Support 911Blogger


New Photos of Pentagon Minutes After 9-11 Attack

New Photos of Pentagon Minutes After 9-11 Attack

New photos from the day of September 11th, 2001 taken within minutes after the attack show significant debris, some of it recognizable as pieces from an American Airlines jet. Some of the photos also show significant damage to the first floor of the structure.

More photos found here: http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1550

AttachmentSize
Pentagon Photo's 015.jpg228.86 KB

You've got my attention

some of it recognizable as pieces from an American Airlines jet.

Enlighten me please.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

You don't see...

The shiny piece of aluminum on the grass with red and white knock out letters on it like this?

I clearly see it, and it appears to come from an American Airlines plane. Surely, I wouldn't want to be someone to promote the idea that Flight 77, or even a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon when easily found contradictions to that theory exist. I would hate to be that irresponsible for such an important cause that demands credibility. If I saw someone doing so, I would ask them politely to stop, and focus on better information. If they refused to do that, then I would pretty much write them off.

If it's not a good theory, it shouldn't be promoted in my opinion, and instead, people should try to stick to the facts. They speak for themselves.


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?

A lot of small debris

There is a lot of what would seem to be plane fragments on the grass:

http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Pentagon-Photos...

We've all seen that one famous scrap...

...on debunker sites over and over again.

Would have been nice if even one piece of AA77 had been identified by serial number.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

I was referring to the totality of the fragments...

And Jon is right, we have no evidence that the part(s) were planted. It's better to avoid unnecessary speculation and concentrate on the strong evidence - at least when educating people about 9/11.

Great! Now just tell me....

where is the hanger with all the parts that they are trying to assemble to find out exactly what happened to the aircraft? Don't they do that with all airliner accidents?

There were studies done...

Using the black boxes found at the Pentagon. I don't know where the plane parts are stored, but I think they should be made available. I do think they should release the videos, and I do think they should explain the discrepancies regarding the speed of the plane. However, lack of evidence like a video showing what happened does not automatically mean that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. They should release the evidence just like they should release EVERYTHING having to do with the 9/11 attacks, but jumping to conclusions that have major contradictions, and promoting those conclusions as fact like several people do, in my opinion, is not in the best interest of this cause. Especially when questions like "what happened to the passengers" or "where is the actual plane" make us look like fools.

September 14, 2001: Investigators Find Flight 77 Black Boxes, but Accounts Conflict over Details
At around 3:40 a.m., investigators at the Pentagon recover the two “black boxes” from Flight 77. [Washington Times, 9/14/2001] These boxes are the plane’s flight data recorder and its cockpit voice recorder. [BBC, 9/15/2001] Some news reports claim they are found by two Fairfax County firefighters, Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz, as they comb through debris near the impact site. [Washington Post, 9/19/2001; Newsweek, 9/28/2001] But according to Arlington County spokesman Dick Bridges, members of the FBI’s evidence response team find them. [PBS, 9/14/2001; Washington Post, 9/14/2001] Authors Patrick Creed and Rick Newman will later clarify that Burkhammer and Moravitz find an object initially believed to be one of the black boxes, but closer inspection reveals it to be just “a charred chunk of machinery.” Subsequently, FBI photographer Jennifer Hill finds the cockpit voice recorder in a stack of rubble while assisting searchers. Thirty minutes later, a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) expert locates the flight data recorder in the same area. [Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 396-397 and 400-402] But Allyn Kilsheimer, a structural engineer who helps coordinate the emergency response at the Pentagon, later claims he had “found the black box,” which, he says, he had “stepped on… by accident.” [GW Magazine, 3/2002; Popular Mechanics, 3/2005] Washington FBI agent Christopher Combs says, “Somebody almost threw [the black boxes] away because they didn’t know what they looked like.” [Disaster News Network, 10/30/2002]

Conflicting Accounts of Where Boxes Are Found - According to Dick Bridges, the two recorders are discovered “right where the plane came into the building.” [Associated Press, 9/14/2001] But the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Pentagon Building Performance Report, released in 2003, will claim that the flight data recorder was found “nearly 300 ft into the structure.” [Mlakar et al., 1/2003, pp. 40 pdf file] In Creed and Newman’s account, the recorders are found in the Pentagon’s middle C Ring, near the “punch-out” hole made by the impacting aircraft. [Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 400-402]

Boxes Taken Away for Analysis - The boxes are taken to the NTSB’s laboratory in Washington, where data is extracted from the flight data recorder, but they are reclaimed by the FBI later on in the morning. [Washington Times, 9/14/2001; Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 402] A flight data recorder tracks an airplane’s flight movements for the last 25 hours, while the cockpit voice recorder contains radio transmissions and sounds from the cockpit for the last 30 minutes of its flight. Both are mounted in the tail of an aircraft and are encased in very strong materials like titanium. According to American Airlines and United Airlines, the black boxes aboard Flight 77 and the other hijacked planes were modern solid-state versions, which are more resistant to damage than older magnetic tape recorders. [Associated Press, 9/15/2001; BBC, 9/15/2001] FBI Director Robert Mueller later says that Flight 77’s data recorder has provided altitude, speed, and other information about the flight, but the voice recorder contained “nothing useful.” [CBS News, 2/23/2002] The 9/11 Commission will describe the cockpit voice recorder as being “badly burned and not recoverable.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 456] According to CBS News, preliminary information shows that the cockpit voice tape “appears to be blank or erased.” [CBS News, 9/16/2001] The two black boxes from Flight 93 are also recovered around this time (see September 13-14, 2001).

September 15, 2001-February 19, 2002: Significant Contradictions Given in Accounts of Flight 77’s Impact Speed
After Flight 77’s flight data recorder is recovered from the Pentagon wreckage (see September 14, 2001), Fox News reports that investigators say they are getting “good, solid readings” from it. According to this data, “the plane was going 345 miles per hour when it crashed.” [Fox News, 9/15/2001] Firefighters involved in the Pentagon recovery effort are also told the flight data recorder showed Flight 77 was traveling at 345 mph when it hit the Pentagon. [Washington Post, 9/19/2001] However, days later, CBS News reports that it has seen “new radar evidence” pertaining to Flight 77, and quotes unnamed sources describing the plane’s descent toward the Pentagon. CBS says the aircraft had “plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph.” [CBS News, 9/21/2001] But when the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) publishes its “Flight Path Study” for Flight 77 in February 2002, this gives a significantly higher speed. The NTSB study is “based on information obtained from various sources of recorded radar of the subject aircraft,” along with “information from the flight data recorder.” It states, “The airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots (530 miles per hour) at impact with the Pentagon.” [National Transportation Safety Board, 2/19/2002, pp. 2 pdf file] The 9/11 Commission will later accept this figure in its final report. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 10 and 455] Yet this is 185 mph faster than the speed earlier claimed to have been revealed by the flight data recorder. The reason for this discrepancy is unknown. All of these alleged speeds are above the Federal Aviation Administration’s speed limit of 287.5 mph for aircraft flying below 10,000 feet. [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2/24/2002]

Edit: By the way, if the black boxes were found at the Pentagon, and it seems that they were, then that is ANOTHER contradiction to the idea that Flight 77 or a plane did not hit the Pentagon.


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?

Another thing to consider...

The notion that ANY images of debris refute the north side approach witness evidence (proving the debris was not caused by the plane) is a pure logical fallacy.

Post hoc (also called false cause):

This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which translates as "after this, therefore because of this."

Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Of course, sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if I register for a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it's true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time aren't really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn't the same thing as causation.

In this case, you are assuming that because debris on the lawn likely came after the plane flew by, that the plane caused the debris.

That is not scientific, and runs counter to all critical thinking principles and standard logic. The tiny unrecognizable pieces could have easily been blown out over the lawn from a dumpster or something while the perfectly placed uncharred piece that we all know so well from the propaganda to sell the official story could have been laid out there immediately before or after the explosion during all the chaos.

There is nothing new in any of these images.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Where did the debris on the grass come from?

Do you have evidence of someone planting that debris? Do you have a photograph or a video of someone driving up to the Pentagon crash site, and getting pieces of AA debris out of his or her trunk, and planting them on the scene? I sure hope you do making factual statements like "the debris was not caused by the plane." Don't new photos showing the same thing as the older photos discount the idea that the older photos were "fake" like many people have speculated? Yes, it does. That is "new."


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?

Straw man.

I, for one, never claimed the "photos" were "fake." Many people do speculate that evidence that could be damning to the official story was confiscated (i.e. security videos), and as a corollary, that evidence could have been planted to support the official story. Look at the time in the bottom of the photo. The perps have already had 10 minutes to plant that famous piece of scrap.

I can't give you the receipts for the ordering of the demolition charges for the WTC buildings. We don't have a signed confession from any of the people who planted the explosives and nanothermite.

I find it strange that all these Pentagon entries from opponents of CIT have multiplied after my blog entry in the middle of the summer in which so many prominent intellectuals in the movement endorsed the findings from their research as documented in their "National Security Alert."

Even those who criticize CIT on a personal level, like Chris Sarns, has acknowledged that enough eyewitnesses seem to agree on a flight path far different than the official one, and even Chris has conceded that the light poles were staged.

When you have 13 eyewitnesses, in the most crucial vantage points, who broadly (minus a few very small minutiae) corroborate each other's accounts, this, on a statistics/probability level, is scientific evidence every bit as much as the Bentham paper.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

You said...

"There is nothing new in any of these images." My statement about photos was to show the significance of their release. That "new" thing you said was missing. I don't know if you ever said those photos were fake or not, and it doesn't matter. That is not a strawman, it is an observation about the importance of the photos.

When you have a multitude of "hit pieces" over the years that use the theory that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon against us, it's not rocket science to know that maybe it's not the best argument to make.


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?

There have been multitudes

There have been multitudes of hit pieces about controlled demolition too.

At some "progressive" news outlets, like the Daily Kos, even "lihop" arguments are forbidden. "Massive incompetence" is as far as you're allowed to go re your interpretation of the events of 9/11. Even you would probably be banned at many of these gatekeeping places.

A piece of friendly advice: Forget about the god damn hit pieces. Just follow your nose and keep searching for the truth, enemies of truth be damned.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

You're right...

And that's why I advocate that the question of how those buildings came down does not define this cause. The media has run a very successful campaign at defining what 9/11 Truth is about, and for the most part, they have defined it as a group of people who think Controlled Demolition took place at the WTC, and that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and instead was hit by a missile/global hawk/A-3 Sky Warrior/Bomb. Our purpose is to reach people. When the media drills into people's heads "keywords" like "missile, explosives, controlled demolition", and align those words with "crazy, lunatic, etc..." over and over and over again, what happens sometimes is that people hear those "keywords" and turn you off. At least, that has been my experience. Like recently, I was speaking to a 9/11 First Responder who was there on the day of, and in the days after, and I asked him to endorse the NYCCAN initiative. After I told him that it is a call for a new investigation, he said to me, "I support the 9/11 First Responders, but I don't think there were explosives in the buildings." I didn't say word one about Controlled Demolition. We are essentially trying to run a good PR campaign. We have to counter the propaganda that is catapulted against us. That is why bottlenecking our message into Controlled Demolition, with a side of Pentagon is not the smart thing to do, and why I advocate against it.


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?

We are essentially trying to

We are essentially trying to run a good PR campaign.

This is where you and I will have to agree to disagree. By this, I mean: We are a truth movement, not a PR movement.

I've noticed that most of the hit pieces, especially after 2007 (advent of ae911truth), that focus on controlled demolition and the Pentagon, receive overwhelming support for those avenues of inquiry, judging by many of the comments in the reader feedback sections.

Remember when change.org deleted our No.1 entry for Obama?

Remember the comments? There were SOOO many who agreed that the buildings were demolished.

I guess maybe at this point I have a bit more faith in the people to see through the propaganda than you do. My Cincinnati 9/11 Truth group is even joining forces with a number of "tea party" people in the region, who are genuine (not neo) conservatives and agree with many "right of center" principles but see through the lies of 9/11.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

We are the 9/11 Truth Movement...

And we have to be smarter than the propaganda we face, and need to have a good PR campaign. Our job is to reach people. Not turn them away. Remember... our job is to reach people, NOT turn them away. That is what "Public Relations" is ALL about.


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?

And you know, Jon

I've met quite a few truthers in real life at this point. Many of the ones who were suspicious before any documentaries on the subject came out, including those who suspected a military deception from Day One, usually cite one or both of two things: the virtually pristine lawn and relatively minor damage at the Pentagon, and the way the buildings came down. A close third is the lack of air defense response.

IRL I don't know of anyone who gets "turned away" by investigating what really happened at the Pentagon. And just so you know, the idea that a large plane did not crash into the Pentagon is hardly a minority opinion.

PS I thought you were done posting here except for NYCCAN stuff.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Your...

"PS" and smart ass comment show me that you have a failed argument. You have unsuccessfully shown why the 9/11 Truth Movement should advocate going around saying that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. If what you say is true about your experience with people in the real world, then all that does is show how successful the no Flight 77 at the Pentagon campaign has been starting with Theirry Meissan, continuing through Eric Hufschmid and Dave Von Kleist, elaborated on by Dr. Griffin, and pushed by CIT.


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:

My words went right over your head.

You said: If what you say is true about your experience with people in the real world, then all that does is show how successful the no Flight 77 at the Pentagon campaign has been starting with Theirry Meissan, continuing through Eric Hufschmid and Dave Von Kleist, elaborated on by Dr. Griffin, and pushed by CIT.

But before that, I said: Many of the ones who were suspicious before any documentaries on the subject came out, including those who suspected a military deception from Day One, usually cite one or both of two things: the virtually pristine lawn and relatively minor damage at the Pentagon, and the way the buildings came down. A close third is the lack of air defense response.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Can you show me...

Someone before Theirry Meissan saying that a missile hit the Pentagon because I don't believe you when you say that people questioned what happened at the Pentagon because of the "virtually pristine lawn and relatively minor damage at the Pentagon" without having read Meissan's book.


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?

Bejeezus, you miss the point yet again!

We are not talking about a missile hitting the Pentagon! I am talking about a large airliner NOT crashing into the Pentagon!

Go to the 230+ customer reviews of DRG's original New Pearl Harbor at Amazon. Many of the ones relay their thoughts and feelings re 9/11 truth, who say they were suspicious from DAY ONE, often say that they were suspicious of the Pentagon scene right from day one. I personally was not one of those people; I was fooled.

Did I actually quote Meyssan's book verbatim? Or at least the word "pristine?" Well, I guess the words did stick in my mind.

Speaking of Meyssan, Jim Hoffman was totally incorrect in his interview with Wolsey. He said that Meyssan only promoted "no plane at the pentagon." This is an untruth. After the first chapter where he espouses his missile hypothesis, he then goes on to discuss explosions in the towers, Bill Manning's "$elling out the investigation" in Fire Engineering, and the put options, and more. For early 2002, given the limited amount of information combined with the almost non existent truth movement at the time, Meyssan's book was an incredibly good start.

The missile theory along with the "small plane" theory, was either deliberate disinfo or, I think more likely, some peoples' attempts to figure out what happened in light of almost no recognizable debris from an airliner.

But it was speculation.

Then CIT came along, spent thousands of $$$ making many trips between the west and east coasts, and attempted to contact every published eyewitness, in addition to canvassing the area on foot and finding independent eyewitnesses whose accounts had never been published.

And now we have (or at least I do) a much clearer idea, after their investigation, of what happened.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Ok...

You are talking about "a large airliner NOT crashing into the Pentagon" which was first promoted by Theirry Meissan who said it was a missile and not Flight 77. Not Flight 77... the same exact argument you are making when you talk about "a large airliner NOT crashing into the Pentagon." In my opinion, CIT "spent thousands of $$$ making many trips between the west and east coasts, and attempted to contact every published eyewitness, in addition to canvassing the area on foot and finding independent eyewitnesses whose accounts had never been published" in order to promote a bogus a theory that has never helped this cause, and you have a failed argument, and now are just trying to spin it.


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?

You are talking about "a

You are talking about "a large airliner NOT crashing into the Pentagon" which was first promoted by Theirry Meissan

Many skeptical observers first "promoted" it in their own minds on the day of 9/11 itself.

Re-read my previous post which I edited to add the words about Amazon and DRG's New Pearl Harbor.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

I have no doubt...

There are a multitude of shills on the internet that support arguments that do not help this cause in order to get other people to support arguments that do not help this cause. No doubt whatsoever. It's the whole disinformation/misinformation relationship.


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?

People here in Virginia

People here in Virginia questioned the lack of evidence, some people got close to the scene in the beginning. Enver Masud (an engineer) of the Wisdom Fund lives near and went there (he is now one of the Scholars). The movie maker Paul Cross who was at the WH making a film about bush went over there and he too could not find the plane. He then made that fictional movie (Severe Visibility) based on the mass hysteria at the Pentagon that caused people to believe. Last I heard he was interested in Shanksville.

I have a friend who rode his bike down there and he couldn't find the plane. My point is there were people from the beginning wondering what had happened.

And some people...

Like the people described in the book Firefight, and John Judge's friend did see debris. But let's disregard them because they must be lying.


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?

These new pictures still don't help

There is still nothing here that convinces me that AA77 crashed into the pentagon. I cannot and will not condemn anyone's opinion regarding the pentagon because we have so little information to go on. I support CIT's efforts in their research, even if their theory is wrong and my personal instincts says they are. I support them nonetheless because I see so few taking that kind of initiative to find the truth. I wish them all the best in their efforts.

I watched their interviews but I believe flyover theory lacks much other evidence than just a flight path. This is why I've concluded that;

1. If a plane was to have been the "decoy" so everyone can say they saw a 757 and flew over the pentagon, it would have been seen flying away from the pentagon by more than just one witness.

2. I lived in the flight path of a major airport in West Palm Beach, Fl many years ago. If a DC10 flew over the place, you couldn't hear the tv standing in the same room. If a 757 flew over, my windows rattled, dishes vibrated, and could you couldn't hear yourself talk or even think. The sound was unbearable. These aircraft were often around 700 - 1200 feet depending on whether it was taking off or landing. From this experience, I feel it impossible that a 757 flying just a few feet about the ground could be mistaken for anything but what it is.

3. If a 757 did fly over as CIT suggests, then something else would have had to have hit the pentagon. This infers then that two objects (one being a plane of course) would have had to have been in that area at the same time. There are no witnesses to this. Nothing from ATC or witnesses on the ground. None.

4. The hole should still be bigger. These pictures are very good and are close up and clear, but I still feel we should see two very large entry points for both plane engines and these do not show that. These engine were 6 tons apiece made of titanium and steel. Of what pieces many have pointed out as being part of one the engines,(forgive me I don't know how to post pictures here to show which I am referring too) there should be two of them. We only have one so far.

5. Jon's reply to pdveen's post regarding the black boxes only reinforces the fact that it wasn't AA77. So many conflicting reports on who found the boxes and where. This evidence is far too important to have NOT been documented properly as to where it was found and by whom. Incidentally, these are also the only recovered pieces of the plane that should have the serial number on it.

6. Lastly, the pictures that were released by the DoD should show a 757. They only show a white streak going into the pentagon. I believe this was the best they could do to convince us. If, as some have feared, the gov't were holding back the images/video of AA77 as an "Ace up their sleeve" so to speak to discredit us later, I think that would have happened by now. I don't believe they have anything of the sort.

In my most meager and humble opinion, I think they may have disguised a military plane to look like AA77. Of course, Jon is right, it begs the question now of what happened to the people? If Im not mistaken, for operation Northwoods there was to be a fake passenger list. Maybe this was the case and all the passengers were paid off. But I am sure there are witnesses to bodies. You see once we get into the details, we do get foolish because we have so little information. We should disclaimer all of our theories as I have done. These conclusions are based on what little evidence I have been presented and my interpretations of that evidence.

Jon is right (again) also in that the 9/11 truth movement must not be defined solely on controlled demolition and what hit the pentagon. There is FAR too much more and that what I use when I talk to OCT believers. There are many FACTS about the pentagon I use without going there. For example, Cheney stating on Meet the Press that he was in the PEOC by 9:20. Norm Mineta's testimony verifying it, and then the 9/11 report stating he got there at 9:58. Works every time. The fact that pentagon should have never been hit in the first place. The 270 degree turn by do-nothing pilot and much more.

Adam is right on many accounts too. Especially with the point about agreeing to disagree. These are just details that we all know are speculative. That's fine, cause these debates help me out a lot being exposed to much of this barely over a year now. I learn something new each time, so keeping the debates are good, but having well defined common ground that we all can present to the public is important. Adam is right, this is a truth movement, not a PR campaign, lets stick to what we know is the truth and keep a disclaimer on speculation.

Together in truth

dtg

=====================================================================================================
"Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and co-operation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

I agree with some points of your post

You really hit on some major truths with point 5.:

5. Jon's reply to pdveen's post regarding the black boxes only reinforces the fact that it wasn't AA77. So many conflicting reports on who found the boxes and where. This evidence is far too important to have NOT been documented properly as to where it was found and by whom. Incidentally, these are also the only recovered pieces of the plane that should have the serial number on it.

Thanks for bringing that up. This takes me back to Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking." In 2007 (when CIT was in its infancy and I was not aware of their work), I wrote a review of DRG's D911D and it focused on the Pentagon anomalies. One thing that struck me was the flimsiness of Popular Mechanics' attempt to prove that eyewitnesses confirm the existence of airplane wreckage:

From my review:

Popular Mechanics claims that "hundreds of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building." They do not seem to have been to interested in analyzing the believability of some of these statements, as Griffin has done. PM quotes structural engineer Allyn Kilsheimer, who says: "It was absolutely a plane... I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them... I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I stood on a pile of debris that we later discovered contained the black box... I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

We almost don't need Griffin's help in realizing the absurdity of this statement: "But this is hardly 'okay.' Besides the fact that few people, aside from pathologists, would pick up body parts, the tail section of a Boeing 757 is over 20 feet long and quite heavy." Also, I might add, if he held the tail section in his hand, why didn't we see a tail section in the photographs immediately following the event?

A more disturbing aspect of this eyewitness' account, however, concerns the editing of his words between PM's March 2005 magazine article and the book which appeared in the summer of 2006. In March 2005, Kilsheimer reportedly said "and+I+found+the+black+box." Researchers, however, noted that the two black boxes were found, according to the official story, by two firefighters three days later.

As Griffin says: "At what school of journalistic ethics did the PM authors learn that, if part of a statement you have quoted from one of your star witnesses turns out to be false ('I found the black box'), you may simply change that part of the statement (to 'I stood on a pile of debris that we later discovered contained the black box')?"

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

With regard to the argument from incredulity

regarding the flyover, you have to consider a few points with regard to psychology, groupthink, and propaganda.

First, you can't use hindsight. Imagine yourself in the moment. Even if you did see a plane flying away into the blue yonder after the fireball at the building went off, your mind would ultimately reconcile it with the official story, especially with the media propaganda campaign going on at the time.

When Roosevelt Roberts saw the plane flying away, or if you had seen the plane flying away, you wouldn't think to yourself (especially after two planes had hit the WTC):

Oooh, look at that plane flying away! This is all a staged government military deception! That's the plane that the government is going to fool us into believing HIT the Pentagon and caused the fireball when in reality it is just a decoy and there were bombs in the Pentagon!

No. To the contrary, Roosevelt Roberts, and most anyone else who saw a plane flying away, would believe it was some kind of second plane.

To understand the nature of media propaganda w/r to this issue, and the psychological operation of the second plane cover story is explored and discussed quite extensively in two supplemental presentations by CIT:

The Second Plane Cover Story: How they Pulled it Off (30 min)

Or if you have the time, here is the much longer and more in depth presentation The North Side Flyover (112 minutes total)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

To speculate is not our job

........ the who, how, and why. The one thing we can say for sure is we were lied to many times, and there is an abundance of justifiable unanswered questions.
If the official story is so solid, why do they run from the questions? Where is the msm on this story of the century? It would certainly bring in the ratings.
In regards to this post. My thoughts are we were bullshitted on everything else. Why should this be any different?

Truth News Radio Australia

Truth News Radio Australia features Craig Ranke with CIT

Hereward Fenton with TNRA welcomes Craig Ranke to discuss the important evidence CIT presents in their latest video National Security Alert and to address the latest paper by Australian truth movement personality Frank Legge.

http://www.truthnews.com.au/radio/export/TNRA_20091011.mp3

Glad to see that Hereward was willing to provide a forum for Craig to address Legge's paper directly. Cheers to him for rising above all the pseudo-controversy and providing this voice for CIT. Now what I'd really like to hear is a direct debate with CIT and Legge or with some of their most vocal detractors in the U.S like Jim Hoffman or Michael Wolsey.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I make a point of reading all the down voted comments because I find many of them to be the best comments. - Atomicbomb

Sorry Michael...

...no significant debris, not recognizable as an AA jet, and no significant damage to the first floor of the structure. Please do not post this junk as some kind of new revelation. It just makes us all look a bit more kooky. Educate yourself as to the actual appearance of an airliner crash site. Just type "airliner crash" in You Tube and look around.

KMW