2006 Journal Of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. All rights reserved

I found a new blog today, devoted to debunking 9/11 truth. It contains papers such as this one:

"There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon JamesB"

Has anyone attempted to tear these guys a new orifice?

" ... The Journal of Debunking 911 is a free online publication dedicated to educating the public on the collapse of the three World Trade Center structures on September 11 2001.


Submit a PDF or Microsoft Word Document to the Journals E-mail address. Check manuscript length limitations listed below. Papers under review, accepted for publication, or published elsewhere are not accepted. E-mail the Journals Department for JD911 for complete instructions for manuscript preparation. Submit your documents for review at submissions@jod911.com

Errata. Errata are corrections of errors that appear in print. If errors are serious enough to impair understanding or mislead readers, authors should submit errata to the JD911 Journals Department. Errata are published in earliest available issue.


Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of J911, which takes no responsibility for any statement made herein. No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by J911. The materials are for general information only and do not represent a standard of J911, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document. J911 makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, products, or process discussed in this publication, and assumes no liability therefore. This information should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific application. Anyone utilizing this information assumes all liability arising from such use, including but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents.

The purpose of JOD911, is "to foster activity which leads to the truth about the events on 9/11." Consistent with this purpose, the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theorist reports original research relevant to any part of the 911 controversy. Papers may be of either applied or basic character. They must contain work that has not been published and is not being simultaneously submitted elsewhere, and they should be clearly written and as concise as is consistent with communication of understanding of the subject. They must not be bias for "normal collapse by impact and fire," in keeping with our goal to "Debunk" in general.

The authors must identify clearly their original contribution (a new concept, method, result, or interpretation, or a state-of-the-art review from a new viewpoint, etc.). This contribution must be reflected in the abstract and conclusions. If there are several results, the conclusions should consist of numbered items. The paper must be adequately correlated to previous publications and very specialized or abstract results must be interpreted for a broader readership.

The authors must not include events which took place previous to 911 (political policies, statements, folded money, Album covers, etc.) which are logical fallacies and have nothing to do with the mechanics of collapse.

The authors must indicate a desire to stay anonymous and provide an anonymous ID which can be published on the internet. Anonymity is provided to prevent harassment from fringe members of the 911 conspiracy movement.

© 2006 Journal Of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. All rights reserved."

The authors must indicate a

The authors must indicate a desire to stay anonymous and provide an anonymous ID which can be published on the internet.

what is the evidence on missiles defending the Pentagon?

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the evidence on missiles defending the Pentagon?

Could you please refer me to what you would consider the best sources on this?


The Saker


Passage from DRG's New Pearl Harbor Revisited

[Edit: Once again, what's with the down votes? Care to explain what was objectionable in this post, or is this just simply "Eww! We don't like Adam" faction-based voting???]

pp. 106-7

When I asked Meyssan about the source of his information that the Pentagon did indeed have an anti-aircraft system prior to 9/11, he replied: "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."207 Evidence for such an anti-aircraft system has also been supplied by other people famhttp://www.911blogger.com/node/20429iliar with the Pentagon.208

Endnote 207 is simply a 2005 e-mail from Thierry Meyssan to David Griffin, endnote 208 takes us to the following link: Pentagon and P-56 Preparations and Defenses and the Stand-Down on 9/11

Griffin continues:

The Pentagon has, to be sure, denied that it had any anti-aircraft batteries at that time. "Unlike the White House," said a Pentagon official on 9/11 itself, "the Pentagon has no anti-aircraft batteries to defend against attacks from the air." Why? Because the Pentagon had thought them "too costly and too dangerous to surrounding residential areas."209 But can anyone seriously believe that Pentagon officials would have let such considerations prevent them from protecting themselves? If such considerations did not prevent anti-aircraft batteries from being installed at the White House, why would they have prevented their installation at the Pentagon?

In another story published that same day, Rear Admiral Craig Quigley, serving as a Pentagon spokesman, reportedly said that the Pentagon had no anti-aircraft defense system that he was aware of.210 But can we believe that a senior officer in the Pentagon, qualified to serve as a spokesman, could have been uncertain about such a crucial matter?

One more consideration is the fact that the Pentagon has regularly been described as an exceptionally safe building. For example, April Gallop has reported that while taking a classified tour after being assigned to the Pentagon, she was told that it was the safest and best-defended building in the world.211 On 9/11 itself, Paul Gonzales, a supervisor in the comptroller's office, "had confidently declared that the Pentagon was probably the safest building in the world."212 How could people have considered the Pentagon the best-defended building in the world if it, unlike the White House, did not have anti-aircraft missiles?

209. Why the Pentagon was So Vulnerable
210. Homeland Defense Needs Now "Grim Reality"
211. [same source as endnote 208]
212. Survivors Healed, but Not Whole


This is the same information that JamesB debunked in the paper, genius.

The key to successful truth actions lies in not insulting your target audience or promoting speculation as hard fact.

No, "genius,"

It contains some of the same info that JamesB spun to make appear debunked in the eyes of those who lack the ability to judge a book by anything other than its cover.

Which is of course the assignment and modus operandi of a professional 'debunker.'

What are you going to tell me next? That Mike King and Brent Blanchard 'debunked' controlled demolition?

You lose.

Please keep it civil and on topic

I unpublished two comments that seemed to be primarily concerned with starting up a flame war.

Stick to the facts, use sound reasoning and avoid sarcasm and snark, please.



Screw Loose Change

James B who wrote "There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon " (cited above) is apparently the web master of the Screw Loose Change" blog.

Please put up references on the "Missile Defenses at Pentagon"

Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,
I have heard many times that there were missiles defending the Pentagon but I have no links to serious documents on the subject.

Please, can anyone put up references on the "Missile Defenses at the Pentagon" ?



This reminds me of a story from the Luftwaffe in WWII

In WWII the Nazis expected a short war a year at the most, and they thought that they could ignore the technicalities of waging war, and instead concentrated their efforts on tactical and operational considerations. It wasn't until near the end of the war when they knew they faced defeat that they instigated a competition open to anyone who had any ideas of ways to improve their radar.

This site looks like a similar last desperate attempt to get someone to come up with some way of explaining how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds with freefall acceleration, that doesn't defy Newtonian Mechanics, the Empirical Scientific Method or include the use of explosives in a controlled demolition.