told, there are many, many primary radar returns that would be picked up all along this routing and they may be small aircraft, ground clutter, inversion or simply anomalous radar returns which are electronic hits or small jolts that may penetrate the shielded wiring and cables...sorta like random static electricity that we feel ourselves every now and then...except that these elctrical bursts get displayed as radar returns. And these radar returns have no identifiers on them...they are somewhat random primary radar returns.
The point here is that when you get a spread sheet of primary radar data laid out and begin to try and decipher the targets from sweep to sweep of the primary radar data, and try to find patterns of flight etc., its cherry picking at its finest...and its very, very subjective to the specialists deciphering such data. BTW...I spent many years doing exactly this in the FAA and I could make a lion sing if I wanted to by such cherry picking.
This leads to my conclusion about this report...that I cannot consider it valid. Since its a reoprt created by unqualified personnel, perhaps is just another element of nationalism or patriotism put out there in a hasty fashion that also serves to cover some asses at Indianapolis Center. If 911blogger allows my affidavit onto the site, you will be able to see that electronically setting up specific radar sort boxes for certain radar antennae inputs provides the exact opportunity, and cover, for someone to create the very "radar black hole" in which AA77 was lost to positive radar contact. This radar black hole could have been fabricated on the inside, or with the right computer codes and the like, it could have been fabricated from a remote location. To this day the Indianapolis Center refers to the lack of radar targets available over eastern Ohio as a "glitch" in the system. How convenient...and how CYA is that? I know FAA CYA when I see it...been there-done that.
This document would not last fifteen seconds in a court of law...and that's why its not very prominent in the Commission Report. But, it is surely hogwash that will sway public opinion.
Hope this is helpful and I will continue to try and open the second document as well as find the precise non-positive words in the first document.
But, now that you know about my troubles with this report, perhaps you will be able to pull the doublespeak out yourself. Its why I think its patriotism or nationalism that fueled this report...its too deliberately clever and manipulative.
Robin Hordon on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 6:08am.
thanks for your input
I don't have the background to evaluate a lot of what you say, and i probably will not take the time to learn it in detail.
As you say in a comment below: "Just like one cannot prove that the primary target that is in question is NOT AA77, one cannot prove that the primary target IS AA77...which is my entire point."
If it cannot be proven one way or the other, then it's irresponsible to make conclusive claims.
On the previous page you say, "The vertical stabilizer would NOT have folded rearward and downward and be pulled inside the Pentagon like a bird would fold its wings. As soon as the vertical stabilizer hit the second, third, and fourth floors, it would have stopped its forward movement and would have compacted itself against these floors leaving almost ALL of its metal elements plasterd up against the floors...outside the building."
To me, this is an example of stating a speculation as if it were a fact; this type of crash into the Pentagon hadn't happened before, and no experiments have been done on this scenario- how can you know what would have happened? If the plane is being shredded and exploding as it's going into the building, the vertical stabilizer is losing its support- it may have been pulled into the building- or as Bart/Hoffman theorized (see Tanabear's quotation this page), 77 may have been a plane bomb.
I have no problem with people reserving judgment about 'what' hit the Pentagon and advocating for full disclosure- harder evidence, such as documents w/ serial numbers and photos and videos, is still being suppressed (possibly just to fuel debate and speculation, and distract from the great body of existing public evidence of malfeasance and cover up). It's possible that continued independent research may uncover hard evidence, so conducting and supporting research is fine.
I do take issue with people who are promoting speculative and unsupported claims about '77/757 didn't hit' as fact
loose nuke on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 1:41pm.
Speculation as fact...
Guilty as charged...sorry about that ...I should have been more clear that my observations and conclusions are speculative only. But I do stick by these speculations...since we are into speculations surrounding the events at the Pentagon...by neccessity!
I agree that those who state for a fact what did or did not hit or fly over the Pentagon simply cannot make such strong claims...not yet anyway.
When we are saying 9/11 was an inside job,
> According to the Commission Report, and these documents from 9/17/01 and 2/24/04,
Why do you seem to believe what the very criminals and liars are saying????
Is this question for Robin Hordon or Loose Nuke?
I do not believe ANYTHING that the government of the United States of America says or releases when it is called upon to investigate itself, its members of congress, its military...or almost all other departments and offices.
They are ALL a bunch of liars and criminals that in one way or another, always band together to protect each other.
The best example is that of a two party system...and to that I say this:
There ARE two parties in the USofA...
...Republicans and...
...Republicans dressed in blue suits.
And the ONLY difference is that the real republicans are more honest about their thievery of the commons...
The democrats are PURE liars because they claim that they are not thieves of the commons, but in fact do the exact same thievery of the commons...but with forked tongues...and have done so for decades with their fake smiles.
Look in the Webster dictionary for the word hypocrit...they say: ...see a democratic politician!
AND NO...this is NOT a Ron Paul endorsement nor any support af anything associated with libertarians...the most selfish, narrowminded, self centered and parasitic political group in this country.
Someday, the majority within the 9/11TM will come to see that the military supplied the unexpected and untracable $8,000,000 that RP got to run for president...
...and that the libertarians glommed onto the 9/11TM because WE had developed opportunities, networks and enegies to reach out to the public...and they piggy backed right upon us.
Yet some libertarian Truthers are convinced RP was one of us even when he hammered us as nutcases every time he had a chance to do on national TV. Amazing denials here...
Its NOT a coincidence that as the 9/11TM began to really get good, the libertarians attached themselves to us to help expand the political base for their candidates...NOR...that it was funded by the Pentagon's clever support of Ron Paul.
This was well designed cointelpro at its finest...DEAL WITH IT!
Undermine the growing 9/11 Truth Movement by associating it with a fringe partry...AND drive a wedge between the 9/11TM and the Peace Movement because libertarians are such a fringe group that when the peace groups took a look who was standing in our parades, they saw these fringe libertarians and took a hike away from us.
The Ron Paul Experiment was cointelpro all the way...and the libertarians are either too dim or too far engaged or gone to admit this or to see it. Solid Truthers should be able to figure this out.
The 9/11TM should staunchly remain a-political.
If a candidate or party wants to support our work, let them do it on their own...unattached to us. We have more investigative work to do and we should not engage with specific candidates or political parties. But we should give them all the materials and facts that we generate because they need to know that the TRUTH is lurking its way into their domains...and that they are all in trouble.
When I sign off my writings and rants, I am noting that we need MAJOR voting reforms...not that we need to support any party or candidate.
Given a good chance and some more TRUTHFUL information, I will trust the collective decisions of a more vibrant democracy where the following two words rule:
The power of....INFORMED CONSENT...for its citizenry...
Let the informing continue...about a runaway Military Industrial Complex running this country.
This TRUTH will come out pretty soon because we are so good at what we do...
So, I trust that you are addressing Loose Nuke...cause if not, you REALLY got the wrong guy in addressing me with this question!
My governement is WAY beyond treacherous and cannot be trusted for anything other than taking care of those who run it, the BIG police force housed in the five sided headquarters that runs nothing more than a world wide protection racket, their corporations who own them...and their priveledged family trees!
This is why I'm in the streets with the following statement on my banner and handouts:
....because THAT's the big game here...
PUBLICALLY FUNDED ELECTIONS using HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOOTS on a NEW PAID FEDERAL VOTING HOLIDAY...
...just for starters as we collectivize to throw ALL criminal politicians out of office...regardless of party!
That's very interesting Robin,
> AND NO...this is NOT a Ron Paul endorsement nor any support af anything associated with libertarians...the most selfish, narrowminded, self centered and parasitic political group in this country.
> Someday, the majority within the 9/11TM will come to see that the military supplied the unexpected and untracable $8,000,000 that RP got to run for president...
I never heard that one, thanks!
And now, sadly, 'our' flyer for Richard Gage lecture in Melbourne in November is going to carry names and URLs which SHOULD NEVER BE THERE to begin with.
Despite my repeated warnings, some 'truthers' who newly joined in along with a few others who haven't done that much in the past, want to mislead citizens with wrong names and URLs...
And here, many alike give us lots of "-(minus)" ratings so that they can hide our comments.
"> According to the Commission Report, and these documents from 9/17/01 and 2/24/04,
Why do you seem to believe what the very criminals and liars are saying????"
I did not endorse those reports; my comment/question was seeking Robin's source/s for his claim of no positive radar contact after KY, and a plane 'popping up' near DC. I mentioned the Commission report and linked to those records as evidence of what the official version of events is re AA 77's flight path and the radar data, from right after 9/11 and early 2004. I don't have the experience to evaluate the integrity of those records, or the underlying data, or Robin's claims, but I don't need to know any of this to know and show the OCT is a fraud.
OK loose nuke,
> I did not endorse those reports
Good then.
Thanks. ;o)
Above comment of mine was addressed to loose nuke
Above comment of mine was addressed to loose nuke obviously.
That was his comment.
Because he really seemed to believe the official explanation by pointing out that their side of the papers showing such and such...
Doesn't make sense to me.
We are saying that those '19 Arab terrorists' were not capable to commit this horrendous crime at all, or at least all by themselves, and yet we should listen to the official lie thinking their claim is correct?
NO WAY!!
Interesting radar map that exposes two things to me...
I was able to open the second doc for just a moment and printed out the lower half showing the air traffic control sectors at Indianapolis ARTCC [I am presuming this as I do not have the ARTCC sector layout...but this looks as I suggest.]...and all the numbers shown, I believe, identify the radar sort boxes that form Indianapolis' ARTCC's portion of the mosaic of radar sort box coverages that extend all across the country.
Point one:
If you notice there is only ONE ATC sector that housed THE ENTIRE TURN? of AA77 [only part of the turn has been verified], please note that IF improper access was accomplished to the Indianapolis ARTCC RDP computer program, ALL the radar sort boxes that were "hacked" would have affected only that ONE ATC sector. The radar feeds into those specific sort boxes could have been assigned or modified in ways that DISALLOWED any primary radar data to be sent into those sort boxes. The back-up radar systems for those sort boxes may also have NOT been assigned, or they could have been assigned incompetent radar antennae sites which had poor or no primary radar capabilities in that geographical area.
The radar coverage "glicth" that the Indy ARTCC [ZID] claims as being unexplainable on 9/11/2001, may indeed remain "unexplainable" to them...especially if outside control or hacking of the radar site assignments to these sort boxes had occurred.
This is because ZID would not know anything like this [lack of primary radar coverage] had happened UNTIL, they went to their primary radar display feature and found NO PRIMARY RADAR COVERAGE.
In other words, they would be caught by surprise that there was no primary radar coverage in that region.
Saying all my lengthy stuff above a bit differently, I find it very, very interesting that AA77 did whatever it did IN ONLY ONE ATC sector...meaning...only ONE Air Traffic Controller would be able to complain about not having primary radar coverage in that sector.
And at that, such a discovery would only happen by chance as high altitude sectors usually DO NOT have any need for primary radar coverage and therefore, the button or selector for the primary radr coverage is almost always in the "off" position.
Interestingly, the EXTREMELY RARE...loss of a transponder...in this case by AA77, was EXACTLY the type of RARE CHANCE that would have the ZID ATC engage the primary radar function...and when he did...NO PRIMARY RADR AVAILABLE. Surprise!
Perhaps this was exactly as planned in "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario".
Point two: [and I find this REALLY interesting indeed...]
If one looks at the trace-track that AA77? made on its way westbound...[and then ALLEGEDLY made on its trace-track eastbound]...and one looks at the curved edge at the western portion, one will notice a STRAIGHT LINE extending towards the SOUTHWEST...and further...
[ ...I think that I notice this anyway...because the printout is very small...]
...this straight line is most likely the projected extended flight path of AA77 had it continued on the LAST KNOWN HEADING and the heading LAST SEEN by ZID ATCs...just before it was lost to positive radar contact.
BTW...this is why the SAR [Search And Rescue] missions were directed towards the southwest after AA77 was lost to positiveradar contact. The ZID ATC at first assumed that AA77 had crashed...and he went by the last position and heading known.
Also please note [I think]...that there is a diferent coloration [blue?] of the line that at first where AA77 was lost to positive radar contact, is curved towards the left, and then somewhat straightens out in an easterly heading. I surmise that the change in coloration is accomplished because it is NOT verifiable radar data from ZID radar sources...HMMM?
I do not know who generated this readout, nor when it was accomplished...but perhaps someone at ZID is telling us something by showing us this straight line extension.
After looking at what I can read and decipher in these two reports, the tie-in here is that in the previous report that I have already commented upon, I do find it interesting that the ZID fellow who developed the "cherry picked" primary radar "storyline" about AA77? completing its turn and flying eastbound, made it so very clear that he/they were NOT certified to make such a radar report.
Interesting information to me...HMMM?
I will still try to get access to both of these entire reports...but it seems like someone is screwing with my access...which to me is always a good sign!
[HI NSA-types, how's your snooping going today?]
Robin Hordon on Sat, 09/05/2009 - 5:39pm.
flt 77
That is an interesting post, however I wonder if you are missing the point of the paper in question. If we accept that there was a gap in the radar coverage, it is not proof that the plane which was picked up after the gap was not flight 77. As I see it this paper is not looking for proof that the plane was flt 77. It is looking for proof that the plane was not flight 77 and does not find any. Hence the plea that we seekers for 9/11 truth should refrain from definitely stating that it was not flight 77.
Regarding ground effect, I can well believe, as you say, that a plane coming in 20 knots too fast for a landing would find it very hard to get its wheels down, however such a plane would have its flaps out and these give a vast increase to wing area and they extend downwards so as to bring the trailing edge of the effective wing area much closer to the ground. In contrast many observers of the plane which hit the Pentagon stated that it did not have its flaps down. The shape of the ground at the Pentagon was such that ground effect would only have been present roughly from the point where it hit the poles. The distance from there to the Pentagon is so short, and the velocity and momentum of the plane so high, that we have to ask how much the ground effect could have changed its decent angle in such a short time. In the absence of plausible calculations, there is no scientific proof that the plane could not have got as low as observed.
In fact, given that so many people saw a large plane hit the Pentagon, and the damage shows how low it hit, if anyone came up with a calculation that said ground effect would make the impact position impossible, the commonsense response would be that they had made a mistake in the calculation.
re the staged poles. You say that this photo proves the pole damage was staged as there is no skid mark on the ground. The point of this paper seems to be about failure to find proof. What proof is there that this pole was not moved before the photo was taken?
Frank Legge on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 12:02am.
You do realize that the
You do realize that the pentagon is lower so the plane would have to turn down, particularly since the damage to the Pentagon was on the ground floor and only the ground floor.
911 Truth Ends 911 Wars
BreezyinVA on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 1:47am.
Yes the Pentagon was a bit lower than the poles but the plane was clearly already on a descent steeper than the ground slope.
I think the author's main point that NOTHING
should have hit our military's HQ well after 2 planes plowed into the WTC, is what really matters.
That building has to be protected by some heavy fire power.
truthoverprofit on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 4:41am.
Clearly?
BreezyinVA on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 11:18am.
I think I get the drift of the paper...but
...I turn your argument against you and FOR my point of view.
Just like one cannot prove that the primary target that is in question is NOT AA77, one cannot prove that the primary target IS AA77...which is my entire point.
It is very possible that the target in question is indeed AA77, but there is evidence that it isn't. So, in the meantime, when any Truther anywhere makes any positive statements that thae target in question WAS AA77, they are making and assisting the assumption that is IS AA77 when it has yet to be proven.
Thusly, whomever keeps making a bold statement that it was AA77 that hit the Pentagon, they are doing the work for the HI PERPS who want this EXACT story told...perhaps to cover up the possibility that it WAS a military airvehicle...of B757 variety...painted like an American Airliner. Who knows?
Please note that Barbara Honegger and I feel that this target in question could very well have been a military air vehicle that WAS remotely controlled and that had a military IFF transponder that would have automatically disabled the air defense systems protecting WDC.
BTW...there is another possible interpretation of the Cheney-Mineta dialogue that somehow "slipped out" of the PEOC. However, I am totally biased about Cheney because I feel that when he speaks, psy-ops comes out and he gets people to think of things the way he wants them to think...and that RARELY has much to do with the truth.
Here is a question for you and all other Truthers out there:
The background for the question:
What IF the Cheney-Mineta story, the one that makes us think that Cheney ordered a "stand-down" of the air defenses at the Pentagon, had never been let out of the PEOC. This would then mean that the standard air defense systems in place to protect WDC were IN WORKING ORDER on 9/11...BUT...an airvehicle made it through those air defenses anyway.
The questions:
Would that air vehicle be a military type with an IFF transponder...or
Would it be a civilian airliner which DO NOT have an IFF transponder?
Interesting aye?
So, since when Cheney speaks, psy-ops comes out, maybe the entire dialogue was designed as part of "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario" in that somebody had to take a fall to protect the military airvehicle...and who better than the abrasive and commanding Cheney to tell this story.
I just do not automatically buy into the first line of blather that is laid out there for public consumption. I may be very wrong about this interpretation of the Cheney-Mineta story...but I may be right also.
Somebody would have had to create some type of story that covered the fact that it was a military airvehicle that penetrated Pentagon airspace IF indeed it was a military airvehicle.
Anyway, we should all use "alleged to be AA77" or AA77? whenever we have need to identify this airvehicle.
Let the HI PERPS prove that its AA77 before we accept this as being true. The reason that they haven't proven this is because they CAN'T prove this...but they CAN get us to repeat their storyline hook, line and sinker.
Please stop affirming that the target in question at the Pentagon was AA77 until its proven as being so. Even Jim Hoffman is alert enough to frame his arguments into whether or not it was a Boeing that hit the Pentagon...and I suspect that its because he hasn't found any proof that this air vehicle WAS AA77...only that it was a B757...
Well said Robin.
I agree with you and would like to assure you that I will continue to read your posts regardless if they are down voted. I think your plane switching ala Operation Northwoods idea is very interesting and I am interested in hearing more. For the record I up voted your post.
getting the drift?
Robin you say you are getting the drift of the paper, but I don't think so.
You say: "Just like one cannot prove that the primary target that is in question is NOT AA77, one cannot prove that the primary target IS AA77...which is my entire point."
If you read the paper with a little care you would see the paper asserts that very point - you cannot prove the flight was not AA77, so you are in agreement with the paper on that point. That was the essential point of the paper. Why all these long posts? Did you think the paper was asserting that the flight was AA77?
Frank Legge on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 12:02am.
Automatic presumptions that its AA77...
...is what I am talking about here. And, if you read the notes there are statements that support that the airvehicle in question is AA77...and again, there is no such proof.
The proper way to deal with the identity of this UNKNOWN primary target first picked up by Danielle O'Brien is to make that point that once AA77 was lost to positive radar contact, no one, at any facility, at any time since AA77 was lost to positive radar contact over eastern Ohio, has ANYONE ever positively re-identified any aircraft in any location as being AA77. This includes the primary target in question making a right handed turn to approach the Pentagon.
This target in question is only "presumed to be" AA77, and this presumption is based upon debris at the crash site. But, there is no convincing evidence from the crash site that the debris, or the FDR are from AA77. A B757 perhaps?...but not from AA77.
Therefore, when mention is made of the target in question in and about the Pentagon, it must NOT be considered as a validation that this airvehicle is AA77.
So, if Dr. Legge was actually making that point in the paper, why then didn't he make that exact point very clearly as I have stated above?...and why did he allow the notes to go uncorrected which makes the presumption noted above?
I have been fighting this battle for years now...people simply automatically state, and write, that the primary target in question at the Pentagon IS AA77...and thus end up helping out our opposition by making THE HI PERPS' point...that the target in question is indeed AA77. Hook, line and sinker...Truthers take the well placed corporate media bait and lodge it in their mouths.
This needs to stop...until its proven beyond a doubt that the target is AA77, and the debris is from AA77.
Dr. Legge has not written a document that matches his credentials and it needs to be revised yet again. [and understanding flight? UGH!...even more revisions needed...]
Hopefully, stirring discussion and dialogue are some of the primary objectives in writing this document in the first place. I'm trusting so...and I'm also trusting that the good Dr. Legge is learning something new from almost every post that is not weighed down by personal attacks...and will rewrite.
To make all this get solved very easily...one can simply say or write "the alleged AA77"...or AA77?...or "purported to be AA77" etc. If this happens, a more accurate and truthful message will be transmitted by the speaker or the writer.
Why the long posts...BECAUSE...
...911blogger has, on and off, censored many, many of my posts and responses that have covered ALL of these very same issues for over a year now. So, since they just lifted my censoring, I'm doing some significant catch up.
Also, I have noted that once the WTC information developed by the Gage-Jones-Ryan Gang has had some solid impact, the next subject in line for deeper investigation of the events on 9/11 would most likely be AA77 and the Pentagon...
...and this is where my training, experience, knowledge and skill sets come into play. In other words, I've been given some stage time and I'm TAKING IT UNTIL I'M CENSORED AGAIN!
There is an awful lot more to learn about many aspects of the aviation, air traffic control and air defense systems protecting certain locations in WDC associated with the attacks on 9/11/2001.
Thankfully, Aidan Monaghan and Dean Jackson are doing AMAZING work with avionics/navigation systems/autopilots and NORAD responsibilities respectively. This really is helping educate the 9/11 truth Community about these critical subjects.
Anyway, as it oddly turns out, I get some avionics stuff...and I get some NORAD stuff...and I get some air traffic control stuff...and I get some piloting stuff...and I get some of the "Cheney" and political stuff...
Consequently, almost everything that happened with AA77 and the Pentagon touches something that I have some solid sensibilities about.
[and I relish any and all quetions, challenges and discussions because I don't have it all...to say the least!]
You can plan on me hollerin as loud and as often as I possibly can until RepreCensor, Jon Gold and the 911blogger gatekeeping crew takes my keyboards away...yet again!
No worry, Mark Gaffney has offered his website "911 Mystery Plane" for me to house such healthy discussions about all of the above...sans the personal slandering of course. This would be more technical and Mark has done some real good work on radar issues etc.
love, peace and progress...and "AA77?"...or "presumed to be AA77" PLEASE!
Robin Hordon on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 8:15pm.
Ground Effect...
It would be great if some other pilots checked in on this issue. BTW...ground effect begins to become an issue at much higher heights above the ground than you might naturally think. The air is actually moved downward well ahead of the wings or lift surfaces involved...it moves at the speed of sound which is well ahead of the airfoils.
Consequently, this "ground cushion" of air begins to react by pressurizing the air undreneath the wings starting at hundreds of feet above ground. Slight at first, and then increasing considerably as the wings get closer to the ground.
Consequently, the particular slope of the ground and lawns etc at the Pentagon have little to do with this physical phenomina...the "air cushion" is there..and would remain unless the aircraft went over a cliff with a huge drop-off in the height of the ground.
The fact that the aircraft did not have its flaps down is irrelevant because the wings were creating the same amount of lift, and the resulting downward pressure and upward lift as they would in a different configuration. If not, the aircraft would not remain airbourne. The deployment of flaps ONLY allows the wings to create the same amount of lift as a in normal flight...only at far slower speeds required for landing.
My making note of the difficulty of landing an airliner with flaps extended if it was 20-30 K too fast was to counter the good Dr.s lack of understanding about the principles of flight...AND to establish that there was ground effect.
Wings nearing the ground that do not have flaps extended are still going to have the effects of the "ground cushion" building pressure from below because the downward "push" or relocation of air has no place to go BECAUSE of the downward push of air. Therefore, since the downward push of air is somewhet "trapped" below the wings, it compresses a bit and this leads to a significan amount of UPWARD push or lift on the wings.
A similar example of this phenomina can be felt at the edge of a highway when a huge semi-trailer drives past at a fairly high speed [a very low speed for flight]. One can feel the "bow wave" as its called arrive at your location before the truck arrives. The broad front of the truck is displacing the air that it runs into and this inturn pushes the "bow wave" ahead of the truck, again at the speed of sound, and we feel the moving or disturbed air without the truck having yet arrived at our location.
Same thing with wings near the ground...this "bow wave", if you will, arrives both ahead of the wing and below the wing BEFORE the wing actually gets there.
Another example of this, but to the eyes of a pilot or trained observer is to watch any high speed flight that happens close to the runways during air shows and the like. A trained observer will SEE that the nose of the sircraft is tilted unusually low the nearer the ground the aircraft is flying. It almost looks like the aircraft's "tail" is flying in an unusually high position in comparison to the wings...which indeed it IS! The wing's capabilities for creating lift must be radically diminished because of the "ground cushion of air already developed ahead of the wing's arrival".
Consequently, and perhaps repeating a bit, as the wing enters the new air that it flies through when near the ground, the air is already pre-charged or pressurized UPWARD [sorta]...and this is why to get close to the ground the angle of attack must be lowered [ie: the nose must be lowered or pointed more downwardly] thus reducing the wing's designed capacity to create lift through undisturbed air.
Another way to say it: the net effect of ground effect on an aircraft is that it makes the wings end up producing MORE lift than they naturally would by going through undisturbed air in flight well above the ground...HENCE...the aircarft's nose must be lowered in order to eliminate the excess lift.
I believe that this is even more true for high speed aircraft with wings in their high speed configrations [with the flaps up] and flying at high speeds as they near the ground when parallel to the ground.
At least this has been verified to me by several professional pilots as they know that its really hard to get such an aircraft down close to the ground during fairly level flight when flying near the ground. The "air cushion" is just too strong pushing upward...
Hope that this helps...but the more experienced pros will have the final word in this.
nose down
Let us allow that what you say is all correct. You point out that at air shows when high speed planes fly close to the ground they are more nose down than usual. It makes sense.
Have a look at the animation found on Pilots for 9/11Truth. You will see that at the end of the flight the control column is pushed forward.
Now I do not endorse this animation not the so called FDR data, as I believe the FDR data has been tampered with and the animation is clearly skewed. However there is no reason to disbelieve everything in these sources.
With the control column pushed forward it seems perfectly reasonable that the plane could reach the ground, or close to it.
Yes, I noted that the nose was lowrered significantly...but
This is where the information that I have received from pilots "in type" or in "similar type" claim that the nose would have had to be pushed down so hard that there would be a structural failure or some loss of airfoil control. Again, the professional pilots of these types of aircraft should be contacted.
This also substantiates my claim that ground effect takes place at greater heights above the ground than one would naturally think...and also my claim that Dr. Legge has done a poor job regarding "knowledge of flight" in his paper. This is very diminishing to his work.
A reminder...this "ground effect" does not happen during a nose-dive type of approach to the ground...aka...what eyewitnesses state happened to UA93 as it enterd the ground almost vertically. But this is for another thread about UA93 someday.
The proof is
That's where they said it landed.
Note that pole 3 doesn't have any skid marks either.
Robin, you're right.
"So, in conclusion, since there is absolutely NO HARD EVIDENCE that AA77 actually hit the Pentagon, and that in contrast, all the evidence is the exact opposite...ie:...that it was not AA77 that hit the Pentagon, how is it that you make the claim that the primary target in question WAS AA77...and so continue to establish within your writings?"
Yeah, I wonder why, too...
"If you cannot prove that the primary target in question was AA77, then please remove all positive affirmations as such and insert "alleged" or some other disclaimer when identifying AA77 as being the target that hit the Pentagon."
I agree with you there, absolutely!!
How many to be precise?
Frank wrote:
"A large number of eye witnesses reported that something hit the Pentagon."
But how many are they to be precise, Frank?
And how many of them were absolute third party?
That contradicts with this below from a supporter signer of AE911Truth.org...
*Apologists for the '9/11 Commission Report' invariably misrepresent witness statements, characterizing them as "hundreds of eyewitnesses to a plane hitting the Pentagon". This is, of course, the employment of a non-sequitur to mislead the unwary, the reality being that all such witnesses firstly saw the large plane and then quite separately heard an explosion after the plane had moved out of their fields of vision. The fact is that, with the sole exception of Mr Walter, none of them actually saw anything hit the Pentagon for the very simple reason that none of them could see the Pentagon. Two others who claim to have witnessed an AA 757 hit the Pentagon were at that time Pentagon employees, hence their testimony must be set aside because of the distinct possibility of it being spurious. In other words, they would say whatever their employer ordered them to say; an employer that is not famous for telling the truth.
(End quote)
And then, that Mike Walter,
8. Mike Walter
Mr Walter described a large plane coming in as "an American Airlines jet" and an impacting object that looked to him like "a cruise missile with wings". He subsequently claimed that he didn't really mean that it looked like a cruise missile. One can hardly criticize Mr. Walter for any lack of certainty in his memories of the event, which must have been truly shocking to behold, although he now claims to be certain that he saw an airplane hit the Pentagon. Nevertheless, it is fair to ask how many people would describe an 18-wheeler as looking like a sports car, even if it was ramming a building at the time. It is also fair to ask how Mr Walter failed to notice the dense white smoke trail that is clearly visible in the security videos, especially in view of the fact that his keen powers of observation enabled him in a split second to positively identify the large plane as an American Airlines jet. Before, that is, its transmogrification into a "cruise missile with wings". It would of course be unjust to characterise Mr Walter as having been a plant; he was clearly shocked and scared out of his wits hence not the most reliable of witnesses. In his own words, his feelings at the time were of "sheer terror".
http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/#S08
To me, this "a cruise missile with wings" from Mike Walter was just like,
Remember, truthers in the military are telling us that it was NOT a plane.
We have listened to the experts = physicist, architects and engineers for WTC collapses.
Why don't we listen to the experts of weapons, explosives, damage asssessment = truthers in the military on the Pentagon?
The early alternative theory, promoted by several websites, was that a missile hit the Pentagon.
This concept apparently originated from the difficulty in seeing evidence for a sufficiently
large entry hole in the outer wall and observation of the remarkably circular shape of the exit
hole in the inner wall.
No, this analysis came forward because these experts know what it looks like and what kind of damage it causes.
As the witness of the site right after the crash, Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force clearly stated:
There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...
(end quote from http://patriotsquestion911.com/ )
Initial hole was ONLY "no larger than 20 feet in diameter"!!
They created those side square holes to make it look like a plane hit it though they didn't look like the ones at the WTC to show the shape of the wings!
That's why some witnesses stated they smelled cordite!
It's so simple actually, but some people want to make it complicated by words.
Listen to Dr./Major Doug Rokke if you haven't.
And I tell you, Doug is NOT a no planer for the WTC.
He is NOT 'wacky' nor 'crazy' like somebody said to me the other day.
Good luck to you all.
Aus911Truth on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 9:46am.
Compare the holes,
We can see those pointing wings' traces, right?
But at the Pentagon,
SO SQUARE!!
That's because, as I wrote above:
That's why some witnesses stated they smelled cordite!!
Hello Chihaya!
These are completely different buildings both in material and structure...this is not evidence!
All these people that you bring out for your case have said there is no wreckage of a 757 at the Pentagon which is a lie.
You tell me and everybody here where Frank has lied.
Taking the official version at the Pentagon(regarding the crash) as reality is normal and correct until proven otherwise in normal society, thinking that your being spayed with chemtrails every other day is not reality or normal for example.
Frank is a careful scientist of which we need more of and all of the ones that see people in this movement state things like there is "no debris from a 757" at the Pentagon....will run away as it is a lie!
Lets stop arguing right now and get back to work.
Paranoia and speculation will be our death we/you are demonstrating both with this debate!
John Bursill on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:22pm.
Then John, please provide ...
> These are completely different buildings both in material and structure
Pentagon walls were like, concrete with granite and bricks.
I'll look for that image later to show you.
> You tell me and everybody here where Frank has lied.
I never said that.
I said his piece is weak and not convincing, and if you say above, please present me the evidence to say there are many who saw the AA77 crashed in the Pentagon, how many and how many of them were working for the criminals.
I simply showed you some other site written by a supporter signer of AE911T.org said otherwise.
> Lets stop arguing right now and get back to work.
I'm NOT fighting against you.
I am simply presenting facts and waiting for your answer on that link.
> Paranoia and speculation
Again, smearing me with baseless allegation or your 'opinion'?
Doesn't help, John.
Although no proof
.........all one has to do is watch the released few frames of video to see it was no 757. Looking at the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 to those with any common sense can see it wasn't a gravity caused collapse.
And the icing on cake............WTC 7
This should show everyone just how bad things are.
Where is Justice?
And to add..... Thank you Dr. Jones. Its men like you that give all good Americans hope.
WISDOM on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:50am.
The video (security frames) which shows no 757 comes from the govt itself (the stills from 2002 were said to have been leaked from the Pentagon anonymously, but I'm not so sure about that).
I personally think the 5 frames were released by the perps to stir up the debate and confusion in the wake of the early missile hypothesis as proposed by Meyssan in 2002.
The white vapor trail on the frames along with the tiny tail fin just behind the post seems to give credence to the missile hypothesis, but there is NOT ONE witness who says they saw a missile. Several did say they heard something which sounded like one. But not one visual identification. I don't think there's any hope of the govt releasing a genuine, undoctored video of what really happened (unless AA 77 hit, which clearly it didn't); why would they dig themselves deeper than they already are?
No video?
..ok .....Fine. How about the positively identified plane parts? Yeah i thought so !
WISDOM on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 8:42pm.
Voted down?
............... Wow I can;t believe it. Let's see what plane it was............... or wasn't . Fine ! We deserve our fate.
WISDOM on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 8:34pm.
A Special Interest group to
A Special Interest group to meet on September 10, 2009 in Arlington.
http://911sig.blogspot.com/2009/08/pentagon-911-documented-history-of.html
I hope CIT can come in for this and others on this blog. There may be more people to interview.
http://www.twf.org/News/News911.html
The situation to bear in mind is that the perpetrators may be keeping evidence in
reserve which will prove that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. This evidence would be their
insurance policy. If they feel endangered by the progress of public opinion toward demanding a
new investigation, and realizing that this will likely lead to criminal charges and convictions,
they will produce this evidence.
Fat chance for them to "feel endangered". Even if a new official 9-11 investigation will take place, it won't be hard for the PTB to make another cangoroo court out of it. The belief that the perps continue to hold on to evidence through 8-year spread of 9-11 awareness is delusional to the tune of religious people waiting for their "savior" to return. If they had something better to offer than those pathetic (and apparently doctored) 5 frames, they would have already done so and made big noise out of it on the MSM.
EDIT: Isn't it at the the beginning the most effective time to quash a grass-roots movement? What is the use of the Pentagon "evidence" for the perps after a significant portion of population has become aware of the multitude of problems with the official narrative, unless they have enough "evidence" to plug each one of those holes? I believe that even those who get into the movement through possibly false Pentagon research quickly learn about other (numerous) discrepancies of the official story.
smoothie on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 12:19pm.
Well said smoothie.
The idea that the PTB are holding evidence proving flight 77 did hit the Pentagon as some sort of limited hangout trap that they can spring on us later is truely ridiculous. If they had video showing 77 slamming into the Pentagon they would have released it long ago. They don't. Another reason to keep the videos secret is that they may show planting of evidence after the incident. Few researchers have considered that possibility.
There is another detail we tend to forget about the pentagon
In the many debates that go on about what happened there, there is another detail we tend to forget about the pentagon, and that's the pilot Charles Burnlingame. There is a key human factor in this mix as well. We know he took part in previous planning excercises in the event of a plane crashing at the pentagon. An odd excerise to plan for though don't you think? I would think when installing the missle defense system around the pentagon the decision as to whether any private plane would be allowed to approach the pentagon in any situation, such as a "Lives in the air vs on the ground" situation, was considered first. Military planes have their codes to pass through. So there either had to be a stand down order telling the system not to shoot or the pilot must know a way to transmit a disable (friend) beacon. Burlingame was a former fighter pilot. He would certainly have the skills to do this. Maybe there might something along those lines of investigation that might shed some light on what happend at the pentagon.
What I think we can and must all agree upon is that until they release all the video from the pentagon, inside cctv and out, and all the tapes from the Hilton, the Citgo station, all of it, we will never know for sure. What we have are various and numerous eyewitness accounts, a damage path, different interpretations of photo evididence, and more questions. I think the interviews and the evidence CIT brings forward have some merit and will fit in to the overall puzzle if we ever do learn the truth in our lifetimes. (I have a distinct feeling that we will, the evidence is too strong imho.) Could CB have flown the flight path that circled the pentagon, come in at treetop level, veer away at the last minute while a test missle was fired into the pentagon? I mean, it sounds crazy but the entire subject of 9/11 is crazy fundametally. But if you needed a pilot to pull it off, you got the perfect one. You have a guy at the controls to do whatever needed to be done with the plane be it a swap, a flyover, or whatever.
What I know for a fact is that the hardest one to believe is that he gave up control of his aircraft to a man half his size with 2 other pilots in the cockpit without so much as an SOS, a mayday, a hijack code, nothing, just faded out of sight like a fart in the wind. That's the most absurd theory to me. For me personally, my biggest issue with the flyover theory is how did the plane climb back into the air without being seen? There were many reports of the white plane flying over the pentagon just after but not a 757 climbing away? Who knows. Its a mystery wrapped in an enigma surrounded by a conundrum.
The possibilities are limitless and as we all know if they can keep us asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers. The fact there are so many unanswered questions I think we all can agree a real investigation is warranted and that is the voice that needs to shout the loudest.
Peace to all
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltairre
dtg86 on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 2:51pm.
OK...now we are REALLY talkin about the Pentagon and AA77...
Here are my prognostications about how the events at the Pentagon and AA77 will eventually unfold...
I call AA77 "The False Flag Flight" of 9/11/2001.
Number one...
AA77 was the only airliner that was lost to positive radar contact on 9/11...the other three airliners were followed from departure to crash site...this provides the opportunity for AA77 to have been swapped out and another airvehicle to be swapped in...not so for the other three airliners...
Number two...
The radar "black hole" in which AA77 was lost to positive radar contact over eastern Ohio could have been fabricated entirely beforehand by simple inputs into the Indianapolis ARTCC RDP data processing computers either on site at Indianapolis Center, or, if viable hacking codes or "back doors" were obtained, such inputs could be made from any external location...
...and there is evidence of this exact prior access to the FAA computers...
Number three...
AA77 was flown by Charles "Chic" Burlingame whom which this post provides all the critical information that you need to get a handle on the importance of him being captain of AA77 on 9/11/2001. This should be WAY too coincidental for anyone's analysis of the events on 9/11 dealing with AA77 and the Pentagon.
Its important to note that, in an aircraft swapping scenario such as shown in Operation Northwoods, the key pilot is the captain of the original, or swapped out flight...which in this case is Burlingame captaining AA77. The original pilot of the original flight that is "swapped out" needs to be a trusted insider...regardless of the eventual outcome of that pilot's well being...
Number four...
Coming to discover and to understand the identity of and role played by the radar monitoring facility which was providng the radar positioning data to Cheney in the infamous Cheney-Mineta dialogue in the PEOC...
[...that CONVENIENTLY, CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY somehow made its way out into fresh air from the "deep secrecy" of the PEOC...this is an interesting occurance all in itself. How convenient...aye?...]
...will establish that some elements of the military and/or the Secret Service were monitoring this primary target for MANY more miles than the "50 miles out" limitation that we have been easily psy-opted about by this Cheney-Mineta dialogue. Perhaps its "street theater" designed to mis-inform?
BTW...to me, this "50 miles out" story all in itself was possibly designed to make everyone think that the airvehilce in question was NOT seen any farther out than 50 miles in the first place...NYET! It s NOT the way that radar systems and monitoring work...radars overlap each other all across the country...
My money is on that this airvehicle was monitored from central West Virginia...if not farther away.
[Some background here...there had to be some original stimulus that drove Danielle O'Brien's supervisor at Potomac Tracon/Dulles Tower to advise her to be on the lookout for a high speed eastbound PRIMARY target entering her airspace......just BEFORE this very thing happened......how convenient aye? This was and remains a HUGE red flag to me as soon as I heard this story years ago...
Number five...
Dealing with Barbara Honegger's research about the first explosions being several minutes BEFORE the airvehicle arrived at the Pentagon will make more accurate all of our considerations about what actually happened at the Pentagon. This may be a MAJOR game changer here...
Conclusion...
If we work on all of these issues [and anything else that tweaks anyone's interst], it will result in discovering and unfolding...
...the bigger and perhaps final picture of what actually happened with AA77 and the Pentagon...and
...the final scenario will contain some elements of almost EVERYONE's research and conclusions so far...
For me...its CHIC BURLINGAME everybody...
...he made the modern day "Operation Northwoods" happen...
...and soon everything else will begin to fall into place...
So, if we can get to the bottom of all these issues, I predict that we solve the AA77-Pentagon-Cheney mysteries...
SOOO...lets lighten up and stop defending territory...
[Craig, PLEASE...quiet with the public apology crap...wer'e trying to get you two guys to grow up here...simply publish YOUR rebuttals and look at this as an opportunity to spread your words and research all over...and let THAT RESEARCH speak for you guys. Let us deal with it...we always do.]
BTW...Dr. Legge has very obvious weaknesses in some of his points...[just consider his explanations about flying aircraft etc...UGH!]...but he has certainly stirred up a VERY valuable thread...and I see this as a very, very good thing...and it needs to continue...so...LIGHTEN UP EVERYBODY...we gottem right where we wantum...running from the TRUTH!
Robin Hordon on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 1:23am.
weak points, strong points who cares
Robin, you still don't seem to get the logic of this paper. It does not matter how weak some of the arguments are if they are not essential to the case. Even in the very paper itself it says that anyone rejecting the possibility that a 757 hit the Pentagon on the grounds that Hani Hanjour could not fly well enough is making the mistake of forgetting that an on-board device might have hijacked the plane. Didn't you notice that?
And how about the possibility mentioned in the paper that the hijackers might have concentrated on the use of CWS autopilot. We heard they weren't interested in learning to land and take off. What if they had just done a crash course in CWS? With CWS you don't have to know anything about setting up the autopilot. You just have to know how to switch it on.
Not mentioned in the paper is the possibility that an experienced pilot was flying. We have no scientific proof that Hani Hanjour was even on board.
Frank Legge on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 5:49am.
Robin, you say:
" ...the infamous Cheney-Mineta dialogue in the PEOC...
You really need to do a bit more research if you are going to throw all these red herrings into the ring. That video came from the 9/11 Commission. You can't get a more authentic source. It wasn't leaked. In fact the reverse is the case - it was taken down. Apparently the Commission decided it was embarrassing to them, but good people copied it while it was still available. Good people. Providing evidence.
Leaked?
We could go on for hours about deciding if something is leaked or not. And its not nessessary to my point.
My point is that there MAY be an entirely different take on this discussion...that's all.
If it was a civilian airliner that had its FAA transponder shut off...and had no military IFF transponder onboard [not allowed in civilian aircraft]...and still made it through, there had to be a "stand-down"
order somehow.
However, if the airvehicle in question actually made it through WITHOUT a "stand-down" order, then that airvehicle would have HAD to have a military IFF transponder on board because the air defense systems did not engage. This then would expose the military for attacking itself.
Therefore, by Cheney having this memorable conversation, then it could be, would be and IS argueable that it was a civilian airvehicle with its FAA transponder turned off and that it made it through BECAUSE Cheney kept a pre-positioned "stand-down" order in place...and not a military airvehicle.
This conversation exposing a "stand-down" would simply be one of the performance elements of "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario" that needed to happen as the airvehicle approached WDC.
Again, who else to "take one" for the military besides the curmudgeon Cheney?
A fellow who, when he asks the devil to jump, the big red guy asks "How high?".
Please don't go nuts here...I'm just making the point that if the target in question as not AA77, and was replaced by a military air vehicle [what else?] with an IFF transponder that disables the air defense system, somebody would have to do something about explaining WHY the air defense system didn't work against what was supposed to be a civilian airliner [AA77] with its transponder turned off...and Cheney accomplished this with this memorable discussion.
[BTW...the high speed, transponderless primary target approaching WDC is THE QUINTESSENTIAL suspect or "attacking target" that the air defense systems serving the WDC area are designed to protect against...not kites!]
Mineta didn't know what it was all about during the discussion...and he still might not know now...and perhaps we do not know yet either? Cheney does though.
I have considered this possibility for many years and now is the time to air it out for consideration should we prove that it wasn't AA77 that hit the Pentagon.
Where the original AA77 went would be an easier scenario to describe as being this century's model of Operation Northwoods.
Sorry, Frank, this is a much weaker analysis than your WTC work
I found Legge's paper full of very questionable statements and assumptions - a really disappointing effort from someone who has done so much good work on the WTC question.
He starts off, for example, by claiming that the far more fundamental question is "Why was the Pentagon hit?", but doesn't really back up why this is far more fundamental. Whatever it was that hit the Pentagon - plane, missile, truck bomb, or combination thereof - would have a great bearing on coming up with the right answer to the question of why it was hit, so the two questions can't really be treated separately.
He says the Mineta account of the Cheney-aide exchange is crucial to this debate - which debate? What hit the building? Where Cheny was? Why NORAD was stood down? It certainly potentially reveals a lot about Cheney's intentions that morning, but offers little either way in helping us understand the physical damage scene.
Then when Legge gets into the finer details point by point, he says "there is at least one photograph which shows ample small fragments scattered over a wide area" - but without specifying what type of debris we are talking about - plane debris, building debris, bomb debris, what exactly? He then talks about all sorts of ways such fine debris would be obscured from view on the darker lawn; other parts missed by various photographs; refers to men in white shirts and black trousers hastily collecting debris from the lawn; discusses debris flying high up in the security camera video frames - but all again without offering any proof this is *plane debris* specifically, except to briefly mention various photos of plane parts, acknowledging that some people have suggested they were planted, but offers nothing to rebut that suspicion, and moves on without exploring that possibility at all.
He spends a lot of time discussing whether Hani Hanjour could have in fact have been at the controls, perhaps assisted by auto-pilot or remote control - but this has little bearing on establishing a line of physical evidence establishing what happened, and is in many ways a diversion from the matter at hand.
Discussing the flyover theory, he says "the view over the roof of the Pentagon from the south would inevitably produce numerous eye witness reports," which he assumes would automatically make it into the media and eventually into the permanent historical record - conveniently forgetting, of course, that hundreds of accounts of explosions at the WTC never somehow made it into this same historical record, and every other aspect of 9/11 suggests that what makes into the media is highly controlled and manipulated to fit a certain narrative. If the media is not willing to report the testimony of firefighters, police and rescue workers who witnessed explosions at the WTC, why does he assume they would report witnesses to a plane flying away - which, as CIT points out, could easily misinterpret what they are seeing as just another plane taking off from the nearby airport.
But the most misleading argument, in my view, is his contention that the reason that the Pentagon videos haven't been released "must be because confusion serves [the perpetratos'] purpose" - when it's far more likely that the reason is because the videos don't show what the government claimed happened there. This whole notion, which Alex Jones seems to share, that there may be real authentic footage of a 757 hitting the Pentagon - which the perpetrators are keeping in reserve to unleash at the right time - is highly speculative, and it's just as reasonably to speculate that these videos will never be released, because they show something different than what the government claims happened.
Having read many scientific papers about both the Pentagon and the WTC, I find this a lousy, intellectually unsatisfying series of arguments, and Legge is best sticking to the WTC issue, on which his scholarship is considerably more developed.
My two cents.
nobodyparticular on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 5:00pm.
Some don't seem to understand the....
...Scientific Principle or the Precautionary Principle?
I am confused with your view here nbip? You are really missing the point of this article there is NO PROOF...so we DON"T KNOW!
Frank was forced into doing this piece....because nothing had put this position forward to successfully break the spell some are under? Are you sure it's not seeing "In Plane Site" and "LCSE" that has influenced you sir, is that the scholarly work you talk of???
Frank has done us a great service by bringing clarity and balance to the CIT frenzy!
Thanks Frank, for as an industry proffessional I think the article is excellent, who cares what nobody in particular thinks about an article you didn't write?
At he end of the day
What have you got that will get OCT believers to doubt the OCT?
To get them thinking, you have to get their attention with one sentence or one photo.
How could the Pentagon be hit when they knew a hijacked plane was approaching(?) works very well.
Good one Chris. That is the whole thing about the Pentagon, there is not much to go on. There are suggestions that lead this way and suggestions which lead that way, and it all doesn't really matter.
The fact is that:
1. Explosives were used at the WTC
2. NIST denies that explosives were used, even though It is obvious.
Conclusion: NIST is in it up to its neck.
That paper reminds us on the first page that there must be an investigation to see whether Cheney is also in it up to his neck.
Open letter to Frank Legge from Craig Ranke CIT
Since Craig can not post at 911blogger, here is his letter to Frank Legge:
Open statement to Dr Frank Legge from CIT:
Dr Legge,
We have extensively communicated to you via email the issues with the first version of your Pentagon paper titled "What Hit the Pentagon". We explained how you misrepresented the position of Pilots for 9/11 Truth while omitting any direct reference to Citizen Investigation Team while linking to personal hit-piece articles that focus solely on CIT.
You have now put out a revision that references CIT by name (without ever quoting us) but misrepresents our position with your own simplistic and incomplete interpretation of what we assert. You have also continued to misrepresent the position of Pilots for 9/11 Truth (although in a different yet even more egregious way than in the first version and again without quoting them). But to make matters worse, you falsely told the reader that CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth "radically conflict with one another" based on your misinterpretation of our positions. This inaccurate information is damaging to us and I am formally and publicly requesting a full retraction. A full rebuttal to your piece exposing your faulty interpretation of our positions in detail and the over-all faulty logic in your article in general is forthcoming.
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
>>misrepresents our
>>misrepresents our position
The paper includes links so readers can find out details for themselves.
What I find fascinating is just how many "rebuttals" CIT has to post on their websites, and how hard they have to try to take down any Pentagon researcher who does not agree with them. Here's a good example:
Book review of Mark Gaffney's "The 9/11 Mystery Plane & the Vanishing of America"
"The following book review will actually be more of an exposé since I have had personal dialog with the author, Mark Gaffney, before and after the release, and therefore have special insight into his mindset in the final months before it went to print as a whirlwind of new evidence was unearthed. Before I go back to the beginning of my personal experience with Mark . . . "
"Naturally I was amazed at the extreme levels of ignorance and deception displayed so I decided to confront Mark via email as civilly as possible."
http://www.thepentacon.com/MarkGaffney.htm
The classic civility of CIT. Of course. Many more like these statements, unfortunately.
As anyone who has read or followed Mark Gaffney's research knows, he is generally strong and attentive to detail. But the types of comments above about Mark and his book are a good indication of what the typical CIT "rebuttal" is really about.
Public letters and demands for "full retractions" and such will then go on for weeks if not months. Letters such as these are often primarily attempting to redirect readers to hype, posturing and drama -- which is easier than looking at the evidence that may ultimately not live up to the no-plane hype -- so that the real truth about what happened at the Pentagon is gradually lost in the emotional shuffle.
What is your screen name at Truthaction?
Just curious which anti-CIT personality you are over there at TruthAction Victronix?
I could dig through the archives here on blogger and produce all sorts of blatant personal attacks on CIT from your group. Hell YT just unleashed a whopper on me personally in this thread.
Your post seems to suggest that CIT has done something wrong by defending their work and asking for corrections when they have been misquoted or misrepresented. That is exactly what they should do is speak up when something is wrong.
Her screen name there is
Her screen name there is victronix01.
I Concur With CIT Open Letter To Legge
There are so many issues with this revised paper from Dr. Legge.
Its unfortunate Dr. Legge did not take into consideration our well sourced dialogue we exchanged via group email which involved several of our high time 757/767 Captains and an Aeronautical Engineer.
Im currently very busy putting together our next presentation analyzing the attacks on the WTC, but a thorough rebuttal paper will be on its way.
Rob Balsamo
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum
rob balsamo on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 1:01am.
Wow what a thread!
You cats are mixing it up good, I like the Jam. As much as I think we should not generally speculate about the events of 911 because it can be divisive and counter productive, after eight years with limited real answers it's entirely understandable. OK, after following the thread I have a superficial understanding of the divisive issues and individual positions taken, so my questions are: 1) If a 757 type aircraft did hit the pentagon what's the latest on the pilot/navigation of such plane. The official story with Hani is crap so then what? 2) under what circumstances could the famous 5 frames be legit and if legit then where's the plane, or why not? 3) When the 5 frames were released it was the MSM who called it proof to end the conspiracy etc. If this was a set-up to deliver better proof later and discredit folks down the road why wait till later when the case for truth may be more established on multiple fronts anyway. Thanks, if you can bear with me I appreciate it.
Side Notes: If I may?
I like Robin's point about the failure of the current campaign finance system. I don't think any real change can evolve without a major over haul of this system. A friend of mine Richard Dolan who is a celebrated UFO scholar says that recent convention talks in the UK include UFO's, the NWO, and no one hesitates to call 911 an inside job outside the US.
peacefulwarrior on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 6:26pm.
Peacefulwarrior,
If like metallus2, you haven't been following the Pentagon conversation until this thread (in the blogs section, all the recent CIT related threads number into the hundreds of comments, one of them over 230), you really should check out the best Pentagon research presentation yet, National Security Alert. This can't be plugged enough times:
Video refutes fly over theory
The following video from the Double Tree appears to slam the fly over theory pretty well:
There is clearly no plane caught on this video after the explosion, which is taken from the opposite side of impact.
You have to be kidding.
That video does not in ANY WAY refute the flyover. Notice the big giant trees in the foreground just to the right of the explosion? Also posting links to Arabesque's material is not exactly what I would call an independent neutral source.
Cburn, The doubletree hotel
Cburn,
The doubletree hotel video was govt released evidence and every bit as non credible as the infamous 5 frames.
If the official story were true, they would have released the videos shortly after the event.
They're not going to release something which truly shows what happened.
They ARE going to release footage which will semi feed the alternative theories, but cause just enough discord and confusion to keep the waters muddy.
This is why the eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT are so crucial. They are independent eyewitnesses.
It happens all the time, Rogin
Thanks for your valuable comments as one expert. ;o)
> Regarding the first report which I was able to read before something blocked my access [not unusual for me],
That happens to some of my truther mates all the time.
I get weird problems on the net too.
Nothing new.
And again, I ask.
Who can rate our comments?
I certainly don't seem to have that option and it seems to me, some incorrect or misleading comments getting higher rating.
What's the criteria to have that privelege of being able to rate here?
If you are logged in and posting comments,
then look at the upper left hand corner of each comment and you should see a box with the up and down arrows in them when you run your cursor over them. By clicking on one of these arrows you vote the comment up or down.
If this function is not available to you, please contact 911blogger and we will help you get it sorted out.
Comment voting is really secondary to taking the time to properly critique what it is you either agree or disagree with in a comment, imo, and should be done after reading the comment at least once and reflecting on it.
Comment votes are best not given too much weight either, imo.
We all agree that we haven't been given all the facts, brothers and sisters, so let's work to get all the facts and then we can really know what happened and not spend hours speculating.
I will be quite happy to admit I'm wrong about what happened at the Pentagon and will buy drinks for those who are closest to what eventually turns out to be the truth, whatever it may be (unless they have been especially uncivil in promoting their theory).
And I repeat here, what I said to
another poster,
What we need here is NOT just a PHOTO but the real piece with a proof that it was found at the site and its precise location which is most likely impossible I reckon, and its identification verified by absolute third party which is also very hard to have.
That is not true, John
> Hoffman's site as I showed you has the photo's, it doesn't matter how many times I link them if you don't see them.
I asked you to send me the direct links/URLs to the photos that you said of plane parts of B757 left at the Pentagon.
You took time, saying "do it tonight" and so forth but finally gave me only Hoffman site's URL,
saying you don't want to talk about 'b/s' on the Pentagon.
You are the one evading and not giving me what you said you will.
If you are that sure about "B757 parts at the Pentagon," you could AT LEAST give us the direct URLs.
I didn't see any new photo seemingly of B757 parts on Hoffman's site...
Be honest, John! if you're after the TRUTH.
You like us all here Chihaya have had many years to review.....
the evidence at the Pentagon!
And your still contesting if there are parts of a 757 at the Pentagon?
Your research skills are not as good as I thought...the argument of whether they were planted is valid though pointless.
How do we grow as a movement when it takes so long to move from the most basic of evidence.
Frank Legge does not just write a paper like this is in a day or even a week he does so over many months, looking at all the evidence. His conclusion that we can not say a 757 did not hit the Pentagon is sound and is supported by the Journal and the evidence. How about we all support Frank and the Journal on this simply and accurate assertion?
Just sent an email to Chihaya, Craig (of CIT), Rob, Dr. Legge...
This has certainly turned into a vigorous discussion. The evidence is being considered along with alternative models, and I think this is more healthy than ignoring the subject. I do hope that the thrust of Dr. Legge's paper -- the need for further data release along with a serious new investigation -- is not being lost in the exchanges.
I just sent the following email to several, FYI:
I would say that in the scientific community, the proper approach is for those who disagree to write a civil rebuttal paper, to which Dr. Legge will be asked to respond (rather than taking the first paper "off your site"). Both the rebuttal and the response will be published, if we may follow the protocol established over many decades in the scientific community.
And by "civil", I mean without the use of ad hominems -- "to the man" rather than "to the evidence". To me, the use of ad hominems is basically an admission of defeat by the person using the ad hominems.
The Journal of 9/11 Studies would welcome such an exchange of papers written with civility as it should lead to greater clarity with regard to the evidence -- and the need for further evidence.
Steven J
PS -- I would be interested in yours (and Craig's and Rob's) response to this model (not meaning that I endorse this model):
Quote: Jim Hoffman writes,
ProfJones on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 6:31am.
What purpose would a plane bomb
serve the hi perps? Just to add confusion to the matter? If we were all led to believe the official story of the Hijacked Airliners why destroy the plane and open the door to such controversy? I guess I'm missing something here. Sorry
peacefulwarrior on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 8:34am.
If something like this
If something like this happened my guess would be they didn't want any more of the Pentagon destroyed or people lost than the ones already targeted. Interesting. But if this is being considered why do people reject the possibility of the same thing happening at WTC, i.e., the possibility of a missile going into the building to make sure the building opened and the plane was destroyed. I'm talking about 911 Ripple Effect, a much better examination of those planes.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6847507648836588010
Rumsfeld was outside. Even he knows that the best laid plan could surprise. He was not inside that building.
What was Rummy doing again?
"Rumsfeld was outside. Even he knows that the best laid plan could surprise. He was not inside that building."
So, he was hanging around outside having a smoke break? Or what? Really? Can you give me a source for this? Because I think he and some CIA guy, were a couple of the only people on the planet, that still hadn't figured out we were under attack(if you want to believe they're that stupid-which I don't really ), even AFTER both towers had been hit.. Here's my source for this, now let's see yours......
"Just after 9:37 a.m. on the morning of September 11, 2001, Officer Aubrey Davis of the Pentagon police was standing outside Donald Rumsfeld's office on the third floor of the Pentagon's E ring. Inside, Rumsfeld, though aware that the World Trade Center towers in New York had already been hit, was proceeding with his regularly scheduled CIA briefing. Davis, on the other hand, had concluded from watching TV news that the country was under attack and the pentagon might be a target."
http://www.amazon.com/Rumsfeld-Rise-Fall-Catastrophic-Legacy/dp/14165357...
Rumsfeld was missing in
Rumsfeld was missing in action that morning — "out of the loop" by his own admission. The lead military officer that day, Brig. Gen. Montague Winfield, told the commission that the Pentagon's command center had been essentially leaderless: "For 30 minutes we couldn't find" Rumsfeld.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0813-08.htm
There are are lot of things we don't know (YET) about the pentagon and September 11, but one thing for sure is that Rumsfeld was NOT earning his living.
http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=156
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091101scottfry
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelin...
I don't have time to search anymore but this is old news.
BreezyinVA on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 9:46pm.
Who is protecting Rumsfeld
Who is protecting Rumsfeld by voting this down? At least two people on here are protecting Rumsfeld and trying to collapse this information. Busted. I would love to know who you are.
BreezyinVA on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 8:44am.
Because there was no loss of positive radar contact with...
...the other three airliners which eliminated an in-flight "swap scenario" for those three.
This is why it is of such IMMENSE significance that AA77, Captained by Chic Burlingame, was the ONLY airliner lost to positiive radar contact on 9/11. AA77's flight profile allows for a swap scenario.
The other three airliners were NOT swapped out because that activity would have been seen by the FAA's ATCs because many extra eyes were watching all the way, and both primary and secondary radar targets were being presented on their radar scopes. And a swapping scenario was NOT seen for the other three.
AA77 "could" have been swapped out because it WASN'T seen by the FAA's ATCs. A high speed primary target heading eastbound some 100 or more miles east of where AA77 was lost to positive radar contact WAS seen...and this target could have been the "swapped in" airvehicle that was pre-loaded with explosives.
Most people "presume" that this unidentified target is AA77...but nobody has ever proven this to be the case.
Without a swap IN of an airvehicle that was pre-loaded with explosives, the airliners would have had to be loaded with explosives at a civilian airport somewhere and this is very problematic in a variety of ways.
But its possible if highly unfeasible...
peacefulwarrior, I suppose one reason for a plane bomb would be to cut down on deaths and property damage, however, the Pentagon's five CCTV stills and subsequent video release show that whatever that object heading towards the Pentagon was, it wasn't a 757 nor a 737.
See below for my comment to ProfJones on this subject.
Thank you, ProfJones
A vigorous and civil discussion is always good and the events at the Pentagon certainly never fail to arouse many on 911blogger.
I do think that many have raced past Dr. Legge's main point, the need for more credible data and a real investigation, to defend their favorite speculative theory, and that strikes me as very unfortunate.
Hopefully, those who put so much energy and passion into this debate will take the time to write a rebuttal, submit it and carefully read the response. While this may seem tedious for some, this is the only way we will progress toward greater clarity on the issue as we wait for new data to become available.
I also look forward to a time when everyone can accept that we don't know what happened and be inspired to carefully re-examine the data, continue to dig for new evidence and re-evaluate their working hypothesis as new, credible information becomes available. That is, after all, the scientific process.
I hope that you and yours are well.
I do hope the discourse can be conducted with civility, no ad hominems.
I just sent this email to Rob B., which I post for the record:
Excuse me, Rob -- I am not responsible for Frank's paper. It is published because it passed peer-review, and it is quite possible the peer-reviewers missed some error. But the proper approach is then to write it up and submit your objections to the journal, and we will give the AUTHOR (not me) a chance to respond to your written objections. What I am suggesting is that we adhere to established protocol for peer-reviewed papers.
Note that I have neither endorsed nor refuted your statement about the "1 in 20 gradient" and I do not intend to do so, for I have not decided to write a paper about the Pentagon matter at this time. I am quite busy with other researches, thank you.
But the author should/will respond if you write AND SUBMIT to the journal a rebuttal paper. It does not have to be long. If he declines to respond, your rebuttal paper (following peer-review) is published anyway. That's standard for scientific disagreements such as this and is a long-standing protocol. I have been involved in some rebuttal-response papers myself, including a set which appeared in NATURE (the British journal).
ProfJones on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 5:50pm.
ProfJones, unfortunately the videos released by the Pentagon show a small object with a long and pointy nose cone heading towards the Pentagon, so whatever it was it wasn't a 757/737 plane bomb. It was much, much smaller than those types of Boeing aircraft.
If it had been a 757, then the first five Pentagon CCTV stills would have shown, in clear sight, a 757 heading towards the Pentagon. Instead, we see a too small tail fin propping up above the car ticket booth in the foreground. If that tail fin had belonged to a 757, then one would clearly see the front and back sections of a 757.
For the correct dimension of a 757 in those five Pentagon CCTV frames, see the link below:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm
Dean, I agree that
I agree that the videos as released do not show a 757. Not that I can distinguish.
I am seeking the release of videos that we know have been seized and withheld (e.g., the V-DOT and Sheraton Hotel videos) -- unchanged and unedited.
And let us not forget the damning testimony of Sec'y Mineta.
This bickering is pointless
It is nice to see that my post referencing Eric Bart's plane bomb theory was voted down, even though Steven Jones found it worthy enough to be relayed to Pilots for 9/11 Truth/CIT. I was hoping to bring a little known theory to light to see how the various factions within the 9/11 Truth Movement would respond. I suppose this theory attempts to reconcile the eyewitness accounts with the physical evidence. Those who argue that a plane did hit the Pentagon rely primarily on eyewitness testimony, while those who argue against that primarily rely on the physical damage(or lack of it) to the Pentagon's facade. With the plane bomb theory, there would be no contradiction between the eyewitness accounts and the physical damage. Nevertheless, it still seems kind of weird to me.
At this time, the totality of the available evidence does not allow us to come to any firm conclusions regarding the Pentagon attack("I think so-and-so but I could be wrong"). Claims to certainty only breeds strife.
tanabear on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 8:43pm.
I speculate about the verticle stablizer being...
visible outside the Pentagon after such a crash and defend THAT speculation via common sense and histories in observing/studying airliner crashes over the years.
This topic has been the most divisive thing I've ever seen in the movement, and I dont think it will make us look very good to the general public.
"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://www.ubuntu.com
zombie bill hicks on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 8:24am.
It is only as divisive as we let it become
I think that as long as we stress civility and an adherence to basic principles, the debate over the Pentagon can be leveraged to show the public why a new and independent investigation is very much needed.
OTOH, if we are foolish enough to let speculative arguments divide us when we all agree on the need for a new, thorough investigation into everything relating to 9/11/01, then we will deserve the mess we make.
There is a very small minority of people who thrive on conflict and the rest of us need to learn to not feed them, regular doses of cold, hard facts and logic should keep them in check, especially if applied in a friendly way.
Democracy can be very messy sometimes and free speech even more so.
Even Worse than Making Us Look Bad
I totally agree with Zombie that the display in the above thread of what I consider to be a form of intellectual hubris makes us look very bad, indeed. I also agree that the issue of what happened at the Pentagon on the eleventh is in all likelihood the most divisive factor among those seeking a rational and publicly verifiable elucidation of what happened on that terrible day.
However, as Frank Legge has recently warned in his interview on Truth News Radio Australia (podcast posted on August 20, 2009 at http://www.truthnews.com.au/radio/wordpress/?p=320), there is worse: not only do the extravagant flights of fancy occasioned in some members of our community by the attack on the Pentagon make us look bad (i.e. ill-bred, ill-educated, ill-informed, thoughtless, and incapable of distinguishing between raw and often justified political frustration and outrage at the machinations of the U.S. government and the sober minded analysis of an event in the physical world, or of distinguishing among evidence, logical inferences drawn from evidence, extrapolation and interpretation, and speculation), but the myriad speculations regarding the Pentagon (some clearly utterly preposterous in nature) expose the most solid work of the movement (the work carried out on the destruction of WTC 1, 2, and 7) to the very real risk of being completely devaluated and dismissed (by mere association) if those who hold the video footage taken by the Pentagon's cameras ever decide to release it.
In other words, those who pontificate about the attack on the Pentagon without method and without regard for the most elementary procedural checks on empirical inquiry and without attention to logical cogency and consistency expose the entire movement to a kind of intellectual suicide.
Yes, it is that serious, folks.
Stone (not verified) on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 3:08pm.
Yes, yes and yes!
Why is it so hard for some people to understand these simple facts of life regarding a campaign for truth and justice?
Thanks so much to Dr Jones, Stone and a few others for making clear sense and not allowing themselves to become frustrated and emotional!
I am sorry for some of my posts here as I lost a little control...any way I apologise for any personal attacks or rude behaviour.
I really think Dr Legge deserves praise for his attempt at preserving our credibility, not attacks from the gallery of "I watched a video documentary" experts! It actually made me a little furious as simply so much hard work is a stake!
John Bursill on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 6:06am.
I understand the desire to
I understand the desire to not want to look nutty to the general public, but I think some people have become almost schitzoid about this. We are a truth movement, not a PR movement.
To the "general public," particularly those whose brains are programmed to believe that the truth movement's overall premise is nutty and offensive, the CD of the WTC appears every bit as nutty as any Pentagon scenario. Here's sad proof of that.
To those who do not have such a predisposition, they will look at the CD of the WTC and staged light poles at Pentagon with an equally open mind.
"Looking Nutty" or Not, That Is Not the Question
You simply do not get it. We who are seeking to eludicate the events of 9/11 are not playing a game for those who are in the know, and, contrary to your prejudicial and prejudiced view, the public matters greatly.
Let me elaborate somewhat with the following remarks and correctives..
1. I did not speak of "looking nutty". That is your language and your interpretation. I spoke more precisely and more extensively, I believe. Please read what I wrote and consider it before reacting and hastily scribbling another comment.
2. I do not know what 'schitzoid' [sic] is supposed to mean in the context of this discussion. I find it totally out of place, but it is typical of the kind of sloppy language that too often goes around in 9/11 talk.
3. We may not be a public relations firm, but we are not a club either: we are a movement that is under public scrutiny.
4. The occurrences of concern to the 9/11 movement are eminently public ones, and they are relevant to all the citizens and residents of this nation and those of many other nations, if not in fact to the whole world. Their impact on public life both domestically and to the world at large has been grave and tragic. (Needless to say that they have also affected the private lives of individuals.)
5. We ought not to underestimate the people who stand outside the 9/11 movement. In fact, the majority of people are in that situation. Instead, we ought to demonstrate our respect by attempting to make our case in such a way that it is accessible and intelligible to them.
6. We ought not to assume that anyone is "programmed" or predisposed in such and such a way: such an attitude is presumptuous, prejudiced, and prejudicial to our aim.
7. By stressing appearance, you show that you failed to grasp my main point, namely, that it is not primarily a matter of looks, but rather a matter of life and death: what is at stake is nothing less than the credibility of the entire movement and years of hard work by very dedicated individuals and groups.
8. People who speculate boundlessly about the Pentagon and disregard dozens of eye-witness accounts of what happened when the Pentagon was hit contribute plainly and simply to undermining the credibility of the movement and of its most solid and hard won work.
In other words, and more
In other words, and more simply put, you think we should stop looking or questioning.
Not "in other words" at all,
but rather IN YOUR WORDS.
There is not a single sentence in any of my posts on this site or elsewhere which would state that one should stop looking or questioning.
In fact, I was precisely questioning a certain strand of 9/11 pontificating, and you did not like that. I suppose that questioning, in your eyes, is restricted to questioning the official conspiracry theory of 9/11.
But I do think that people should stop fabulating about what happened on that terrible day and stick to what we know.
Stone (not verified) on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 9:38am.
By sticking to what we
By sticking to what we already know IS saying we should not strive to know more. You use a LOT of words to say little.
That title of a famous play is the fitting description of the flyover and no-757-Boeing theories. I invite everyone to review the deluge of verbiage thrown at us in this thread by the fanatics who propound these theories, to count the number of words expended by them, and to see for themselves who uses a lot of words to say plainly nothing.
This will be my last intervention in this thread, as I no longer consider the people in question to be rational partners in conversation.
Let me add that I will write to the person in charge of this site to recommend that the theories in question be deemed as unacceptable as the small nukes, space beam, and no plane theories, and therefore be banned from this forum.
Stone (not verified) on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 10:36am.
Thank you Stone....
for your well thought out and reasoned dialogue on this thread. I hope you will continue to very gracefully counter the speculative and weak arguments and those who promote them.
Michael on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 4:43pm.
Someone who has been on the
Someone who has been on the list for 9 weeks is now wanting to take charge. Talk about verbiage. Let's talk about suppression.
No planers had nothing but insanity. We have people who swear the path of the plane is north. I once again find it offensive to be put into that no plane pennies from heaven category.
BreezyinVA on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 10:02pm.
Isn't that hypocritical?
"Someone who has been on the list for 9 weeks is now wanting to take charge."
Your friend Eleusus has been here for only 2 weeks and 6 days now. I can't remember that you objected when he came out of nowhere and started to attack established posters. In fact, you even applauded him and said he was "making a large contribution". Why do you now use the short time Stone has been here as an argument against him? Do you apply different standards to different people?
JohnSchröder on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 6:18am.
What exactly is Stone's
What exactly is Stone's contribution other than to tell us he is running to the authorities. Words words words (and lots of them).
BreezyinVA on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 9:02am.
Don't worry about "Stone"
The truth will take care of itself, it always does in the end.
FTR, I had a very interesting email exchange with "Stone". He asked 911blogger to ban anyone promoting or supporting CIT's work from 911blogger and, when that didn't happen, he asked to have his account canceled at 911blogger and stated that he considers 9/11 truth to be a lost cause.
This is why "Stone's" posts appear to be "greyed out", all at his request and despite my best effort to convince him to stay and argue his case.
The change we are working for will not come overnight, brothers and sisters, let's keep our eyes on the prize, keep investigating as best we can and keep our (relatively minor, imo) disagreements as civil as possible.
Building and maintaining a movement is not easy, nor is it for the faint of heart .
I love you all very much.
(Yes, even those I disagree with regarding the Pentagon...SMILE)
LeftWright on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 3:06pm.
You walk your walk
You walk your walk LeftWright. I appreciate that.
BreezyinVA on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 10:06pm.
Stone is one of many
"he asked to have his account canceled at 911blogger and stated that he considers 9/11 truth to be a lost cause."
And he is far from alone, as I have been warning that this has been happening for some time now. Rational, Sane, logical, people are leaving the movement due to BS like refusing to accept physical evidence, falling for con jobs put out by individuals with their own agendas and so forth.
No PLane hitting the pentagon is a no plane theory wether the guilliable people who desperatly want to cling on to that belief, admit it or not, and P4T and CIT count on you for support at the demise of the movement at large.
On 9/11 planes flew into buildings! There were not missiles and there were not flyovers there were planes, and they flew into buildings.
jimd3100 on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 11:20pm.
I think that more good
I think that more good people have been banned than have left. It is like Leftwright said, it isn't for the faint of heart. If people need to take their toys and go home, so be it.
We will not stop with just what we know, as he wanted us to do (in way too many words).
Refusing to accept physical evidence
such as the amazing unscratched hood of the cab allegedly speared by a light pole knocked over by a 757 going 500+ mph? What did it do hover over the hood? How about light pole number two knocked backwards instead of forward just like Kennedy's head after Oswald supposedly shot him from behind. Is that the kind of physical evidence you are talking about?
Adam Ruff on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 11:32pm.
Best, Non-Contradictory Evidence Comes From The North
Which eyewitnesses are you talking about? The eyewitnesses who saw a commuter aircraft fly into the Pentagon? The eyewitness who saw a jetliner cart wheel into the Pentagon? The six Gannett/USA Today employees who saw a jetliner fly into the Pentagon even though a tree line was in the way, according to Pentagon Police officer Sergeant Lagasse?
The eyewitnesses located south of the Citgo Gas Station have either different stories or x-ray eyes!
The eyewitnesses north of the Citgo Gas station all say the same thing!
It also happens that the NTSB analysis also backs up the eyewitnesses north of the Citgo Gas Station, so I say let's go with the best (and, as it happens for a change, official) evidence, which comes from the 13 eyewitnesses located north of the Citgo Gas Station.
brian78046 on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 1:44am.
Why aren't there more witnesses to a fly over?
Very simple. There is a phenomenon known as "Perceptual Blindness" also known as Inattentional Blindness that certainly would have played a part in any flyover. Consider the following scene:
1. A pool full of people playing, splashing, swimming, diving, etc. with a lifeguards on duty. A common scene at any pool.
2. These life guards observe these things on a daily basis so nothing out of the ordinary.
3. A child goes underwater and drowns to death. Why didn't the lifeguard see the child despite it being his primary purpose at the pool and what they trained for?? Perceptual blindness.
When people are engaged in an engrossing task, such as monitoring swimmers in a pool, they often fail to notice otherwise obvious events because they happen outside the immediate focus of attention. In this way, perceptual blindness can help explain why lifeguards fail to detect victims on the bottom of swimming facilities and individuals around the Pentagon did not see fly over. They were engrossed by the bright light and explosion at the Pentagon and the resulting smoke screen. That is why in many of CIT's accounts and accounts they have examined people simply deduced that the plane hit the Pentagon, including the North of Citgo witnesses. There is one account where the lady thought it hit the other side of the Pentagon and secondary accounts who thought it flew over, and one direct eyewitness who works in the Pentagon.
If it was a missile, then what happened to the plane? The only result is a flyover, because numerous witnesses did see large passenger plane inbound, not a missile. And they have been confirmed on camera.
The scenario:
1. Low flying aircraft are a common occurrence in and around the Pentagon so low flying passenger planes are to be expected in the area.
2. A huge bright flash and several story high explosion engulfs the Pentagon. How many people were looking in the immediate airspace after the explosion versus how many people were looking at the explosion itself and the resulting smoke screen.
3. Perceptual blindness occurs as low flying passenger plane and flyovers around the Pentagon are a common occurrence. There could be numerous eyewitness to that account that the local phone calls to the authorities might prove, but strangely enough the FBI has never released those records or recordings. One is left to wonder why?
Test yourself: View the video in large screen format and follow the directions: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80437539/
Visit http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/ for analysis and commentary on 9/11.
Swingdangler on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 10:40am.
How could anyone vote this down?
You that voted this down are a disgrace to this debate!
Stone did not state any position against CIT or the "flyover" he was just clearing up a few things to bring some needed context and was simply asking to be responded to in a fair and accurate way. Is that worth a down vote?
I'm out of here as there are to many people with a 'bent' trolling this discussion now....what a shame for us all!
Good bye John
PS - CIT's conclusion of a flyover is only supported by one witness their other twelve DO NOT support that conclusion...is that really worth this sort of passion or is just an excuse to push a belief many here already had (I once had)...take a deep look at yourself and consider if you really think CIT have HARD EVIDENCE of a flyover?
The north approach is hard
The north approach is hard evidence.
Adam Syed on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 5:38pm.
Yes it is supported HARD evidence.
Quite simply if the north side approach is true then the damage path in the Pentagon cannot fit that angle of approach AND the light poles MUST have been staged. So in order to dismiss those factors one MUST dismiss all the north side approach witnesses PERIOD. So either the North side witnesses are liars or at least grossly mistaken in the same exact way OR the poles are staged and the internal damage does not fit the flight path so the plane had to go somewhere other then into the Pentagon. It is that simple, the north side witnesses are lying OR the plane flew away without hitting the Pentagon. So to all those who are so indignant about discussing this issue I say make a decision. Seriously make a damn decision, are the north side witnesses liars or not? I say they are NOT liars and therefore am forced to conclude the flyover had to happen.
AtomicBomb, the NORTH approach eyewitnesses (including Pentagon Police Sergeants Lagasse and Brooks) all say the same thing, while the "eyewitnesses" SOUTH of the Citgo Gas Station see and say the wildest things, including seeing through trees. Some see a corporate jet, one saw a large aircraft cart wheel into the Pentagon, another saw the wings fold back, and six eyewitnesses (all of them the Gannett/CIA Today employees) saw the impact even though a line of trees were in the way!
You are not supposed to talk
You are not supposed to talk about the details Brian (or Dean, whatever your name is).
People were very very disturbed at that time. They weren't sleeping. I even dreamed I saw a picture of the plane, the back end sticking out of the Pentagon and I had a very clear image. For a few many days I thought I had actually seen this picture. I even argued with some who said there was no plane. But then I realized there was no real picture like that. I must have dreamed it during those first couple of days that were so violent. Shuttering a lot. I worked with someone on the Pentagon plane. And my community lost an important person who had worled to bring cultures together. I still shutter to think of the deep pain people were in.
I can only imagine the state people who were actually there found themselves to be in. Cartwheels sounds about right.
I hope we can meet sometime, it sounds like we are in proximity.
Since we are on the subject,
Since we are on the subject, I just received an email with this link from Enver Masud (he went to the Pentagon after the event, lives near there).
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/0831-Witness.html
To Stay Within the Limits of What We Know
The above thread of views (many of the them needlessly lengthy and poorly written, both impediments to intelligibility and thereby to gaining access to truth) regarding what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 would seem to show yet again that some find it very difficult to keep to what we know about that occurrence and to the logical inferences that can be validly drawn from what we do know.
It would seem also that those who find it difficult to stick to what we know tend to overcompensate for their failure to keep to the given by obstinate longwindedness and reckless verbosity, as if they were papering over their hubris.
All in all, this says more about the commentators than about the occurrence supposedly under consideration.
It is a distressing state of affairs.
Stone (not verified) on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 10:32am.
If in DC...
Since Washington DC is apparently so heavily defended, is there any possibility that something got launched within DC limits from the ground if it were a missile? It may be a dumb thought.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
A New Story on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 12:27pm.
Not sure if this has been debunked
A friend sent me a link to this clip last week, and I wanted to see if this has been looked at or explained...
Any and all feedback would be appreciated - I personally am quite skeptical, but I tend to question things more than the typical American...
The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry
Dave Nehring on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 2:47pm.
Vote down a comment that is pertinent and offer no explanation or reason? I was just wondering if anyone knew anything more about this clip. Sucks what direction the comments section is going...
I voted you up for your
I voted you up for your sincere inquisitiveness. That being said, the video you posted is most definitely a fake.
I was genuinely curious, and I appreciate the honesty. The voting system seems to be getting quite comical here, reminds me of how clique-ey things got in high school...
Wrong. Fake video. The pictures that are supposed to show flight impact 77 on the pentagon show that the explosion rises above the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8
[img]http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/090512_9-11_conspiracy_pentagon.jpg[/img]
But the images of the explosion at pentagon accurately reflect the detonation of explosives with high energetic power.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2473
The white smoke vapour trail behind the supposed airplane can not be that of a damaged engine of a Boeing 757 (official explanation).
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ro04_911-case-study-pentagon-flight-7...
In this case, the smoke would be black.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRkPpFNxd-Q&hl=fr
Compare the explosion pictures to the pentagon with the one of a Bunker Buster and with the pictures of the impact of the airplane that hit the tower south:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfRWh2FTZks&hl=fr
[img]http://www.fugly.com/media/videodir/Amazing/thmb/TN_slow_motion_bunker_buster.JPG[/img]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyqo4oh-AzU&hl=fr
[img]http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/wtc-9-11.jpg[/img]
tit2 on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 4:25am.
and that should be blatantly obvious. Come on! No offense, but are you kidding? In the words of Jim Hoffman,
"This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be."
SnowCrash on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 10:58am.
A 757 cannot fit inside a 15 foot hole.
Flicker on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 7:27pm.
''''''''''''''''''''''Your shting me! I
WISDOM on Mon, 08/31/2009 - 9:02pm.
Has this ever been shown before?
That "fin" is pretty convincing.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15892
Does anyone have any indication that those who wrote this book are lying, have a history of lying, etc? If not, then why is this ignored by the "Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon" advocates?
Jon Gold on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 10:18am.
So then the 13 north side witnesses are lying?
It is one or the other, either the north side wits are all liars or all deluded in the same exact way OR the flight path depicted in this video is false. So based on your presentation of this video Jon I take it you believe the north side witnesses are all ...hmmm at the very least deluded right?
I see no damage on the hood of the cab that was supposedly "speared" by a light pole knocked down by a plane traveling over 500 MPH! Wow that is fast but what about conservation of momentum and energy for that impact scenario? Does it add up? Perhaps a physics expert could explain how the poles fell lightly enough to miss the hood of the cab yet spear the front window because dumb old me thinks it doesn't make sense? I am just a kook promoting already debunked junk theories though so I am a little slow.
I also wonder with my less then brilliant mind why the poles would not have been violently thrown a lot further considering the weight and speed of the object that hit them but instead they just lightly fell over not even tearing up any grass as they gently floated down as if from a cloud.
One pole (Lamp pole 2 in the video above) even "fell" the wrong direction after supposedly being struck by this massive plane traveling at break neck speed. My dumb old brain thinks there is something fishy there but then I also wonder why if JFK was shot from behind his head snapped back and to the left silly me for questioning such things. Yeah nothing to look at here, move along, these are not the droids you're looking for, move along.
There is no way in hell the press and government would lie or present planted evidence either, well except for the miracle, fire proof, Kevlar tuff, passports found at the WTC and Pentagon that is. But except for that planted evidence there is no other planted evidence... gees. I mean seriously how could anyone be so stupid as to believe the government would lie, plant evidence, or suppress evidence about 9/11 and then further believe the press would go along with those lies and parrot the official line? Only a real "freak" could ever believe such a thing right Jon?
Yes let's put all these silly questions aside because it is too divisive to discuss such things. I agree let's drop the whole Pentagon discussion and just accept that the 80+ video tapes are being held back for our protection. Accept the government and press are telling the truth and accept that the multi ton steel engines just vaporized yet the hijackers DNA survived to be tested proving it was just as we were told the 19 Muslim fanatics who did it. The Barbara Olsen calls were legit, how could I have ever listened to DRG?
Yup I see your point now, I have been "divisive" for talking about the Pentagon, and silly me for thinking these issues should be discussed. Stirring up controversy or disagreeing with anyone from TruthAction or 911Blogger can only hurt the quest for the truth I see that now my sincere apologies.
Adam Ruff on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 10:51am.
Than you think the multitude of other witnesses who contradict the 13 witnesses you speak of are liars or deluded or fake or actors or whatever it is the kids are saying nowadays. The point is... there is nothing definitive one way or the other so it's idiotic for people to say definitively what happened at the Pentagon when they have no clue one way or the other. Therefore, it makes more sense to focus on more productive avenues. That's my humble opinion.
And you are still ignoring the book. Why? Do you have evidence that the people who wrote it are liars, or have a history of lying? If so, please present your information.
What "book"?
Jon I don't know what "book" you are talking about and also please don't think I missed the fact that you completely ignored all the relevant points in my post above with your response.
Yes unlike you I AM willing to commit to the concept that some witnesses were planted liars, OR misquoted by the lying press, OR not in a position to determine south side vs north side approach.
How many south side wits do you have? In truth you don't have many at all but I would be glad to be proven wrong.
How many give direct statements on video and how many are you getting second hand from our oh so credible press?
The CIT wits give first hand in person video testimony that cooroborate each other witnesses statements. Much stronger wits.
How about the light pole falling the wrong way in your video Jon? How is that possible? Physics Jon.
How did the hood of the cab remain undamaged if the pole speared the front windshield?
Why do you ignore the most important points instead of responding to them? I directly addressed your video and you completely ignored my counter points with your response. That is NOT a debate, that is you trying to steer the discussion away from opposing evidence and avoid discussing it.
You can't rely upon physics to make your case for the WTC and ignore physics with regard to the Pentagon. How can pole #2 fall Backward Jon? How can the cab's hood remain unmarked? You can't answer so you evade the issue.
You know something Jon this whole "let's not talk about the Pentagon because it is divisive" refrain is old and tired and it doesn't hold any water. I don't know about you but I CAN explore the evidence of demolition at the WTC AND consider Pentagon evidence as well. If you are a 9/11 investigator then leaving the Pentagon out of your investigation weakens your over all case it does not strengthen it. If you are worried about how the hypnotized public will view Pentagon discussions don't bother because they are already equally hypnotized about the demolitions evidence.
Quit trying to shut down discussion of the Pentagon! It won't work first of all. Secondly it isn't your place to decide for anyone else what is a worthy avenue for investigation. Lastly you may well be totally wrong about the whole damn thing in which case you are attempting to quash a legitimate line of investigation that could break open the whole 9/11 issue.
I am really sick of this BS to be quite honest. My instinct told me the WTC was blown up long ago and my instincts told me flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon. I trust my instincts and you know what Jon? Every time someone tells me to stop discussing the Pentagon yet refuses to address valid questions about it, my instincts tell me to look even deeper.
Then feel free...
To waste your time. By all means. Good luck with that. Here is everything written by Arabesque, someone I trust (oh no! Jon Gold trusts someone who is anonymous... even though I know his real name), on the subject of CIT.
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/misinformation-flight-77-flight...
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/07/pentagon-flight-path-map-perfec...
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smo...
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/william-lagasse-these-poles-wer...
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony-m...
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony-w...
Let me know when you prove that the DNA from the crew and passengers was faked (a report saying it is possible to fake DNA does NOT prove that the DNA from 9/11 was faked), the witnesses are fake or actors, and which acting school they went to, and which organization hired them to be witnesses, the book "Firefight" that mentions seats from a plane with charred bodies was written by liars with a history of lying, the two pieces of debris with the AA logo on them were planted, and by whom, the two, possibly three pieces of identification from the hijackers are fake, who faked them, and who planted them.
Jon Gold on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 12:50pm.
I'm sorry you trust "Arabesque."
I don't care whether or not you know his real name. I've combed through his links before, they've been addressed in many previous discussions here, and they have more red herrings and straw men than the Popular Mechanics literature. He attempts to impress with verbosity and length, just as Ryan Mackey does in his "two hundred page!!!" rebuttal to DRG's NIST report analysis in D911D.
I trust the good judgement of the many endorsers of the NSA video.
Adam Syed on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 1:42pm.
And I don't...
With the exception of one in particular. I guess we're even.
Jon Gold on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 1:45pm.
There's nothing wrong
with taking the witnesses presented by CIT seriously. I understand CIT is not without faults, but they go out of their way to remove any ambiguity from the statements of their witnesses. I give them credit for that.
Not the witnesses, but flyover theory seems untenable in the face of the physical evidence and the lack of corroboration of Roosevelt Roberts.
Claiming only a bomb could create the facade damage and the damage path is unreasonable unless hard evidence of physical evidence fakery at the Pentagon emerges. A while back, when the Pentagon/CIT discussions peaked (Still peaking I guess) I studied the Pentagon facade damage until my eyes were swollen. It was then that I started realizing a plane must have hit it unless somebody can present me solid evidence that all the damage, the plane parts inside and outside and the damage path were faked. Crucial to this understanding is fully appreciating what the Pentagon facade was designed to withstand. It was designed to cope with war conditions and to withstand various assaults. It did so successfully on 9/11, because if it wasn't for the Pentagon's fortress design, casualties would have been far greater. People were amazed at the condition of the facade after impact. In retrospect, the Pentagon's structure did just what it was designed to do. We just never knew it was that resilient until it was put to the test, on an additionally reinforced section no less. As if it was also an experiment to test the Pentagon under warlike conditions.
So far the body of evidence for fakery is weak (except perhaps for the light poles, who knows if they were removed to prevent a premature crash) and that's what CIT should have focused on next. Why not examine the Pentagon Building Performance Report more closely? We did it with the FEMA and NIST reports for the WTC buildings didn't we?
Personally I believe the approach of the plane hitting the Pentagon doesn't match well with what we've been told. I also believe contradictory evidence is thrown at us intentionally to confuse us. Flyover is a theory that is forced upon us because supposedly deviation from the official flight path precludes impact. I reject that basic contention. The only thing a slightly deviating flight path really precludes is light pole clipping. What I'm saying here is that I also disagree with CIT on the extent of flight path deviation. The differences among CIT's own witnesses and the fact they used only witnesses north from the "official" flight path underscores this. CIT could be much better investigative journalists than they are now if they would just stay away from premature conclusions next time. And honestly, the guts they've shown I respect. Let those hidden camera's and tape recorders roll. I, for one, want to know what people are saying when they think they're not being recorded. Now let's do the same for WTC 7.
SnowCrash on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 5:36pm.
I have wasted too much time reading Arabesque already.
I have read many of his long winded articles and found them to be lacking in every respect except assumptions. I already addressed in this thread 2 of the basic assumptions he makes regarding the Pentagon which I will repost here:
Both are naive to say the least and deceptive at worst. His articles are NOT a valid, credible source on the Pentagon because they are tainted by his assumptions.
I also notice that Jon refuses to address direct points made such as the lack of damage to the cabs hood and such as light pole number 2 falling the wrong way? If you won't address the points my gut tells me there is a reason. That reason is that you can't explain it away, neither can Arabesque. I also know that when push comes to shove you cannot actually produce witnesses who contradict the north side approach. I have seen the attempt already from Arabesque with 1 video he offered up of 1 witness which does not even directly contradict the north approach and you know something the CIT guys have a MUCH stronger case. So Jon if you actually have all these witnesses who contradict the north approach let's see them otherwise quit claiming they contradict the north approach. Arabesque simply listing off the statements he got second hand from untrustworthy sources such as the press does not cut the mustard or explain away the very real physical evidence that the light poles were staged.
Snowcrash most of what you say is very reasonable however if the light poles were staged as you believe they were then the entire official story MUST be thrown out as staged. It is tainted evidence or to put it another way it is false evidence designed to mislead. Any deviation at all from the official flight path could not possible result in the official damage path inside the Pentagon. You can't have it both ways either you accept the official flight path or you MUST conclude the evidence was staged there is no middle ground. The 13 north side wits are liars or the official story is BS cut and dry.
I believe the official story is BS based on the fact that they have lied about everything else related to 9/11 so why break precedent at the Pentagon. I mean you really have to be naive to the extreme to believe the perps would not tamper with the evidence, plant evidence, and insert shills into the mix of witnesses. The miracle surviving passports alone prove they are willing to plant evidence. Why is it so hard to understand that the official liars are LYING?
One other detail not even CIT picked up that is very compelling evidence of video trickery is that the official video shows the object coming in already straight and level skimming the ground when it enters frame on the right. Why does that matter? Well there is a hill just to the right of where it enters frame. A hill the object had to pass over and then almost instantly drop down to the straight and level path we see in the video. I do not believe that is physically possible for a 757 to clear the hill and then instantly drop to straight and level flight skimming the ground. I think PFT have made a strong case for why it is not possible due to aerodynamic and G force constraints and I consider it compelling evidence that at the very least the object in the video is not a 757.
Remember to read all the down voted comments people as they are often the best.
Adam Ruff on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 6:50pm.
Re: AtomicBomb
"Snowcrash most of what you say is very reasonable however if the light poles were staged as you believe they were then the entire official story MUST be thrown out as staged."
Why? I'd replace "MUST" with "COULD". As for those light poles, I'm not certain. I consider it a possibility.
Any deviation at all from the official flight path could not possible result in the official damage path inside the Pentagon.
Well, imho these are simply CIT soundbites. The problem with this is that CIT claims to reject the government as a source, yet CIT frames the Pentagon Building Performance Report as either a total lie or absolute truth. This black/white thinking is symptomatic, as demonstrated by your next two sentences:
You can't have it both ways either you accept the official flight path or you MUST conclude the evidence was staged there is no middle ground.
The 13 north side wits are liars or the official story is BS cut and dry.
Neither of these statements are actually true:
There could be flight path deviations resulting in both the light poles and the Pentagon being hit
There could be a flight path deviation that results in the light poles being staged and the Pentagon being hit
There could be a flight path that results in neither the light poles nor the Pentagon being hit
The first and second options are most realistic, the third is highly unlikely unless bombs designed to resemble a plane imprint went off, plane parts were spread on the lawn simultaneously with the bomb explosion (or emanated from the bomb), the gash in the generator was carefully staged, the plane passengers reported to be inside were staged, the DNA evidence was staged, the exit holes were staged, the damage path was staged and the witnesses that say they saw the plane hit or that say they saw the plane meet the building such that a pull up is impossible, are all lying or incorrect.
The North side witnesses can't even agree with each other. Have you looked at those map overlays? This error margin is amplified by the fact that all CIT's witnesses are North of the "official" flight path. Furthermore, their placement of the plane can, in some cases, be skewed by foreshortening. Also, the plane was traveling at a speed (whether it was slower than the official narrative or not) that leaves only a few seconds to make the judgment call.
Don't accept false choices. The North side witnesses are certainly not "either all correct or all lying". As if being incorrect or somewhat incorrect isn't part of the options.
I don't accept that the Pentagon Building Performance Report is either all lies or all truth either. Yet another false choice. What do we know about the NIST reports for WTC 7 and WTC 1 & 2? That they contain truth as well, and that this is a very effective disinformation tactic. The best disinformation is 90% true.
To prove CIT's flyover theory right, they need:
(Lots of) corroboration for Roosevelt Roberts
Proof that all physical evidence is staged
Proof that the Pentagon Building Performance Report is either a complete fabrication or explainable with bombs and other fakery
Then the whole business with the flight data recorder needs to be resolved. Again, it's a big puzzle, but I don't accept the fake black and white choices presented to me. We should all think for ourselves. I for one am not going to be dragged into an increasingly absurd and weakly supported no plane impact theory, but I am seriously considering flight path anomalies, and I take CIT's witness interviews seriously.
SnowCrash on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 11:22am.
Snowcrash.
I realize now after reading your post that much of what I said was not very clear or well explained. First of all starting with the light poles I should have said the following to be clear.
If the north side witnesses are correct meaning the plane they saw passed on the north side of the Citgo station then the path of the plane they saw does not line up properly with the downed light poles or the reported internal damage path at the Pentagon. So either the north side wits are wrong about the north side approach or the officially reported damage path inside the Pentagon does not match the angle of approach and also the light poles were "missed" therefore either staged or struck by another object/plane. The north side approach does not allow the poles to be struck or the officially reported damage path to be accurate. The angles are inconsistent.
To quote SPreston from the Firefighters for 9/11 truth forum: "However, flying above the Naval Annex renders this official flight path impossible, unable to knock down the five light poles and unable to create the same official damage path through the Pentagon. With the actual aircraft Over the Naval Annex, the light poles are too far south to be reached properly, and the official building internal damage path at the wrong angle, unable to be recreated."
As to the flyover idea I agree with you that there is not enough supporting evidence and testimony to consider it a fact by any means. I consider it a strong possibility but not a fact. The reason I consider it a strong possibility is because the damage to the light poles and separately the reported damage path inside the Pentagon are not possible with the north side approach. So the physical damage reported officially totally contradicts the north side witnesses and therefore either those witnesses are all wrong or the downed light poles and the officially reported damage path inside the Pentagon was caused by something else. If the north side approaching plane actually struck, the damage path inside would be totally different and the 5 downed poles would still be standing. Therefore a north side approaching plane could not have struck the Pentagon AND be consistent with the observed damage which is why I believe it had to fly over and away. If it had struck the damage would be totally different. The flyover idea is therefore VERY strong if the north side approach is correct according to the witnesses.
This statement you made: "There could be flight path deviations resulting in both the light poles and the Pentagon being hit." is incorrect. There is no wiggle room on this point because some or all poles would have been missed on a deviated flight path AND the officially reported damage path would be at the wrong angle.
As to the physical damage being staged there is strong evidence that it was:
1. The hood of the cab supposedly speared by the light pole is pristine after allegedly being struck by a pole knocked down by a 757 traveling over 500 mph. How could it go through the windshield all the way to the back seat (according to the driver) and not damage the hood? This is ridiculous and I believe physically impossible. I also contest that such a violent impact on the cab from such a heavy object slammed down at such a speed would have destroyed the cab and probably killed the driver. Also another point not even made by CIT is that a full throttle 757 would have passed less then 20 ft above the cab as it passed by and the jet wash and ground effect would have picked up that cab and thrown it as if it were in an F5 tornado. Furthermore the cabbie caught on tape insisted that the incident did not happen where the photos of the aftermath place him. According to the photos he was on the bridge struck by pole #1 yet according to him he was no where near the bridge and insisted the photos were wrong. His testimony is highly suspect and I believe he is lying about what actually happened.
2. Pole #2 "fell" the wrong direction after supposedly being struck by the 500+ mph 757. Impossible, clearly staged.
3. Pole #3 fell to the right even though the momentum of the impact clearly should have thrown it down to the left across the roadway or in my opinion hurled half way to the Pentagons wall if not into it.
4. All 5 poles MUST have been at a minimum uprooted and hurled considerably further and more violently then they were by such a powerful impact. Instead they gently fell over (1 even fell in the wrong direction) and did not even disturb the grass. Smells like BS to me and I believe the physics prove it. I will differ to Dr. Jones on that point however if he wishes to consider the physics of it.
5. Damage to the Pentagon facade shows columns blown outward from the inside not smashed inward as they must have been had a 757 actually struck. This is a strong indicator in my opinion that the damage to the facade came from an explosion inside the Pentagon.
6. PFT have established beyond a reasonable doubt that a 757 could not possibly have pulled the G's necessary to clear the overpass and pull up to straight and level flight to hit the facade and cause the internal damage path officially reported. Not even with an ACE pilot let alone Hani at the controls. Physics of the maneuver rule it out as a viable possibility.
One final point is that as opposed to what you said not all the north side witnesses were on the north side and so your implication that they could not properly determine north vs. south is weakened considerably.
I do appreciate your civil discussion of this topic as opposed to the way many "truthers" approach this topic with dismissive arrogance. Thanks for the discussion and I hope it can continue.
Adam Ruff on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 5:05pm.
"If the north side witnesses
"If the north side witnesses are correct meaning the plane they saw passed on the north side of the Citgo station then the path of the plane they saw does not line up properly with the downed light poles or the reported internal damage path at the Pentagon. So either the north side wits are wrong about the north side approach or the officially reported damage path inside the Pentagon does not match the angle of approach and also the light poles were "missed" therefore either staged or struck by another object/plane. The north side approach does not allow the poles to be struck or the officially reported damage path to be accurate. The angles are inconsistent."
Yes, agreed, but also consider the possibility that the Pentagon Building Performance Report is either slightly incorrect or covering up the real trajectory. Hold that thought and consider it for a while. It opens up some interesting possibilities.
"To quote SPreston from the Firefighters for 9/11 truth forum: "However, flying above the Naval Annex renders this official flight path impossible, unable to knock down the five light poles and unable to create the same official damage path through the Pentagon. With the actual aircraft Over the Naval Annex, the light poles are too far south to be reached properly, and the official building internal damage path at the wrong angle, unable to be recreated."
"This statement you made: "There could be flight path deviations resulting in both the light poles and the Pentagon being hit." is incorrect. There is no wiggle room on this point because some or all poles would have been missed on a deviated flight path AND the officially reported damage path would be at the wrong angle."
Well, I respectfully disagree. There could be slight turns. Maybe the impact location of the nose could be slightly different. Why is it more reasonable to assume that a plane flew over the Pentagon instead? See the image below, and ask yourself: "Is it impossible for AA 77 to fly over the Navy Annex, AND south of the CITGO, AND hit the light poles, AND hit the Pentagon"? This is just a hypothetical flight path drawn by me to show it isn't as far fetched as many make it out to be.
Also another point not even made by CIT is that a full throttle 757 would have passed less then 20 ft above the cab as it passed by and the jet wash and ground effect would have picked up that cab and thrown it as if it were in an F5 tornado.
I have a relative who lives on the island (Saint Martin) whose airport you see below. See the car? This is actually normal over there. People stand under the approaching planes for fun. How much difference would "full throttle" really make?
Well, but they were on the North side of the "official" flight path. Turcios and Lagasse were on the South side of the North side approach, yes. I admit the CITGO witnesses have to be really badly mistaken.
SnowCrash on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 8:48pm.
Interesting photo of the St. Martin plane landing.
I blew up the photo to maximum size and looked at it very closely and it appears at first glance to impeach my hypothesis that the cab would have been blown away however there are some important differences worth noting. First you ask "How much difference would "full throttle" really make?" I have to say it would make a huge difference. Landing speed at low throttle is about 3x slower and the engines are not putting out nearly as much thrust. Because the speed is much less there is also much less air disturbance beneath the plane. The picture also brings into real perspective another issue which is how low the engines had to be for the wings to actually clip the light poles since they hang well below the wings. According to the official scenerio the wings clipped the pole that struck the cab which puts the engines damn near if not on the roadway. Bottom line: in order to clip the pole flight 77 would have to have been considerably closer to the roadway then the plane in your photo is to the beach. In point of fact the landing gear dipicted in your photo would have been on the ground in my estimation. Flight 77 would have been considerably closer to the ground then the plane in your picture. So my argument still stands although I admit that I could be totally wrong on this point and experts are needed to resolve it for sure one way or the other. Really cool picture though Snow Crash it did make me re-think my position and definately raises doubt.
Adam Ruff on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 12:01am.
AtomicBomb, if after you awoke in the morning you look out the window and see twelve inches of snow on the ground, what can you assume from that? I would assume that it snowed while I was sleeping. Well, since we now know that the large aircraft flew to the north of the Citgo Gas Station (thanks to CIT's eyewitnesses and the NTSB analysis of the large aircraft's last seconds in flight), and not south of the Citgo, that informs us that that large aircraft didn't impact the Pentagon, ergo, that large aircraft flew over the Pentagon.
brian78046 on Sat, 09/05/2009 - 4:18pm.
What if you had
witnesses who said it didn't snow anywhere near your house that night? Or that it didn't snow, but rain? Would you dismiss the physical evidence? Would you say trucks dumped the snow there instead? Of course, the Pentagon situation isn't nearly as black or (snow) white, unless you accept both the north side witnesses and the Pentagon Building Performance Report as the gospel truth...
It is my opinion that CIT unearthed some interesting facts...namely that the flight path may deviate from what we've been told. Flyover is a separate issue...how would you explain the U-turn and the south west flight path that Roosevelt Roberts described?
SnowCrash on Sat, 09/05/2009 - 4:34pm.
And the 13 are not the only
And the 13 are not the only ones. There are people who are not on record but who worked at the Annex who insist that the plane flew over them. To me it is clearly a non-issue anymore. Just another BIG hole in the OCT.
Too-Precise Detail
AtomicBomb, the eyewitnesses NORTH of the Citgo Gas Station also confirm the official flight path of AA77 as provided by the NTSB, but there are people in this thread who still refuse to admit that many of those eyewitnesses south of the Citgo Gas Station are wrong, even when one points out that many of those eyewitnesses have Republican Party links, or can see through trees (the six Gannett/CIA Today employees).
I would like to remind everyone that 9/11 Truth is all about the evidence. When you have the NTSB, Pentagon Police/civilian eyewitnesses all saying the same thing, that means you have proof that the official narrative of Flight 77 is a lie, and that many of those eyewitnesses located south of the Citgo were plants.
We also have the Pentagon CCTV stills that show a very small aircraft heading towards the Pentagon. Not a 757! At the very least, that small aircraft that is heading towards the Pentagon in those five stills jives with several of the eyewitnesses who were south of the Citgo who said it was a corporate jet that they saw slam into the Pentagon.
Why is this so difficult for some to understand? The bastards who carried out 9/11 had plants in New York describing on television, in too-precise detail, how the towers collapsed, so why is it so difficult to understand that plants were also at the Pentagon?
Let me also stress that a civilian airliner CAN'T slam into the Pentagon due to the six missile batteries the Pentagon had on 9/11. Only MILITARY aircraft were allowed to approach the Pentagon without being blown out of the sky.
brian78046 on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 12:05am.
Agreed and....
The "witnesses" who actually contradict the north side approach are no where near a "multitude" as Jon Gold suggests. In fact if you go through them one by one you find that virtually none of them contradict the north approach. One of their so called contradictory witnesses was a PNAC signatory for Gods sake! Imagine the gaul of those who suspect he might be lying. A PNAC signatory lie about 9/11? NEVER!
Adam Ruff on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 12:06am.
AtomicBomb, then there are those six south-of-the-Citgo Gannett/USA Today employees (who were very late to work, and virtually driving one car behind the other car) who say they saw Flight 77 impact the Pentagon. How did they see that when a tree line was blocking their view. Oops! You know what they say about Best Laid Plans...
This is not proof, but you will be glad to know that a person I know who gets intelligence briefings affirms that the large aircraft did NOT impact the Pentagon! Just thought you'd like to know.
Divided, Conquered?
I wish to dispute Robin Hordon's claim about the "tail stabilizer" of the plane which he claims is proof positive that a 757 could not have hit the pentagon.
A photo from the parking lot video camera shows the tail section flying up and over the pentagon as a result of hte impact explosion, and break up of the aircraft.
http://www.911research.com/pentagon/evidence/videos/docs/pcamframe5.jpg
Obviously, it is possible that this happened and so his claim of "proof" is untrue. We don't know for sure what happened, but the preponderence of evidence suggests a 757 hit.
This thread is testament to how utterly useless this entire argument is. We are basically talking to each other anyway, and the world has no interest in this discussion.
If 1% of the effort expended went to looking into "VISA EXPRESS" and the Saudi Royal family connections, we might actually have gotten somewhere.
A massive lawsuit was just dismissed, dissing the families of the victims. Where's the heated discussion on that, and the reaching out to allies?
URGENT ACTION NEEDED: CONTACT THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND NOTIFY THEM OF BUSH'S TREASON RELATED TO THE 9/11 ATTACKS (SAMPLE)
johndoraemi on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 4:42pm.
How do you know that is the tail section?
That could be a chunk of the Pentagon roof, it could be anything. There is nothing in the photo you offered to show that is the tail section. You are just speculating. Also your contention that "the preponderence of evidence suggests a 757 hit." is not accurate. The "evidence" you are relying on to make that claim is in question. Serious question.
The Pentagon is just as valid to research and investigate as the WTC is or the put options, or the NORAD stand down etc. Nothing says you cannot investigate VISA EXPRESS and the Pentagon. They are not mutually exclusive.
I contend that the only reason the Pentagon is "divisive" at all is because some individuals have an anti CIT bias because of personal reasons, because of bruised ego reasons and are therefore trying with all their might to discredit CIT's evidence, sadly regardless of how compelling it is. Also reasoning backwards from the flyover hypothesis is exactly the wrong way to go about this, it is starting with a conclusion and then trying to support it. One must reason forward from the north side witnesses to the contradictory light pole evidence to the incompatable damage path inside the Pentagon in order to understand why the flyover hypothesis is so strong. Beginning with a predetermined conclusion such as "the flyover idea is false" is the same as NIST concluding the towers were not demolished therefore we didn't look for evidence of explosives.
The fin of a jet from a cartoon.
Flicker on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 9:51pm.
The Color of Fuel
johndoraemi, those five CCTV stills show a small tail fin propping up above the car ticket booth. If that were a 757, the tail fin would be some10 times larger in the first CCTV still, and a 757 would be clearly seen in the first still
Another proof that that wasn't a 757 is the color of the exploding fuel in the picture you provided. It isn't yellow-orange as it should be (the color of the aviation fuel when they exploded after impact into the towers was yellow-orange):
http://www.counterrgroup.org/towers-exploding.jpg
It really makes me wonder about certain people when such obvious proof exists (i.e. the wrong color of the exploding jet fuel) that a 757 DIDN'T crash into the Pentagon! As if a civilian airliner could!
brian78046 on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 4:43am.
but the preponderence of evidence suggests a 757 hit.
This seems like an extreme statement to me. At best it seems like a possibility, but I wouldn't bet the farm.
peacefulwarrior on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 6:56pm.
The tail section and other facts:
To my knowledge, no debris of this tail section has been reported subsequently. It would be necessary to verify it.The official history asserts that "American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour":
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
The National Transportation Safety Board specified:
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf
"AAL 77 Fuel Consumption
"Based on ACARS transmissions to the airplane, the fuel load on the airplane when on the ramp was 48983 lbs. This results in about 36,200 lb. of fuel remaining upon impact with the Pentagon (the end of the DFDR data)."
The "Pentagon Building Performance Continuation" (ASCE)" specified:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
"The site data indicate that the aircraft fuselage impacted the building at column line 14 at an angle of approximately 42 degrees to the normal to the face of the building, at or slightly below the second-story slab". "The orientations of the distorted columns and the columns that were severed all indicated a common direction for the loads that caused the damage. The direction of column distortion consistently formed an angle of approximately 42 degrees with the normal to the west exterior wall of the Pentagon."
Below a picture figuring in the "Pentagon Building Performance Continuation" showing the approach of the aircraft:
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/pbpr/fig6.1.jpg
I think also that the damage assessment of impact must also include the information concerning the height of the pentagon and the size of a Boeing 757. Quote from the report:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/asce_en.htm
"The heights of the floors are from the Report as interpreted above (bottom to top: as 14 ft 1 in, 12 ft 5 in, 11 ft 4 in, 11 ft 4 in and 15 ft 4 in). The ca. two-foot discrepancy at the roof becomes understandable if it is assumed that the heights are distances of the floor slabs and that each floor's "own" slab is its floor. Thus the structures above the bottom surface of the slab above the fifth floor are not included in the Report's diagram. In any case, the second-floor slab is at about 14 ft above the ground."
Dimensions of a Boeing 757-200 and its engines:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html
On May 16, 2006 Judicial Watch forced the Department of Defence to release video footage of American Airlines flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/September_11_2006_Videos.shtml
http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml
Normally an analysis of the attack on the Pentagon should integrate all these elements and all elements of physical evidence analysis for the Pentagon must confirm the official statements. It can not be any exceptions.
I read for example in the study of airline pilot Ralph W. Omholt:
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/flt93.htm
"In all pictures of the Pentagon fire, the ONLY prominent "thick black smoke" emanates from the generator unit, within the construction area fence, not from anything associated with the supposed aircraft". If this statement is true, it contradicts the official story of the attack on the Pentagon.
Pentagon Attack Photos :
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/generator/tg_firespray.jpg
http://images.doctissimo.fr/photo/6671159667/private-category/pentagon_9...
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/3.jpg
image of the twin towers attack:
http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/wtc-9-11.jpg
This is an example of an exception!
tit2 on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 5:27am.
Cit Supporters
To all CIT supporters. Please explain why Pentagon eyewitness Keith Wheelhouse, someone CIT interviews, very plainly draws the flight path that is counter to the north of the gas station approach.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/w...
Go in about 13 minutes to the part where Keith is asked to draw the flight path he remembers.
Questions-
Why did CIT cherry pick this eyewitness out of their pool of witnesses?
Why does Keith's testimony not count?
How many others did CIT interview that we simply do not know about because of further possible cherry picking of witnesses?
Why is it that any witness who disagrees with their conclusions is either a liar or a government plant such as plainly suggested in the quotes below? (The quotes below are nothing compared to the desperate accusations made at anyone who works for USA Today)
Why is everyone from USA Today a part of the conspiracy for the "flyover"? (CIT does these same things to Joel Suchermann of USA Today)
Please respond to these questions without resorting to the speculative and accusatory tone that CIT itself uses in their shoddy attempts to discredit Keith. The man was an eyewitness to the attack and like all the others, describes what he saw. Of course, eyewitness testimony is notoriously inconsistent and very often in error so just as to be expected, there are inconsistencies and errors throughout the body of Pentagon witnesses. This does not mean Keith is lying or was an accomplice as CIT wants everyone to believe.
"Well on 7/22/08 we received a short e-mail from Keith out of the blue. Apparently he was still either oblivious to our claims about him and his account or his MO was to play dumb on purpose to make himself seem innocent." -Aldo Marquis
"The charade is over. We know you aren't to blame for a deception on this level Keith. But things will work out a lot better for you if you come clean." -Craig Ranke
"My guess is after they used Wheelhouse, they all thought they were in the clear. Then we started piecing stuff together and then the RADES/radar data is released and Keith had to stick to his story because they cut ties with him perhaps?" -Aldo Marquis
Michael on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 8:19am.
(1) Where Keith was standing he could hardly place the plane relative to other objects. (2) Nevertheless he drew the flight path exactly identical to the "official" flight path. (3) He gives an account of the C-130 that conflicts with the account of the pilot of the C-130. I'm convinced he embellished his testimony by looking some things up (maybe on the internet) before the interview. This does not mean Keith is an "accomplice", it means he's unreliable. It's simple common sense.
If you reject common sense because common sense happens to agree with CIT, then you've lost all objectivity. I don't deal in truth based on ad hominem ("It's untrue because it's CIT's claim"), and neither am I a fan of "majority truth". Common sense also dictates that unless Roosevelt Roberts is corroborated, he is likely mistaken.
Embellishment, deduction, special pleading. These are just some of the problems of interpreting witness statements.
"If you reject common sense because common sense happens to agree with CIT, then you've lost all objectivity."
LOL! Common sense and CIT don't work together. According to your "common sense" Wheelhouse was "to good" a witness, but was not very good. (flight path was "to correct" but c 130 was off)
If every witness says a passenger jet flew into the building and the parts, debris, and rescue workers, all confirm it, then in my strange world "common sense" would tell me some witnesses got the flight path off about 10 degress, and others don't, and the ones that don't, CIT wants to paint as mass murder accomplices, who are "in on it", to keep this silly "no plane" impact theory alive for the gulliable.
Common sense also tells me that's a great way to alienate the public at large, make it harder for other REAL independant researchers, and a great way to make the movement look like psychos.
jimd3100 on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 12:37pm.
Your whole comment
underscores my point about objectivity. If CIT makes a point that is correct, it doesn't automatically become incorrect because it is CIT saying it. Do you disagree with this?
The topic was Keith Wheelhouse, not CIT in general. By redirecting the topic towards CIT's effect on the truth movement, you are attempting to smear me by association, and to discourage me from ever agreeing with any point CIT makes again. I'm totally uninterested in CIT and your opinion of CIT (ad hominem), I'm interested in the Pentagon attack.
You use Lloyd England again and again to fuel outrage as if this is a proper argument. Lloyd lied. On camera. This is inappropriate considering the seriousness of what happened. You don't go around lying about where you were even when confronted with pictures of your location, especially not about 9/11. So excuse me if I don't give a damn about Lloyd ("I was not there") England.
Also, please point out where I defended CIT's flyover theory and said I believe that no plane hit the Pentagon? Did you miss my remark about Roosevelt Roberts?
Yes: Keith Wheelhouse's flight path drawing is too good to be true. It's too good to be true because it is an embellishment. His testimony about the C-130 conflicts with the pilot of the C-130 (!!), yet he gets the OCT flight path completely perfect (!) while seeing through foliage (!!). Talk about gullibility. There is plenty of evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, and I don't need Wheelhouse for any of that. What I do need, is reliable flight path witnesses. Wheelhouse is one of the weakest in the whole set, OCT + CIT inclusive. I'd take the other guys at Arlington cemetery over Wheelhouse any day, unless Wheelhouse has some sort of miraculous gift that automatically corrects foreshortening and some kind of weird selective blindness for banking planes.
What hit the pentagon
"The topic was Keith Wheelhouse, not CIT in general."
The topic is what hit the pentagon.
"You use Lloyd England again and again to fuel outrage as if this is a proper argument."
You just brought him up, not me. But since you did....you said......
"Lloyd lied. On camera. This is inappropriate considering the seriousness of what happened. You don't go around lying about where you were even when confronted with pictures of your location, especially not about 9/11."
Lloyd is 75 years old. Here is what Russell Pickering said, who was there, when these nuts first interviewed lloyde . Of Course Russell was sent in by the FEDS as an undercover operative according to CIT to mess up their Investigation, BTW another big clue you are taking seriously a presentation by psychos. His take........
"Lloyd very simply has a horrible memory."
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14657...
But you want to make him out as a liar. CIT wants to make him out as an accomplice. If you think this helps the movement, you need to look more into this "common sense" thing. But you also say......
"So excuse me if I don't give a damn about Lloyd ("I was not there") England."
Some of us do care about slandering victims of the attack. You might think it's helpfull, some of us disagree. BTW, Lloyde never "confessed" either. That was another manipulative lie. That I hope you didn't fall for.
"Yes: Keith Wheelhouse's flight path drawing is too good to be true. It's too good to be true because it is an embellishment. His testimony about the C-130 conflicts with the pilot of the C-130 (!!), yet he gets the OCT flight path completely perfect (!) while seeing through foliage (!!)."
The flight path is of a plane in the air. There is no foliage in the air.
Wheelhouse and every other witness these con artists have talked to who ruin their fantasy get slandered. There is nothing truthfull in any of that. It's a disgrace to the truth movement.
The fact is everyone who was there agrees a plane hit the pentagon. CIT wants you to focus on the ones that have the flight path off several degress and pretend that this is the end all be all and is what is most important. It's not. It proves witnesses are not perfect. Big deal. Everyone else in the world already knows that.
jimd3100 on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 2:05pm.
"The topic is what hit the
"The topic is what hit the pentagon."
Yes, and the subtopic was the testimony of Keith Wheelhouse, which I believe to be an embellishment, for the reasons I outlined. I don't think Keith is an "agent". However, planted testimony, such as perhaps the "Harley Guy" is always a possibility I don't rule out. To do so would be naive. On the other end of the spectrum, to disregard every contradictory testimony as "planted" is downright nutty and paranoid. I'm sick and tired of people calling other people "agents" all the time. That goes for calling CIT "cointelpro" too. It's childish and stupid. If you disagree with CIT, let it be known. If you want to call them "cointelpro" or "disinformation", then prove it and show me their CIA paycheck. There isn't one, of course, and the whole "agent" this, "disinformation" that is a huge and pointless distraction. Want to see some real CIA disinformation? Try Glenn Beck and Mike Baker calling us Holocaust deniers.
"You just brought him up, not me. But since you did....you said......"
Try again. You brought him up. Not me. Clearly you were referring to Lloyd England when you said:
' and the ones that don't, CIT wants to paint as mass murder accomplices, who are "in on it" '
Lloyd England told the truth when he thought the camera was off, then lied when the camera was on. His reasons are unclear to me. There could be several. Why should we give Lloyd England a break about that? He's not the "poor old abused cabby" you keep making him out to be. Doesn't mean he's an "accomplice", but it does mean he's being dishonest to point where he's telling a bold faced lie.
"Lloyd very simply has a horrible memory." (....) But you want to make him out as a liar"
Yes I do want to make him out as a liar. Because he did tell a bold faced lie. Lloyd's own words: "He was up on the bridge" [taking pictures of Lloyd's car] (..then later...) "I was not there" (... then confronted with pictures of himself ...) "That's not where it happened". Lloyd's lying. My best bet is he simply didn't trust Aldo and Craig so told them what he thought would protect him from trouble. His tactic backfired.
"Some of us do care about slandering victims of the attack."
I call Lloyd a liar, but not a "mass murder accomplice". I feel fully justified doing this because Lloyd told a bold faced lie. It's painful for Lloyd, maybe, but I don't see him as the confused old man Russel Pickering makes him out to be. I'm not CIT, I wouldn't call Lloyd's words a confession, or even a virtual confession. I think Lloyd is playing games because he is trying to protect himself from trouble. Lloyd is no idiot.
"The flight path is of a plane in the air. There is no foliage in the air."
The buildings which Keith would have used to relate the flight path to aren't in the air either. See Adam's comment below with Keith Wheelhouse's actual vantage point. Keith drawing his perfect flight path from there is a complete joke. I don't buy it, and neither should you. But then again, CIT called him some names, so that must mean he's reliable.
"It's a disgrace to the truth movement."
Perhaps. Rejecting every and all facts originating from a particular source because you don't like the source is questionable as well. CIT has presented witness statements. You don't have to accept their framing of these witness statements at all, nor do you have to accept their no plane impact theory. Focusing on CIT all the time is an ad hominem distraction.
"The fact is everyone who was there agrees a plane hit the pentagon"
Yes, most of them deduced, which is a well known witness flaw. However, I agree that a plane hit the pentagon. Some witnesses saw the plane enter the Pentagon, or saw it so close to impact before they flinched that any pull up would've been impossible, imo. The physical evidence strongly supports it.
"CIT wants you to focus on the ones that have the flight path off several degress and pretend that this is the end all be all and is what is most important. It's not. It proves witnesses are not perfect."
Or...it proves the official flight path incorrect. This is a legitimate question, with possible consequences for the light pole damage. Why stage that? Maybe to clear the way. Maybe the team that did it screwed up. Maybe the official flight path is truly correct after all. Who knows. All I know is that a plane impacted the Pentagon and that I have doubts about the official flight path. (And the notorious Pentagon security tape for that matter)
I'll admit that CIT's zealous defense of flyover in the face of lots of contradictory evidence, and the repeated use of absolutisms is extremely counterproductive. But they did show balls in going out there to interview the witnesses. Doing so helped lots of people understand that there was indeed a American Airlines commercial airplane at the Pentagon, and in doing so they conclusively debunked all missile/variant theories. I can see some light where all you see is darkness. Studying CIT's work and the physical evidence, ironically, convinced me that a plane actually did impact the Pentagon. I need no ad hominems to reach this conclusion.
<<"On the other end of the spectrum, to disregard every contradictory testimony as "planted" is downright nutty and paranoid. I'm sick and tired of people calling other people "agents" all the time. That goes for calling CIT "cointelpro" too.">>
Nutty and paranoid? Yea, I agree, and that is exactly what CIT does. And I haven't called them cointelpro, I've called them nuts, because I am assuming they aren't cointelpro, but it doesn't matter, the results are the same.
<<"Try again. You brought him up. Not me. Clearly you were referring to Lloyd England when you said:
' and the ones that don't, CIT wants to paint as mass murder accomplices, who are "in on it" '>>
No, YOU try again, I was referring to Wheelhouse, which CIT have also accused of being "in on it".
And while you and other "truthers" slander an innocent old cab driver who has done nothing but answer his door and tell his story is disgusting. I hope you're proud of yourself and how this reflects on the movemnent.
<<"But they did show balls in going out there to interview the witnesses. Doing so helped lots of people understand that there was indeed a American Airlines commercial airplane at the Pentagon, and in doing so they conclusively debunked all missile/variant theories.">>
They are in this for themselves. However I agree the missile stuff is dead(which was already dead anyway if anyone would actually pay attention)
On 9/11 planes flew into buildings. Witnesses are not perfect. Both of these statements are already known to the rest of the world. Trying to paint cab drivers and funeral mourners as liars and accomplices does not help the movement. It hurts it.
I'm proud of myself
for not resorting to ad hominem attacks, appeals to emotion and appeals to consequences all the time. And being self-righteous about it at the same time.
There was only one witness who CIT specifically referred to as "directly involved with this black operation of mass murder" and that was Lloyd England. (Needless to say, I disagree with CIT) If I am incorrect, then quote me CIT saying these things verbatim about Wheelhouse. Can you?
I'll link you to your own comment for reference:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15478#comment-185988
some quotes
"There was only one witness who CIT specifically referred to as "directly involved with this black operation of mass murder" and that was Lloyd England. (Needless to say, I disagree with CIT) If I am incorrect, then quote me CIT saying these things verbatim about Wheelhouse. Can you? "
So how do you interpet the following?
"Well on 7/22/08 we received a short e-mail from Keith out of the blue. Apparently he was still either oblivious to our claims about him and his account or his MO was to play dumb on purpose to make himself seem innocent." -CIT
"The charade is over.
We know you aren't to blame for a deception on this level Keith. But things will work out a lot better for you if you come clean. Work with us. Tell us what you really saw and/or know. Help us nail the true perpetrators.
Tell us who told you to say the C-130 was shadowing to act as confusion/cover for the flyover. The more you are open with what you know the more protected you will be." - CIT email to wheelhouse (after he emailed them some pictures to help with their "investigation)
"So even the government threw you under the bus Keith."
"There is really nothing more to discuss unless you want to confess, Kieth."
"Your role in this mess was accurately predicted. We know the plane did not hit the building, Kieth. We know it was a flyover/flyaway. We have witnesses who prove this." -CIT
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/936873/1/
Then there is M Walter who also is an accomplice, unless you would like to explain away the following......
"We can prove [Walter] is a liar," Ranke says.
"You want me to cut to the chase?" Marquis interrupts. "He's an operative. One hundred percent, without a doubt. A deep-cover operative or asset."
http://www.ocweekly.com/2008-08-14/news/pentaconned/6
How many you want me to name? It's easy. It is every person who screws up their silly fantasy of what happened at the pentagon.
My interpretation
Keith Wheelhouse was not referred to as "involved with (...) mass murder" by CIT. Lloyd England was, and I disagree with that. He just lied about not being on the bridge. We won't agree on that, that much is clear.
SnowCrash on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 10:02pm.
What Cherry Picking?
Michael, where does CIT cherry pick eyewitnesses? The whole video is full of eyewitnesses who contradict CIT!
CIT discovered 13 eyewitnesses who say Flight 77 flew to the north of the Citgo Gas Station. Concentrating on those 13 isn't cherry picking. CIT is stressing those 13 because they (and the NTSB analysis of Flight 77's last seconds) contradict the eyewitnesses who say Flight 77 flew south of the Citgo.
Now, those 13 eyewitnesses you say are cherry picked just happen to all corroborate each others' testimonies, while those eyewitnesses that were south of the Citgo have contradictory testimonies, such as Flight 77 cart wheeling into the Pentagon, or Flight 77's wings folding back, or several eyewitnesses saying they saw a small commuter jet crash into the Pentagon.
"A good theory explains most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted." - Dr. David Ray Griffin
Michael, why do you like contradictory testimony, but suspect corroborative testimony? In the criminal justice system, contradictory testimony is a sign that lying is going on!
brian78046 on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 8:58pm.
Wheelhouse's vantage point says it all.
Clearly, he is not qualified to say whether the plane was north or south of Citgo.
Adam Syed on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 8:39pm.
Inglorious Basterds
Adam Syed, why is it that many of those who say they saw Flight 77 fly south of the Citgo are capable of seeing through trees? Sergeant Lagasse correctly pointed out that there was a tree line in the way of the Gannett/USA Today six-car parade, whose occupants said they saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. Now, since we know the Gannett/USA Today reporters are nothing more than lying basterds, why then would we accept any testimony from individuals who said they saw a large comercial aircraft crash into the Pentagon?
brian78046 on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 11:52pm.
A Good Theory
Jon Gold
There are many theories concerning what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. The reason these theories exist is because those who should be able to answer our questions, REFUSE TO DO SO. That being said, some of the theories promoted are contradicted by information, and a common practice in the movement is to proclaim those contradictions as "fake" or "planted." In my opinion, it is irresponsible to proclaim something "fake" or "planted" simply because it doesn't coincide with what you THINK happened. Especially if there is no information to suggest that something is "fake" or "planted."
The most common theory is that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. There IS information that exists that contradicts this theory. To my knowledge, here are those contradictions:
1. Two or three documents belonging to the alleged Flight 77 hijackers were found in the rubble at the Pentagon. Some of the alleged hijackers obtained fake IDs, so the IDs are questionable. However, they were nevertheless found.
2. The passengers and crew of Flight 77 were supposedly identified through the use of their DNA. A recent report indicates that DNA can be faked, however that does not prove that the DNA used to identify people on 9/11 was fake. Just that the possibility exists.
3. There were pieces of debris found at the Pentagon, and specifically, two pieces with the American Airlines logo on them. Picture One, and Picture Two.
4. A book entitled, "Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11" was released that mentions that they "found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them, which had already been found and marked for the FBI." According to a review of the book by John Maclean, "the bodies of the five hijackers were found about 100 feet from the point of impact."
Are there questions about what happened at the Pentagon? YOU HAD BETTER BELIEVE IT! However, as I said in my facts piece, "we have to be smart with how we approach people." There have been so many "hit pieces" over the years that have used the theory that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon against us. So very many... The "theory" has not helped us, and in my opinion, there are many other better arguments to make that do help this cause.
I am not trying to start a fight. I am just trying to help.
Jon Gold on Thu, 09/03/2009 - 3:01pm.
We are all trying to help...
However Jon,
Had the 9/11TM followed your "help" it would have abandoned research into WTC7 and how all three buildings collapsed years ago.
And here we are with these collapses, as now presented by Gage, Ryan, Jones and so many others, being the single most powerful and irrevocable truth developed by the 9/11TM.
Sorry Jon, but those are the facts, this is your history, its all quite obvious...and that's where things sit regarding your "advice".
However, I very much do appreciate your work with some 9/11 Truth "archives" that you dig out every now and then.
And with pertinent questions or understandings challenging your rather obvious biases, much good can come from your efforts in spite of such biases.
Because...its always a good thing to be reminded of where we have been...
And of course, the best thing about Truthers is that we check each other...even if seemingly endlessly...and yet it still is a good process...that has the HI PERPS deeply concerned.
Listening is a developed skill.
Peace , Love and Progress...
PS: Jon, We Know.
Robin Hordon on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 12:07am.
Hi Robin...
Thanks for responding to me. I would hope that this time around you would be able to explain this racism that you are apart of.
As for my "help" well... greatly because of me, this movement, or those who actually care about this cause have remembered the 9/11 families. Because of me, this movement, or those who actually care about this cause have remembered the sick and dying 9/11 First Responders (I'm the one that held the VERY FIRST fund-raiser for them, which started a trend throughout the movement). Because of me, the extremely important movie 9/11: Press For Truth was able to be completed. With the help of me, this site that you are posting on became one of the most popular 9/11 Truth sites in the world. I could go on and on about my "help" Robin.
Please explain to everyone how you equate me as being a Zionist because I am Jewish. I'd really like to hear it. Please explain the racist emails you've sent to me. I'd really like to hear about it, and I'm sure everyone else would as well.
Personally Robin, I don't know why a sick, demented person such as yourself is even allowed to post on this site. I don't care what you know, or claim to, about the FAA.
P.S. I know you're a racist (for those who don't know, Robin's "We Know" schtick is a reference to me being a Zionist).
Edit: By the way, I no longer have the emails that Robin sent to me because my hard drive became corrupted. However, people like Reprehensor have seen them, and can vouch for me.
Edit: Why is this truthful post being voted down? Do people on this site support racism now or support equating those who are Jewish as "Zionists?"
Hey Robin... that was made by Eric Hufschmid. A friend of yours?
Edit: Hey Robin... I've been thinking about writing an article entitled, "The Trials And Tribulations Of Being Jewish In The 9/11 Truth Movement." What do you think?
Jon Gold on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 9:42am.
I've seen that link before, and it's a little confusing, as it seems to written by an anti-semitic Dutch guy. I know he's Dutch because of this comment:
Jon deep in his heart knows very well that Israel, 'his group', is involved in that mega-crime 'up until over their ears' as we say in Holland.
I guess he means the Dutch phrase "tot over je oren". Although this guys's clearly anti-semitic, he proceeds to quote a comment by Robin Hordon on 911blogger that was apparently removed shortly after it was posted. Hordon's post, contrary to the anonymous Dutch guy's post, seems anti-zionist and anti-Israel instead of anti-semitic. At first glance, he seems to be criticizing AIPAC (The Israeli/Jewish lobby) and zionism. Maybe I'm being naive.
SnowCrash on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 10:21am.
Considering that I have posted more...
About Israel than most people, and yet, Robin STILL equates me as being a Zionist simply because I am Jewish, it really isn't rocket science to see the racism.
Edit: When did this become the "anti-Zionist Movement?" I always thought it was the 9/11 Truth Movement. Silly me.
Edit: I asked Reprehensor to send me the emails, and he did, and I forwarded them along to Justin.
Edit: Ask Robin sometime what a "Massachusetts Avenue Jew" is, or better yet, ask him about how "911blogger has been outed as a gatekeeper for Israel." Then, if you have the time, ask Robin who introduced the topic of Israel to 911blogger.com. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Robin Hordon, Kevin Barrett, Eric Hufschmid, Daryl Bradford Smith, Christopher Bollyn, Lisa Guliani, Victor Thorne, Real Truther, or Sofia Shafqat.
Jon Gold on Sat, 09/05/2009 - 7:34am.
The article "Israel - By
The article "Israel - By Paul Thompson" you linked to is very interesting.
As for this conflict with Robin Hordon, I'd rather stay out of it...The list of people at the bottom of your comment contains quite a few people I don't like.
I haven't seen much public anti-semitism although he's clearly anti-zionist and anti-Israel. If he's also anti-semitic, then he has defeated the purpose of his criticisms. I'm strongly opposed to anti-semitism, but I'm also strongly opposed to censorship....so I don't know exactly where to draw the line here. With respect to 911blogger, I guess it's the "General Rules"
I will say this: there has been a wing of the 9/11 truth movement that just cannot seem to resist framing their entire research in an anti-semitic context. I'm very much annoyed by that. A tell-tale sign is what I would call "appeal to anti-Jewish sentiment". This doesn't mean one shouldn't be harshly critical of the Mossad, Neoconservatives, Southern Baptists...and Israel and its powerful and rich lobbyists, but such a racist undertone just turns me off...immediately.
Many influential Jewish Americans have ties to Israeli interests. In the context of the investigation into 9/11 and the role of the Israelis, this is important. It becomes difficult to avoid sounding anti-semitic when investigating or exposing these links. One always seems to have to start such research with a disclaimer, as you did with yours.
SnowCrash on Sat, 09/05/2009 - 8:52am.
I do so...
Responsibly, as everyone should do. As I said earlier, blaming an entire ideology for 9/11, Zionism, is no different than blaming an entire religion like Muslim for 9/11. As Donna Marsh O'Connor said in front of the United Nations on 9/11/2005, "Is one Arab (Zionist, Muslim, American, Christian, Catholic, Episcopalian) the same as all Arabs (Zionists, Muslims, Americans, Christians, Catholics, Episcopalians)? How DARE that work in America!" That is why I wrote this.
Jon Gold on Sat, 09/05/2009 - 10:59am.
Right there it is, in your
Right there it is, in your own words, that you were not wanting the TM to look at controlled demolition. I rest my case. Had we followed your lead, we would never have gotten as far as we did. And now you don't want us to question the pentagon.
I wish people wouldn't classify by religions unless they are dancing to celebrate 911. Your favorite documentary is Press for Truth. Is that because it points to Pakistan. I remember Alex Jones' early movie Martial Law which blamed 911 on arabs. We've come a long way. 911 is the fault of the very deluded very rich and very powerful.
BreezyinVA on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 9:33am.
Geeze Louise It is in the
Geeze Louise
It is in the link you posted:
Yesterday Jon Gold who is co-founder of 911blogger.com has announced in this thread that he will quit contributing to 911blogger. Reason:
"This is my last blog post to 911blogger. This isn't the Controlled Demolition Movement, and yet every other post is about exactly that. The "message" of 911Blogger.com no longer matches my own. I have asked repeatedly to be taken off moderated comments, and have been ignored. I co-founded this site with dz, and generated the content that built this site's popularity, and now I am ignored. I am done."
It's not the Controlled Demolition Movement. It's the 9/11 TRUTH Movement. How do you explain all of these postings by me about Steven Jones? A figment of my imagination? How about this? Another figment? Seems to me that you should be more concerned about Robin's racism, but what do I know?
I just posted a link to Kevin Ryan's talk in Keene, NH two days ago on Facebook, and said that "Kevin is good people." How do you explain that?
Edit: By the way, 9/11: Press For Truth is my favorite documentary because it destroys the 9/11 Commission better than any other, and also tells the story of the 9/11 families, the people who were most affected by that day. It's also based on the most important tool for 9/11 Truth. It has nothing to with the fact that it points to the CIA and ISI's relationship to terrorism, although I think that's a VERY important part of the 9/11 attacks.
Jon Gold on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 11:36am.
I only talk "Pentagon" with other truthers.
I don't talk about Pentagon evidence issues with the general public or with people I am trying to sway towards 9/11 truth yet anyway. I talk about demolitions, thermite evidence, free fall, WTC 7, and NORAD stand down evidence with them. Truthers are the ones giving me and others all the grief for talking about the Pentagon. It is clear to me that some truthers have a clear and obvious agenda to attack CIT rather then fairly and unemotionally analyze their evidence. To me putting personal issues ahead of discovering the truth is disgusting and makes me very suspicious of that person's motives and honesty. Truthers are the only ones bitching about Pentagon discussions so far in my experience.
If you are worried about the media DON'T! They are actively involved in an all out effort to destroy us and are totally prepared to lie, cheat, steal, and slander us all with or without the Pentagon issue to use in doing so. Get it through your heads about the "mainstream" media folks they are to 9/11 truth as Joseph Goebbels was to Jews. Turning to them for anything or holding out hope that they will "come around to the truth" is naive and totally misguided. Quit letting the enemy set the tone, set the perceptions, set the language, and set what is and is not worthy of investigation.
After some more time to think this all through and compile more evidence I may start talking to the public about SOME Pentagon evidence. I will decide for myself when I think the information is solid enough to present to the public. My decision will not be based on what the media will or will not use against us or which truthers have a personal issue with the person(s) who compiled the evidence.
I think the constant pressure from some such as you Jon to stop talking about the Pentagon is uncalled for and frankly wrong on a number of levels. I think CIT has simply made a much better case then you have or Arabesque has about the Pentagon. I have been at this as long as you have Jon (since early 2002) and really I don't like being told by others some of whom that are not even as learned in this subject as I am what I should and should not be investigating or talking about. Frankly speaking I am going right on ahead talking about the Pentagon until I am either convinced of what really happened or I am in the grave. Neither you or Cosmos or Arabesque or anyone else is going to convince me to drop it without compelling evidence which in my view you just don't have.
Honestly if you folks don't like talking about the Pentagon then don't talk about it but skip the "peer-pressure" on those of us who do want to look deeper into it thank you very much. It is no different then Cosmos complaining about the length of my posts when the real issue is he has a personal dislike for me. In my opinion the real issue is not that the Pentagon issue is "divisive" it is that some have a personal grudge against CIT. So let's be honest about what the real issue is here. I have a strong personal dislike for Cosmos for slandering me however I support the 11th of the month campaign 100% and hope it continues to grow which it will I am sure. Perhaps the anti-CIT crowd should grow up and consider the CIT evidence instead of only their personal issues with CIT. None of the anti-CIT arguments are compelling at all and most in fact are based on assumptions.
I don't care who likes it or not that is my 2 cents and I am sticking to it.
Adam Ruff on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 1:42am.
Never...
Have I said to "stop talking about the Pentagon" so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't portray me as doing so. I have asked people to stop pushing a theory that has contradictions showing that it's not the greatest theory to be pushing. Because I care about the credibility of this movement, and the credibility of this cause. Because I want to actually accomplish something rather than allow this subject to become an "armchair discussion" 40 years from now ala JFK. 9/11 Truth should be 90% activism, and 10% research as far as I'm concerned. Not the other way around.
Oh we can talk about the
Oh we can talk about the pentagon as long as we agree with the government's version. Same thing with the collapse of the WTC, we weren't supposed to talk about CD because the government didn't say it happened that way. Anyone who really looked at WTC 1 and 2 could see something was wrong. Steel buildings don't explode and then fall down at almost free fall.
I've heard
steel beams buckle in approximately four minutes when attacked with burning aviation fuel.
That the WTC remained standing for longer that four minutes without any large visible buckling of perimeter columns is obviously a miracle....
National Geographic: WOW science.
SnowCrash on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 9:43am.
I love how...
People equate Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon as agreeing with the "government's version." Too funny. HA HA. Someone on truthaction.org yesterday posted, "some people seem to believe that any alternative theory, however preposterous, is better than acknowledging even one smidgen in the official accounts."
I agree we should be allowed to discuss this amongst ourselves. I also don't like these appeals to consequences too much. So...good points there.
I'm, however, convinced that a plane hit the Pentagon, for several reasons. The amount of fakery required to simulate a Pentagon plane impact is absurd, there were witnesses who saw the plane impact or saw it so close to the facade that a pull up would be impossible, there were witnesses inside the Pentagon who saw the damage trajectory, plane parts and bodies, there were exit holes, there was a gash (probably from the wing stabilizer) in the generator, there really was a plane imprint in the Pentagon facade at near ground level, there was plane debris, including a black box (whether its data was later altered or not), there was DNA (Although as Jon Gold has said, this could be faked), there were hijacker artefacts and there isn't any real corroboration for Roosevelt Roberts: all this while Reagan is nearby, somebody must have seen something. Certainly the people at Reagan must have noticed. Furthermore, although Roosevelt Roberts clearly describes a commercial aircraft, he describes it flying the flight path the C-130 supposedly flew. The confusion is clear from the transcript. If Roosevelt had agreed to an interview on location, this could have been cleared up.
All this makes me very skeptical of flyover. Unlike CIT, I don't think the Pentagon Building Performance Report is either absolutely true or absolutely false, meaning that the plane could have entered the building with a slightly or even entirely different trajectory. This makes me skeptical about the light poles. However, overlaying the drawn flight paths of the North side witnesses reveals much contradiction. The only thing eventually tying the flight paths together seems to be the Pentagon. That creates the illusion of more agreement between the North side witnesses than there actually is. I believe the fact that the Arlington witnesses saw the plane north of CITGO is due to foreshortening. That leaves Lagasse, Brooks, Turcios and Boger to make the case, because you can hardly ascribe their witness statements to any optical distortion. However, Lagasse had trouble even remembering where he was parked, and apparently Turcios can't be seen on the CITGO security video. Brooks said he was in his car, didn't he? Not sure. Boger ducked rather quickly.
Lloyd England lied on camera, Wheelhouse embellished and McGraw is just plain weird. Oh well ;-) In the end, all I'm left with is more questions.
I'm, however, convinced that a plane hit the Pentagon, for several reasons.
Well to be perfectly honest, I'm from the "camp" of thought that says you must be out to lunch if you can look at those photos and believe a 757 hit the Pentagon.
I think the fact that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon is every bit as much as obvious as the CD of WTC7.
The amount of fakery required to simulate a Pentagon plane impact is absurd,
This is known as an argument from incredulity. The same argument could be used to argue against CD of the WTC. After all, the amount of explosives needed to "fake" a natural collapse is staggering; how could it have all been set up without people noticing?!?!
there were witnesses who saw the plane impact or saw it so close to the facade that a pull up would be impossible
Many of these "witnesses" either were in a place where they deduced the plane hit. Others from this "witness" group include seeing the plane skid or even cartwheel on the ground before crashing into the building (refuted by the photographs).
there were witnesses inside the Pentagon who saw the damage trajectory,
This doesn't prove anything. Witnesses were also speaking of not seeing any plane.
Furthermore, although Roosevelt Roberts clearly describes a commercial aircraft, he describes it flying the flight path the C-130 supposedly flew.
Wheelhouse is clearly not qualified to say whether the plane was n or s of Citgo; that is clear from the animated gif I posted.
McGraw "saw" the plane bounce off the lawn first, and even then, he admits he was led by other witnesses who claimed the same thing and then "remembered." I'd say McGraw is beyond just plain weird.
Adam Syed on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 12:14pm.
I wanted to answer right away because you make some very interesting points to respond to, but I have to go. BBL. Just so you know: somebody voted you down and I voted you back up.
SnowCrash on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 1:05pm.
Just so you know Snow Crash.
I have voted you up on your posts as well even though I disagree with your last post and agree with Adam's response to you. I will add in response to your last post that just considering alone PFT's analysis of the flight path and G's required to pull up to hit the ground floor you have to admit that experts (Pilots) have found that it would require a 10+G pullout to make it. In their expert opinion that is not possible in a 757. How is their expert opinion on that issue any different then Richard Gage's expert opinion that the WTC's were demolished because of the way the buildings came down?
This is just ONE problem of many with the flight 77 hit the Pentagon myth. The CLEARLY staged light poles are a VERY strong indication that the whole scene was staged. Staging a scene is not nearly as difficult as one might think. Here for example is an illusion performed right in front of people trying to spot the trick and unable to do so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCEy5bW__cY
Please understand that evidence can be planted right in front of people without them even realizing it. Misdirection is the key. While looking at the fire who knows what a small (say yellow) pickup truck that drove out onto the Pentalawn could have been dropping off? Perhaps a piece of Aluminum that happened to have some AA markings on it? Hmm is it possible? No? If you are so sure the onlookers would have seen this type of thing explain how the onlookers did not see the elephant disappear in the video linked just above?
The physical evidence trumps all in any case regardless of what witnesses say. The hood of the cab remaining pristine is actually a very powerful piece of evidence indicating deception if you think about it carefully. The light pole that fell the wrong direction is another CLEAR example of deception.
In my view the columns, supposedly smashed in by a 757, pushed outward and up is another stunningly clear example that the whole scene was staged. In the 7/7 bombings for example the bomb was supposedly carried aboard the train in a backpack, how then was the undercarriage blown up from the bottom of the train so that a jagged hole intruded into the passenger compartment from below? THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TRUMPS ALL! The physical evidence shows us that the explosion came from inside the Pentagon pushing the columns outward and upward. Obvious HARD EVIDENCE!
Consider also that according to the official Pentagon attack myth DNA was found supposedly proving the hijackers were there amongst the wreckage. Putting aside fake DNA scenarios for the moment let's consider another aspect of the official myth. We were initially told (days after the attack) that the entire plane "gasified" and there was little to no wreckage found. To this day the official account holds that the plane and its steel/titanium engines either melted/disintegrated or vaporized and there is little to none of it left. The question is if steel and titanium did not survive the impact and fire how did human tissue (DNA) survive? The question of fake DNA is not even relevant the real question is how did any DNA survive in an environment where the steel, titanium, and aluminum didn't? 99% of the plane is missing but the DNA isn't? BULLSHIT!
There are so many more issues I can't even count them all but my main point is that evidence can be planted, yes it can! It is not difficult to do, so the incredulity towards the whole concept of planted evidence is naive to say the least. In fact the planted passports are IN YOUR FACE PROOF that they did in fact plant evidence. Hell on 7/7 in London they found the same guys ID card in TWO LOCATIONS! Come on people wake the hell up, they do plant evidence!
ID cards, passports, and the AA logo all have one thing in common do you know what that is? They are obvious items to plant specifically because they identify the person or aircraft. In fact these are the exact items that would be chosen to plant because they are "case closers". Oh golly look here we found a hijackers passport! Case closed Al Qaeda did it! Oh golly look here the only part of the entire plane that survived on the lawn to be photographed was the section with the AA logo on it! Case closed it was flight 77 see here is proof!
The more I think about it the more I am convinced that all those who believe in the 77 hit the Pentagon myth believe it because they have been tricked by planted evidence! Face it you guys have been had! You were tricked! Mindfreaked!
Adam Ruff on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 5:44pm.
It requires more than
It requires more than Richard Gage's architectural expertise to determine if the WTC was brought down with explosives. It requires math, physics, chemistry, forensic chemistry, thermodynamics, structural engineering, mechanical engineering, software engineering, fire dynamics, knowledge of metals/material engineering, controlled demolition expertise, general explosives expertise, aviation expertise, security expertise and of course, extensive sleuthing, extensive knowledge of history and investigative journalism. I think I've probably left many things out. In the end, I think the best qualification is being an "expert in all things 9/11".
Basically what AE911Truth is doing is using argument from authority against those who use it to push the official lie. It has been a successful strategy and Richard is an excellent communicator. (and debater, btw).
I haven't ruled out staging of the light poles, but my way of thinking is logic. Logic dictates that even staging of light poles does not prove a plane didn't hit the building. The light poles could have weakened or moved out of the way in order to ensure a successful impact. This operation could have gone wrong, and the wrong light poles removed. Occam's razor might dictate the light poles were simply hit by the plane, so this is an area that deserves further research. Did the large pole section hit England's car or the small pole section? England could say a lot, he's been discredited, imo.
If a light pole fell the wrong way, then you must do all you can to determine it wasn't moved, do experiments to prove your point, etc. etc. Sorry, but you have to be extremely diligent in these matters. I've been fooled a number of times in my life and I will make damn sure it won't be easy next time around. That goes for all theories: official theory, alternative theory, whatever theory. I like prof. Jones' method: experiments trump assertions or opinions. If the way those poles fell is physically impossible, some sort of (fair! not NG style!) experiment should be devised to test that. I realize that sometimes experiments will simply be too costly or not feasible.
You also say (with lots of confidence) "THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TRUMPS ALL", yet you ignore all physical evidence except that which supports your hypothesis. Why wouldn't the blown out columns also be fake? Everything around them is fake... Case in point: the generator was pushed towards the Pentagon, not away from it, (how is that possible with a bomb?) it was damaged by what seems to be an engine and it contains a gash, most likely from a wing stabilizer. It's more likely that explanation for the columns being in the position they're in is not entirely correct than that the generator was pushed, a gash cut into it, and somwhat engine-like damage was done to it...in real time..Come on, snap out of it already! ;-) In the WTC facade damage, I see some columns that are bent slightly outward....why wouldn't a primary or secondary fuel explosion inside the Pentagon cause these columns to be displaced?
When you say the official account says that the plane "vaporized" my reply is: "the official account is wrong!" Are you sure it's the official account and not some media nonsense like where they say jet fuel melts steel? You should see/read the media stories with that overpass fire near LA...it's completely full of shit! ;-) Steel melted this, steel melted that...then Astaneh-Asl arrives and refutes these reports (about the overpass) and vindicates us...it's merely unscientific popular journalism.
Of course evidence can be planted, and some of it probably was, but dropping a passport or a bandana somewhere is quite different from faking an entire plane crash...with an actual plane as cover. (As I've said, Roosevelt Roberts describes the plane heading "south west"...)
If this hypothesis should stick, it should be better supported. I haven't just dismissed CIT out of hand, I've looked extremely carefully at their work. In fact, I deeply appreciate the fact that some people went out there with a camera to interview those witnesses. My suspicion is that there might be a cover-up involving the flight path, but there was impact nonetheless. That is because I reject the absolutisms (The PBPR MUST be correct, the north side witness are either ALL correct or ALL hallucinating, etc. etc.)
Such false choices cloud judgment, imho, and flies in the face of the actual approximation of the flight path CIT had to make, because the witnesses clearly don't all agree with each other. But again, I repeat that all a deviating flight path doesn't automatically mean "no impact" for me. In theory, you can have:
Navy Annex + light poles + Pentagon impact
Navy Annex + Pentagon impact , light poles staged
Navy Annex + well north of CITGO + flyover, light poles staged
Official flight path + light poles + Pentagon impact
Maybe there are more options. If you doubt the first one, see the map I drew elsewhere in this topic...
So....my suggestion is to first look at whether it is fair to say that the Pentagon Building Performance Report isn't also partially or completely a cover up. If you are convinced of flyover, it's easy to say it isn't, because then it supports your argument that impact from a deviating angle is impossible.
Anyways, I'd really like to discuss that generator too, because in my opinion the generator is strong proof the plane hit (movement, gash, damage), and (a missile or) a bomb wasn't the sole cause of the fireball and the damage.
This is known as an argument from incredulity.
Wikipedia actually describes it as an "argument from personal incredulity", or more accurately, "argument by lack of imagination".
Of course, my personal belief isn't proof. I tried to make a point about the likelihood of faking all the physical evidence including that which was witnessed inside the Pentagon by e.g. first responders. Likewise, you base your choice of Pentagon theory on the likelihood of the accuracy of the North side witnesses and the Pentagon Building Performance Report. Witness statements are far less accurate than physical evidence. Compensating for possible flaws in witness statements by dismissing all physical evidence as fake doesn't quite cut it for me. The absolutist approach with witness statements can be questionable, as demonstrated by the internal inconsistencies between the statements of the North side witnesses.
Turcios deviates considerably from the witnesses at Arlington cemetery, for example. The fact that all flight paths end at the Pentagon compensates a little, but that should be obvious. Lastly: I simply don't accept that the damage trajectory as described in Pentagon Building Performance Report couldn't be intentionally altered. There were three exit holes. Were the other two punched by first responders? I'd like some proof of that. You know what I'm saying right? I'm saying that a plane impact and a deviating approach aren't mutually exclusive. The only basis CIT has for this mutual exclusiveness is accepting the Pentagon Building Performance Report at face value. The only thing a significantly different flight path, imo, is mutually exclusive with, is light pole clipping.
The WTC is a whole different ball game: if somebody told me that the plane imprint in the WTC's facade was created by explosives instead of a plane, I'd also say that the likelihood of that happening is small. Not just because everybody saw a plane entering and we have it on tape, but because placing explosives in order to create a damage pattern designed to resemble a plane impact borders on absurdity. It's entirely reasonable to say that, imo. You do have to realize the broad implications and the feasibility of faking a plane impact and you have to account for it. I don't mind accounting for how the WTC was rigged and brought down. The issue of access to the columns and the floors has been settled: there was motive, means and opportunity, and it was feasible.
What I would like is not just the argument of columns blown out but also a some explanations as to how the the entire facade damage including wing and fuselage imprints were accomplished. How the plane parts were distributed and the DNA evidence placed on the scene. How the gash was cut into the generator and how the exit hole was created. How the damage path was created inside the Pentagon with explosives. Why not go there? It's about time. It's irrevocably part of flyover. The reason it is speculation is because little is known about activity associated with plane impact fakery.
I find it more likely that some didn't see plane parts that were there than that some saw plane parts that weren't there.
About Roosevelt Roberts' remarks about the flight path of the plane he saw: I haven't studied the controversial C-130 flight path issue properly, so I guess I should shut up about that for now. However I'll quote from the transcript:
Aldo Marquis:
So from where, from where then headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?
Roosevelt Roberts:
From the... uh.. can you repeat that one more time please?
Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this .. this second plane, do you remember which direction it was heading?
It was heading.. back across 27, and it looks like, it appeared to me I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh... south west.. coming out.
So like banking around, turning back around?
Banking, banking around, coming back out turning south west and going straight across.
Okay, so.. did it look like it went out over the river and kinda turned around?
It looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turning around because you got the mall there and then where I was was south, and the plane from the direction it was heading it was facing west so it went south west away from the pentagon.
south west away from the Pentagon, okay, so kinda doing a U-turn in a way?
Cause it banked out, and it was like u-turning, coming around and coming out, it looked like, [for a brief second?] it looked like it, it, uh....
How am I gonna say this...it missed the wrong target, and it's going like out of the way like back to the airport or something like that.
Oh like, so it's headed the towards the airport it looked like..
Well no, not heading towards the airport, it's almost like if uh.. if a pilot missed his (inaudible) he'll try to do a banking and coming around because he missed the target, he missed the landing zone.
It seems to me that "south west" is a rather weird flyover path....the flyover wasn't a U-turn was it? Whatever it was, it would fly right back near the witnesses that saw it fly towards the Pentagon, south west in the direction of the Navy Annex.........(!)
By the way, the generator was moved towards the Pentagon, not away from it. How would a bomb accomplish this?
Edit: (corrected incorrect link)
A Tale of Two Wrecks; Roosevelt Roberts
SnowCrash, April Gallup saw no bodies, no aircraft parts, no luggage, and NO fire! She and her baby exited out that 18 foot hole in the Pentagon wall!
Now, the morning doorman where I worked was a part of the Pentagon cleanup crew. He said he saw large sections of fuselage (I also remember where Pentagon officials provided AA personnel a tour of the crash area inside the Pentagon. One of them, a stewardess, also said she saw large, recognizable sections of the fuselage). I told him that the official narrative says that Flight 77 disintegrated. Looks like wreckage was planted.
As for Roosevelt Roberts' account, he does say that the aircraft he saw, some ten seconds after the explosion in the Pentagon, was flying just above the light poles. Now in the link below, such a low altitude aircraft matches perfectly with the early accounts of the C-130. Witnesses said that the C-130 was flying close to the jet that rammed the Pentagon, as though, said one eyewitness, it was trying to merge its radar signature with the aircraft radar signature of the jet that slammed into the Pentagon. The Pentagon also initially lied about the existence of the C-130. It looks like Roberts saw the C-130, which means the C-130 was flying much lower than previously believed.
http://911exposed.org/C130.htm
brian78046 on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 10:13pm.
You see
that's what I don't understand. You have two witnesses who saw wreckage and one who didn't, under hellish conditions, with fire and smoke, fighting for her life. Your conclusion is: the two witnesses are wrong and the one is right, because the wreckage must have been planted. As if there isn't a possibility she just didn't see or recognize it..This is a false choice! Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence if there are already other witnesses who did see such evidence! (And I do understand the chronology here, but there is also a survivor who reportedly saw the nose enter the facade, so..)
What would make it interesting, if somebody stepped forward saying he/she saw actual planting of debris or some kind of preparation thereof. I understand that there was a renovation going on.. that's a start. With the WTC, it's much easier: we have all kinds of forensic evidence of explosions. Imagine if all we had was people saying they heard bombs going off, without all the video, without the audio, without the pictures, the WTC dust samples....
You can't just dismiss everything as fake! You have to show some arguments that call the physical evidence into question directly, not indirectly with flight path witnesses....The reason is that one can dismiss those witnesses as easily as one can dismiss the physical evidence. At least, if we continue on in this manner...This is just catch 22. Really, I'd appreciate some direct, not indirect, evidence for fakery. Arguments relating to a piece of evidence itself, for example. If you want to pursue this hypothesis, this should be the least you can do. This is certainly also a question of where/with whom lies the burden of proof...
(I think I'm being fair here, aren't I? BTW, I don't take the Pentagon Building Performance Report at face value, I believe a different scenario could also have been possible: cover up of a different approach before impact, because of a screw up with the light poles)
SnowCrash on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 10:34pm.
The Color of Fireballs
SnowCrash, there was no fire in the hole when April emerged from it. Thousands of gallons of jet fuel just disappear?
Sorry, April's experience confirms what the five Pentagon CCTV stills show...a small aircraft heading towards the Pentagon. When it explodes, the fireball is red in color, proving again a 757 jet didn't impact the Pentagon. Jet fuel from a 757 explodes in a yellow/orange fireball.
Elementary my dear Watson!
It's a good thing....
...no one really takes anything you say seriously Dean or Brian or whatever your name is.
"Elementary my dear Watson!"? What a bunch of tripe.
Alexa statistics on dnotice.org-
http://alexa.com/siteinfo/DNotice.org
Traffic rank- 21,207,093 (down 60% in the last 3 months)
6 sites linking in.
Like I said, it's a good thing no one takes anything you say seriously.
Michael on Sat, 09/05/2009 - 9:26am.
If it was "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario", wouldn'y the...
...HI PERPS create and execute a plan that considered as many things ahead of time as is possible...and of course, then create a post event environment that would end up telling the story that they wanted told from the get-go?
If they are gonna plan ONE thing, why the hell wouldn't they try and plan EVERYTHING? Wouldn't you?
I know that if I were planning such an event, and had the budgeting, psy-ops depatrment, 95% of the Intel budgeting, the"compartmentalization" capabilities, and the Mockingbird Press that the Pentagon has at its disposal, it would not only be a good comprehensive plan, it would be very well thought out covering every imaginable aspect of such an event...and it would include as few people with a full overview as is possible:
Just a few thoughts or reminders in hopes of making folks feel OK to be outside the "HI PERP's box"...
I suggest that a very, very productive and fertile avenue of research into whatever happened at the Pentagon would be in picking apart the Pentagon Building Performance Report.
It strikes me that almost everybody's analysis, in one way or another, has always simply accepted this report as being infallible...and have built many possible event scenarios BEGINNING with this governemntal report.
I know that if I were going to create an attack-explosion scenario at the Pentagon, and I wanted to tell a certain "crash story" to keep the cover-up in tact, I would certainly work on such a report BEFORE the attacks themselves, then execute the action and evidence, then tie in the evidence from that point backwards, and steer the press accordingly.
To me, a good location to work backwards from is from the "C" ring hole...that hole seems ALL TO PERFECT for me...and with the debris evidence perhaps included?
Could THAT explosion be part of the first one noted by Honegger's ear, nose and watch/clock witnesses?
Its good to remember that this report made its way through the Pentagon's information and scrubbing gauntlet...so, it may be an integral part of the deceptive plan from the get-go...and then again, who knows?
In my view, the only piece of physical evidence that I can't explain away [fairly well anyway] that helps establish an airvehicle crash into the Pentagon, is the curved damage shown in that air conditioner or whatever that outside unit was that we see behind tha chain link fence.
Has anyone ever measured the impact point of this damage in comparison to how far away the engines of a B757 would be from the fuselage?
There are very, very sound challenges to all the physical evidence that is spoken of here, and those challenges won't simply go away...but we will make sense of the evidence someday...
One piece of evidence that I question that nobody has ever looked into is the piece of fuselage found on the Pentagon lawn...the famous PIC that we have all seen. Its my understanding that American Airlines does not paint their fuselages and that the aluminum, or silvery sides, are indeed polished aluminum and NOT silver paint. Although I do not have a great HI DEF PIC of this fuselage piece, it apears to me that the gray-silvery portion of this fuselage is a painted surface...and NOT polished aluminum that is standard fare on AAL aircraft.
Why would this be important one might ask? Because, IF...and I say again...IF...the orignal AA77 was swapped out by Burlingame, for which there is opportunity and some interesting evidence that 911blogger won't post via my affidavit on behalf of April Gallop, and if I were designing the scenario, I'd paint a C32 [which I think is the military version of a B757] to look exactly like an American Airlines B757...with the stripes and all. What's a few gallons of paint to the air Force in supprt of some upcoming War Games...happens a lot. Wasn't Bush gonna paint a stealth bomber blue or something...anyway...the HI PERPS could paint airvehicles...I'm pretty sure anyway...
I also remember some interesting eyewitnesses that noted being able to see the passengers through the windows etc. I find this very improbable because of the speed of the airvehicle, the paucity of passengers on board AA77 and the distance inside the windows the passenger's heads might be seen. Its usually darker inside than outside and that makes it hard to see inside. How about painted windows and heads? Weird thoughts aye?
Please note that the HI PERPS are attempting to prove that the airvehicle in question that hit the Penatgon or flew over it, was the REAL AA77 by reverse engineering the evidence...IE: from the crash site evidence backwards. [back to the "C" ring "perfect hole"]
The FACTS ARE...that, after the REAL AA77 was lost to positive radar contact over eastern Ohio...and nobody in any facility at any time has ever identified any aircraft anywhere as being the original AA77.
ALL early and original reports were that this airvehicle was an "unknown"...and only after the HI PERPS spin masters had an opportunity to have their way with their Mockingbirds, did the story emerge that this UNKOWN primary target was AA77.
However, IF it was a "swapped in" airvehicle...a B757 or whatever...and it was painted like an American Airlines aircraft, then this might explain why eyewitnesses, including an air traffic controller at National Tower, saw it as an American Airlines aircraft. Who knows?
There is little doubt in my mind that the FDR that is supposed to be that of AA77 is not accurate, has been hacked, or is a total fabrication. See Aidan Monaghan's work regarding a serial number history tha is conveniently missing on THIS FDR. Also, the FDR in question failed to pick up or show the beginntings of a descent just before it was lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio.
A normally operating FDR would show this descent...but neither the FDR NOR the base data from which the animation was created...let me say this again...THE ANIMATION...showed this descent. Additionally, although I'm not able to track the following analysis adequately, someone somewhere has established that there was some sort of "buss break" or modification to the data in the FDR some four hours BEFORE the FDR was found at the Pentagon...which was many, many hours after 09:30-32-37 on 9/11. This may estalish that the FDR data was hacked at that time...who knows?
BTW...I have seen enough evidence of radar data from RADES to conclude that some of this data has also been scrubbed, modified, or created to tell a story that the HI PERPS want told.
AND...there is data that supports a fly-over possibility...AND...scrubbed radar data that would have shown a departure away from the Pentagon. In other words, from what I have been able to see, I see evidence of such scrubbing.
And, Mark Gaffney has, in his book "The 9/11 Mystery Plane:..." done some very good work at exposing that there were some interesting low level flights of the E4B type aircraft flitting all around downtown WDC on the mormning of 9/11...and the RADES radar data does NOT show the aircraft reported by these many, somewhat corroborating eyewitness reports, in any of their radar data. Of considerable note is an eyewitness report from a military fellow that establishes a low flying large aircraft in a left banked turn over Georgetown...which is the overflight route...and...is the exact routing and location that I have noted was scrubbed from the RADES radar data.
Very little mention is made of April Gallop's eye-ear witnessing, and Honegger''s other evidence that the first explosion at the Pentagon happened at 09"30 or 09:32 which is seven or five minutes BEFORE the OCT states that the airvehicle arrived at the edge of the Pentagon. How can this evidence be disregarded, and-or, NOT considered in many people's analysis. Here's an intersting possibility about Roosevelt:
What IF... Roosevelt heard the explosions at the Pentagon at 09:32-ish...went outside and saw a large aircraft turning away from the Pentagon towards the southwest...as though it had missed its approach to landing and began to circle around...and THAT aircraft was the airvehicle in question making the righthanded turn on its first pass towards the Pentagon? The airvehicle in question would take a few minutes to complete this turn as it circled back to the Pentagon nearing its edge around 09:37-ish.
Interesting possibility aye? Who knows?
Perhaps the most powerful piece of evidence regarding a B757 hitting the Pentagon is the analysis of...the height of the Naval Annex...the height of the light pole damage...and the height of the entry wound in the Pentagon...that comes from the Pilots...and such science is irrefuttable...no matter WHAT our beliefs are:
When all the speed, distance, height, aircraft structural and flight characteristics data are considered regarding the south flight path and the damage "allegedly done" by the airvehicle , a B757 simply cannot PHYSICALLY perform the airbourne performances required for a B757 travelling at the observed and recorded [if credible] speeds, starting from above the Naval Annex,,,getting down to the light poles...and further, getting on down to the entry wound in the Pentagon....let ALONE the height above the lawn so far away from the Pentagon as the FAB FIVE FRAMES show! This is impossible in our physical world...with a B757...
This is irrevocable HARD evidence and data and I do not feel that its speculation...don't know how we can not consider this evidence in all of our thinking?
One of the strengths of the CIT eyewitnesses is that they are in better position to establish a north flight path than a majority of other eyewitnesses are in position to establish a south flight path...from what I have been able to establish anyway. The eyewitnesses over or near which the airvehicle in question flew...aka...lets call them the roadway eyewitnesses...had very little ability to establish whether or not the airvehicle was on the south or north course. When the airvehicle passed over the roadways...the distance between the south and north tracks was not all that great...and eyewitnesses south of whichever track was flown, were unlikely able to distinguish exactly how close to the south OR the north flight paths the airvehicle actually was. Clearly they could distunguish direction of flight...but the airvehicle's precise location regarding the south versus the north flight paths...now that's another story. Maybe scrubbing the eyewitness reports for more precise location comparisons would help out?
If one accepts that the HI PERPS shaped all or most of the events on 9/11, as they would strive to do IF it were and inside job...clearly they would be in the most control of actions and perceptions of whatever happened at the Pentagon...
...and with Burlingame at the helm of the original AA77, they would also be in firm control of the actions of that AA77...
...and of course they would be in TOTAL control of the airvehicle that may have been "swapped in"...IF that was part of the scenario.
This potential re-opens the possibility of a military airvehicle that...looked like an American Airliner...that was pre-loaded with explosives...that hit the light poles? because it was a stronger airvehicle than a Boeing 757...who knows?
The reason that I speculate on so much of this is because whether we want to admit it or not, we are ALL succeptable to the HI PERP's early and continuing "storylines" about 9/11.
So, backtracking...re-thinking...observing and considering data from differing perspectives...and NOT concluding any hard scenario...but develooping some real good questions and new avenues of analysis...seems a healthy thing to do.
In the end, I postulate that portions of everyone's analysis and considerations will be part of the real story about AA77, te Penatgon and Cheney in the PEOC.
For the record, I have no FIRM position about what happened at the Pentagon....into-over-replacement airvehicle or early explosions.
I only know that nobody ever re-radar identified any airvehicle anywhere, at any time, and at any location...as AA77...and I don't believe that a B757 could fly the way the south path requires...[you know the flight path...the flight path that the Pentagon Building Performance Analysis has established???
We have solid ground at the WTCs...and I think it makes us look GOOD that we check each other...that e don't all agree...that we are relentless researchers. All of things are compliments to who we are...so lighten up gang...lets just dig deeper...and discuss things more politely...that's all....
Not gonna spell check this...so, you are on your own...
PS: How about we encourgae our country to stop killing children usually with skin color other than white...and of course, the white one's too? rdh
A DENT in Flight 77's Narrative
Robin says, "In my view, the only piece of physical evidence that I can't explain away [fairly well anyway] that helps establish an airvehicle crash into the Pentagon, is the curved damage shown in that air conditioner or whatever that outside unit was that we see behind tha chain link fence."
Then Robin asks, "Has anyone ever measured the impact point of this damage in comparison to how far away the engines of a B757 would be from the fuselage?"
Good observation, Robin! That would be one of the major hurtles one would have to get past in concluding no large airliner crashed into the Pentagon. However, the link below (and both sets of the Pentagon video/pictures releases) affirm that whatever that aircraft was that impacted the Pentagon, it was nowhere near the size of a 757.
http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/generator.html
Now take a look at these different photos of the power generator. Some have major dents, some have minor dents, and some have NO dents!
http://pentagongenerator.0catch.com/
Take a look at the Pentagon's reversal of previous accounts where it said no C-130 was near the Pentagon during the attack:
http://911exposed.org/ExplainC130.htm
As far as harming children of any color goes, Jesus was quite specific on that point. One will NOT get into paradise if one harms children! Period!
Since Muslims believe Jesus to be greater in importance than the Prophet Muhammad, that means Muslims and Christians must be careful not to harm children, otherwise God offers them no mercy.
brian78046 on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 4:26am.
Well, I think that there are enough clues here to...
...establish what type of airvehicle might have done the damage to the generator...[the rounded cut-out like damage and the groove to its right]...and to have struck the Pentagon...IF that happened.
First, thanks Dean for forwarding this connection...I certainly haven't seen all the reports out there...and this one is fertile...indeed!
The damage that the "flap track structure" may have made atop the generator to the right of what appears to be the engine nacelle damage to the left top of the generator is quite teltale in my view...and it may not have been scoured closely enough yet.
Agreements:
That IF the airvehicle were in either a level wing position with the wings loaded with the aircraft's weight, the combination of this upward force AND the normal dyhedral of the B757's wings would make the flap track[s] of a B757 pass above the generator.
The position taken by one researcher that makes this claim is very commanding...
...It is NOT OK to assume that the wing of the airvehicle that struck the generator had two, three or four flap tracks...it could be any one of these numbers. [A wing is quite unlikely to have just one flap track...]
...It is NOT OK to presume that the distance below the wing that the single flap track appears to have been is that of a B757. There is a wide variety of airvehicle wing and flap track designs to choose from. These choices come from a variety of airvehicles that have different COMBINATIONS of the airvehicle's "anhedral, dyhedral or flat" aircraft and wing design...AND...the distance BELOW the bottom of the particular wing that flap track[s] extend.
My point is that there are flap tracks that are much taller [extending lower below the wing] than others...and some that are shorter [extending less distance below the wing]...and there are different wing designs that have the wings in an upward slope [higher]...basically level...or a downward slope [lower] in relationship to the fuselage. This is critical information when considering how the streaked damage came about atop the generator.
...That the streaked damage atop the generator was made at almost the exact time that the nacelle damage was made to the generator...ie: BEFORE the generator had an opportunity to swing back to its final 45 degree resting place.
...That therefore, the streaked damage atop the generator establishes, within a few degrees, the angle of contact between the airvehicle and the generator...and consequently, that angle of contact with the Pentagon IF the generator were parallel to the Pentagon to begin with...
...That the damage to the low cement wall to the left of the fuselage was inflicted by the lower extremities of the airvehicle's left engine nacelle.
...That, for the most part, the damage to the cement wall...the generator's left top edge where the engine nacelle struck...and the streaked damage will tell us, fairly accurately, the distances between the two engine nacelles themselves AND the distance between one engine nacell and at least one of the flap tracks on the airvehicle in question.
My observations from the information displayed in this link:
In the photos and mark-ups in the link shown above, [using my own unscientific perceptions], and presuming that the generator was rotated 45 degrees back to its original location, it appears to me that neither the first outboard nor the second outboard flap track [as depicted by parallel lines] of a B757 were in position to have matched the streaked damage atop the generator.
...the first outboard flap track outboard of the engine nacelle on a B757's wing would have made streaked damage CLOSER to the nacelle damage than the streaked damage to the generator top actually shows...and
...the second outboard flap track outboard of the engine nacelle would have made streaked damage FARTHER AWAY on the generator than the actual damage to the generator shows.
Please note: The above presumes that the right wing was level or lowered enough to have forced contact with the top of the generator...and this appears NOT to be the case...but who knows yet?]
If the airvehicle was a B757, and the right wing was level or low enough for one of its flap tracks to inflict such damage to the generator as shown, then why are there not TWO parallel streaks of damage atop the generator matching BOTH outboard flap tracks?
Presuming that the damage to the low concrete wall to the left of the generator WAS from the left engine nacelle of the airvehicle, has anyone measured the distance between the middle of the nacelle damage to the cement wall to where the middle of the nacelle damage in the generator appears to be when the generator is rotated back to its original position...and then corrected this distance for the angle of collision thus establishing the actual distance between the two engine nacelles on this airvehicle?
And similarly, has anyone ever established the actual distance between the right side of the engine nacelle damage and the left side of the flap track damage atop the generator, and subsequently, using a few more calculations and adjusting for the angle of collision, found the exact distance between the right side of the engine nacelle and the left side of a flap track on the wing of the airvehicle that struck the generator?
And once these calculations and distances have been established...IE: the distance between the two engines and the distance[s] between the engine nacelles and at least one flap track or more, has anyone ever then compared these distances to the civilian and military fleets of twin engined airvehicles in this size range?
Find the distances between the two engine nacelles...and...beween the engine nacells and ANY flap track outside the engine nacelle...and...compare them to the civilian and military airvehicle fleets focusing in part on the location of, and the height of the airvehicles flap tracks, and the wing design in relationship to the fuselage...
...and most likely you have found the airvehicle that collided with the generator and the Pentagon...IF...an airvehicle did so.
Again, of all the evidence that exists at the Pentagon supporting an airvehicle collision, the one interesting piece that stands out to me is this damned generator damage that can't yet be explained away.
Same goes for AA77 being the ONLY airliner to be lost to positive radar contact on 9/11...this just sticks out BIG TIME to me...can't quite get past it!
I think that the generator is telling us something really big here.
BUT...I haven't read all the reports yet either and I may be talking an old game...if so...please repeat or share your info!
Its Burlingame baby!...its the generator baby!...its the nanothermite baby!
PS: Not spell checked...deal with it...
I would have added to my article had I known about it.
Passenger belongings were found in the rubble at the Pentagon.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...
Thanks Kevin Fenton.
Jon Gold, why don't you get it? Where in the Pentagon CCTV stills or the later Pentagon video release is there a 757 that would have contained passenger belongings, let alone passengers?
The first CCTV still shows a no-where-near-the-true-dimension-of-a-757 heading towards the Pentagon. If that aircraft, which is hiding behind the car ticket dispense, were a 757 its massive frame would be in plain sight beyond and to the rear of the car ticket dispenser. We would also see the top half portion of the aircraft. As it is, all we see is a way too small tail fin propping up from behind the ticket dispenser!
As for the latter Pentagon video, what we see is a long and pointy nosecone heading towards the Pentagon. The nosecone of a 757 is short and stubby! The object heading towards the Pentagon looks more like a Cruise missile!
The dimensions of the aircraft in the Pentagon CCTV/video releases are nowhere near those of a 757.
Now, of course you know the above, so I ask the question: What are you up to?
brian78046 on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 7:25pm.
I am showing the contradictions...
To the argument that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon because I think it is IMPORTANT for people in this movement to look at both sides of the story. Because I think it helps us to make our arguments BETTER. Because I think that if specials like NatGeo and the multitude of "hit pieces" over the years continually use that argument against us then, maybe it's time that we start using BETTER ARGUMENTS. By asking the question "what are you up to?" are you trying to paint me as someone with an agenda against this cause? Haven't I done enough over the years to earn people's trust? Haven't I done enough over the years to show that when I write something, it is with the intention of helping this cause, and not hurting it? Didn't I include your website on my facts page (Number #17)? Why would you ask a question that insinuates I have an agenda that is against this cause?
The videos you mention CLEARLY DO NOT SHOW a 757, let alone Flight 77. Which is why I think it is important that ALL VIDEOS ARE RELEASED.
I apologize, Jon.
When I saw your last comment on passenger belongings I assumed you were a "757 hit the Pentagon supporter" for political reasons (some in the movement believe it's easier to just go along with the official Pentagon narrative) and I went ballistic.
I think there's...
Strong reason to believe it may have been 77, but I DON'T KNOW, and have been VERY careful over the years not to state speculation as fact (although I have made mistakes). I don't think there's anything wrong with asking for them to prove to us that Flight 77 did, in fact, hit the Pentagon, with the parts of the plane being identified as that of Flight 77, with the videos that haven't been released, with possible satellite imagery (if it exists), etc... things you would EXPECT them to do, or NOT have a problem doing... what I do think is bad is stating speculation as fact. Especially if there are contradictions to that speculation. Which is my whole point.
Afraid Of Our Own Shadows
Jon, but we do know it wasn't Flight 77 according to the videos released. And those videos are the evidence! If the 9/11 Truth Movement is afraid to go with the evidence, what good are we?
Now if new videos should come out showing a large airliner heading towards the Pentagon, so what? We still have the earlier CCTV/video releases that contradict such new 'evidence', in which case, we have caught the government in another lie.
Why should we be afraid if the government digs themselves deeper into a lie by releasing video of a large airliner. I wish they would, then the 9/11 Truth Movement would have two sets of videos to use: One set showing a small aircraft heading towards the Pentagon, and another set showing a 757 heading towards the Pentagon. People on the street would immediately notice the differences, and the 9/11 Truth Movement would grow that much faster.
We can't lose if we just stick with the evidence we have to date. Let the bastards on the other side worry about the countermoves they may or may not make. We are the 9/11 Truth Movement, not the 9/11 Worry Movement!
Don't jump ahead of the evidence. Stay with it!
Dean Jackson Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Those videos...
Show us nothing, which is one of the reasons it is still argued about in this movement.
The Dimensions Are Wrong
Jon, the CCTV stills show a tail fin, and in the second video release a nosecone is present. The dimensions of the aircraft associated with those aircraft parts are out of proportion to the true dimension of a 757. Simple geometry proves that.
If it were a 757 in the first still of the five CCTV stills leaked back in 2002, then the aircraft in the still would look like this (scroll down to near the bottom of the page, right side)
brian78046 on Mon, 09/07/2009 - 12:10am.
Oh really!?
Then please tell us who(you and 'plenty others' you told me) verify that strut as of B757 and the procedure you took to do it. Also please tell me about all sorts of other parts that are missing from the site.
You told me in your mail clearly that others got 'Disintegrated obviously'!
I do not think that was the case.
At any rate, it was impossible for AA77 to crash in there to begin with.
I was really surprised when Prof. Jones told me/us that Frank's paper was peer-reviewed.
What sort of 'peers' he had? I really wonder...
That piece is like swiss cheese, you see.
Anyhow, you take a look at that FBI's video released via Judicial Watch, and compare that with something like Purdue University's drawing of AA77 vs Pentagon.
And if you don't get it, you'd better buy a pair of glasses, perhaps?
Aus911Truth on Mon, 09/07/2009 - 12:21am.
A Tale of Two Tail Fins
Aus911Truth, you took the words right out of my mouth! I was going to tell Jon to compare with ASCE scale drawings of Flight 77.
Jon, the Purdue University study does manage to get one thing right about the Pentagon and Flight 77, and that is the true dimension of Flight 77. Purdue's simulations/pictures show large, easy to see 757s heading for the Pentagon. Take a look at the height of the tail fin on page 35 of the ASCE report:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
Finally you gave me ONE URL to see but, nothing new.
You've got to tell us the procedure HOW you and 'plenty others' identified this bit as 'B757's part' and further explain what happened to the rest of the aircraft.
You clearly wrote to me in an e-mail a few weeks ago that they "Disintegrated obviously" but that doesn't make sense especially when they found an ID card of one of the 'terrorists' allegedly on board the plane.
I told you many a time that you believing planted 'evidence' here at the Pentagon is exactly the same as you believe in that 'passport found at Ground Zero.' i.e. You are trusting the liars, you see.
It's actually so simple.
Look at that Purdue University's simulation of AA77 about to crash into the Pentagon(I don't bother uploading the photo cause the webmaster delete it anyway) and compare that with the footage released by the FBI via Judicial Watch. If you still think that AA77 crashed there, I'm afraid you need glasses.
Also remember the beautiful lawn without a scratch, and the actual damage to the building. No indication of AA77 crashed in there.
That photo to the left with cars clearly shows that the fence fell to the front not to the back. That tells they used detonation to create the side SQUARE holes to make it look like an aircraft crashed in there. If it was knocked down by the plane, it'd have fallen towards the building.
Aus911Truth on Wed, 09/09/2009 - 7:45pm.
Column Sense
Aus911Truth, some individuals in the 9/11 Truth Movement have their own problems with physics. Not only is the fence enclosing the generator knocked forwards, but the front columns in the Pentagon wall where Flight 77's wing would have gone through are not only still there, but they are blown outwards! Why are some 9/11 Truthers so hesitant to follow the obvious evidence at the Pentagon?
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/metcalf3.jpg
brian78046 on Fri, 09/11/2009 - 1:22am.
Nice picture
But it shows something I've been thinking for a long time now: that there is an engine imprint in the facade between the generator and the fuselage.
Do you see that round imprint? What could it be? Does the width between the fuselage hole and the 'imprint' match the distance of a 757 engine to the hull? Has anyone measured this?
BTW, I don't believe the fence was knocked forward until you show me a better picture of that, and I think there are...
ETA: Next question of course: "If that is the case, where are the engine remnants.."
ETA2: It also matches the reported bank at impact, doesn't it?
Where Round Imprints Dare
No, I don"t see a round imprint?
Edited photo, click to enlarge
SnowCrash,
1. damage to wall is not round;
2. damage to wall where "round-engine imprint" is said to possibly be shows no penetration of Pentagon wall; and
3. no 757 engine was found outside the Pentagon.
1. I think the description "round" is justified, how is it not? Notice the sagging curved wall edge below? The curve to the left and the curve above? I need not draw a red circle around the circle do I?
2. I already mentioned this counterpoint to my own point (see my comment above - "where are the engine remnants").
3. I agree, see 2. I fully acknowledge this. As far as I know, no engine was found outside. Then again, no wings or tail fin were found outside either.
So... what caused this round imprint? Surely it's not the wing or the tail fin. What is the precise distance between this imprint and the hull impact hole? Does this distance match the distance between the hull and engine of a Boeing 757? (Perhaps corrected for the angle of impact)
This is an interesting question, imho. It should be pursued. I don't need the result to be either way. I'm simply wondering aloud.
Alongside this question is another question, which I think can be answered more easily: what moved the generator towards the Pentagon?
SnowCrash on Sun, 09/13/2009 - 5:42am.
Straight Lines and Banking Problem
SnowCrash, the damage looks rectangular to me. A sagging floor is a sagging floor, and not evidence of an engine impact. Too many areas around the suspect wall damage show straight lines.
If a 757 aircraft had banked to such a degree that the starboard engine impacted just above the second floor landing, then the portside wing would have impacted the ground and sheered off just outside the Pentagon, and the starboard side wing would have impacted at the third floor level!
Not even the ASCE contemplated the starboard wing banking so high. Interestingly, the ASCE animations of Flight 77's impact have no engines or the engines magically disappear just before contact with the Pentagon wall!
Fast forward to 50 seconds in the video link below for the magically disappearing engines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMqgFaNvoP8&feature=related
In the following six second video animation, the ASCE decide to skip the pesky engines enigma by not including them at all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L7ethKvY7U
I never figured you for a guy who would call a circle a square ;-)
SnowCrash on Mon, 09/14/2009 - 2:47pm.
SnowCrash, not square, rectangular.
This drawing seems to confirm my thoughts
Notice the number of columns between the hull and the engine? Doesn't this match the photo and the imprint? Just pasting this comment as soon as I got hold of it. Interesting, isn't it?
SnowCrash on Sun, 09/13/2009 - 11:09am.