Faith in Science -- Retired NASA engineer explains why he doesn't believe the official 9/11 report

In an article by Shane Cohn in the Ventura County Reporter, an interview of 9/11 Truth spokesperson Dwain Deets is presented. The interviewer asked good questions, and presented the responses accurately.

This article was published shortly before two speaking events in Ventura, California, on the 9/11 anniversary weekend.

Dwain Deets....mmm is he the man for our cause?

Firstly great article and Deets did a fine job at answering the questions posed.

But Deets has some of us worried because he;

1. Supports CIT "flyover"?

2. Supports Pilots for Truth and their unfounded and baseless "Impossible Speed" claims?

Is he our man?

I am perplexed by his stance on those two issues I mentioned as it only weakens his creditability?

Regards John

Give it a rest.

Give it a rest.

When hell freezes over...

He's in the spotlight he gets the scrutiny....end of story. That's life in the 9/11 Truth Movement get used to it:)

Regards John

Back in 2005

Dwain Deets did a speech on WTC7 at our local Encinitas Toastmasters club. Here wore a bicycle helmet as a prop to protect himself from a collapsing building. It was pretty funny! Yes John, he is one of our men. And yes, he does know something about aeronautics. Go to article from 1996.

AE911 truth

should have a lot of outspoken speakers.

They don't need to rely on 1 or 2 or 3 people.

Increasing outspoken folks is the path of victory, truth & justice.

Deets is pulling his load, good on him.

Thank you Dwain for your

Thank you Dwain for your ongoing efforts.

In this short piece, Deets is on point. VERY effective.

The folks in Ventura were given a no nonsense injection of Truth.


DD was a big dog in NASA. For him to say NASA has proof of crazy high temps. in the rubble I think is huge.

JohnB feels that because he has flirted with CIT's wild conjectures he should be taken with a grain of salt. Duly noted, but he does not stray into such speculative territory here.

The end note implies that he plans to in his talk. That is too bad.

I guess the worry is he may be some kind of honeypottish plant who will hinder our progress by association with whack-jobs.

But my take is kinder. His grasp of and ability to distill to the masses the questions about NIST's handling of #7 is unique for its clarity and because of the bona fides he brings.

And maybe his prediliction to believe in computer graphics trickery is just an honest infatuation with high tech gizmos.

Little Help Please...

Can someone point me to a summary of CIT's "wild conjectures"? I've watched the movie they made a while back but don't know about claims they've been making. The way they have been spoken of in comments leads me to believe they've been spouting some crazy stuff and I'm curious as to what it is. Thanks in advance.

Summary of CIT/NSA

Did the CIT respond?

The site you link to makes a seemingly strong case against CIT. Have they responded to your critique in specific comments to it?

They have not responded directly to the S&A

They called me an "Armchair Researcher" on the Kevin Barrett radio show. That's pretty tame compared to what they are calling Victronix and others. ;-)

They called me a lot of things when I tried to debate them at Pilots for 911 Truth. But after 3 years of "debating" at JREF, I view the childish insults as infotainment. It's a slow process but by debating I learned their double talk playbook.
It gets more vitriolic as the "debate" proceeds.

Show "Why even talk about CIT here?" by bbruhwiler8

Hi Bruno....

We need to support what is not controversial if we want to break 9/11 Truth out this year, running up to the tenth anniversary!

CIT are gone for good reason and I'm sure they have their proxy's are about as usual.

We all realize CIT and Pilots have popularity, but they promote theory as fact. They also make many assertions that are simply incorrect.

Gage and others have modified many things over recent years to improve themselves and their arguments when flaws have been found. Criticism is good for those that will hear it.

If I could think of one simple reason why CIT and Pilots(Balsamo) have been ejected from the debate here is because they never were open to debate in the first place. They are simple unreasonable.

Regards John

PS - How's your court battle going?

"...make many assertions that are simply incorrect"

I don't want to get into CIT. I really don't appreciate Chris Sarns using every mention of CIT as an opportunity to promote his own bizarre theory that a plane full north of CITGO, yet hit the Pentagon from a south of CITGO trajectory...

I will have an update on my court battle soon. They have no case, but that hasn't stopped them from railroading the innocent in the past...

schlotsky, here is some help... a 911blogger CIT node

911blogger has allowed discourse on CIT. July 2010

A dilemma appears when threads sidestep the original topic subject (intentionally or non-intentionally), especially with this subject matter.

I recommend that people take it to that thread if they want to grind it out.

Thanks for that...and I hope your right!

camusrebel, Deets has been very careful in his support for CIT and of P4T to not support any unfounded or baseless claims directly; rather he has conveniently associated himself with them while sitting somewhat on the fence. This in my view makes him more dangerous because he has really not done enough to worry many while he is now directly associated with two groups who are full of speculation and wild assertions?

Lets hope the Morgan Reynolds moment does not come at a very important time in the future. He does not have my support as a leader or spokesman in this movement, but as you do, I value his efforts greatly so far.

NO ONE is perfect I know that but any that wish to be spokespeople in this movement better understand that we are plenty controversial already and that we don't any connection to outright speculation pushed as fact, period!!

Kind regards John

like a walking grenade

Morgan Reynolds brought a similar situation. He was *right on* about the towers, had a great article in Lew Rockwell that started him off, but there was that pesky paragraph buried in the middle of it that seemed to suggest something odd . . .

"The article Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? published on the libertarian-oriented website, has garnered considerable attention. It makes the case for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 with much the same eloquence as David Ray Griffin, whom it cites. . . . Reynolds provides an excellent summary of evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers. However, he also devotes about a third of his article to supporting the dubious idea that neither the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, nor the field in Shanksville, PA were the sites of the crashes of the jetliners commandeered on 9/11/01. His article thus weds the thesis of controlled demolition of the skyscrapers with the denial that Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 crashed where reported. This is unfortunate because it functions to discredit the case for demolition by associating it with ideas that lack scientific merit, are easily debunked, and are inherently offensive to the victims of the attack -- especially the survivors of the passengers and crews of the crashed flights."

People thought that if they just talked to him about it, he would understand. And they did talk to him. A lot of people. But pretty soon, instead, he was writing trashing articles with Judy Wood trying his best to undermine Steven Jones.

When anyone who can command a spotlight with a title like "Retired NASA engineer" is publicly claiming that a plane flew over the Pentagon and no one noticed, we have a problem. This article focused almost entirely on B7. But he has a whole other side to him. In this case, apparently, we dodged a bullet. What happens the next time?

"On the day before the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Morgan Reynolds explained to a FOX News audience of millions: 'there are no big Boeing crashes . . . at all four events . . . what you will see is a fake, cartoon display . . .'"
Dr. Reynolds exposes 9/11 TV fakery on FoxNews; 9.10.06 (video)

If you ignore people who advocate nonsense, the nonsense dump will happen when you least expect it and when it's most destructive. We have the 10th anniversary coming up . . .

From your 9/11 Blogger Bio

"Most won't like what I have to say, but it often needs to be said."

I agree with the first part.

Kind of like 9/11

No one wants to hear about it. Too bad.

Thanks Vic you nailed it!

It ain't "rocket science", excuse the pun....:)

Kind regards John

PS - Thank goodness there are at least a few of us obsessed with watching our gives me hope!

It would seem to me..

It would seem to me that there would be no one better suited or more qualified to dismantle such theories as "impossible speed" than a NASA aeronautical engineer. I know he does well with the WTC Demolitions but I would like to hear his take on physical aspects of the commissions story of what happened at the pentagon. For example, the 270 degree turn and descent. The dynamics of flying so close to the ground at such speeds, and the effects of the light poles. A jetliner landing in Houston struck a light pole and its' wing sheared off. Flight 77 allegedly stuck 5 of them and continued on its way to strike the pentagon without a hint of leaving anything of itself behind indicating it struck the poles. Of course, there were walk lines of citizens picking up debris. My two cents anyway.

peace all


I plead guilty

to being sucked into discussion that - let's face it - has a fascination of its own, apart from the goal of bringing the truth of 9/11 to full public awareness.

For me - no discussion is needed to prove the falsity of the Official Government Conspiracy Theory. All I need is 5 seconds of video of building 7. I don't even need (although I greatly appreciate) David Chandler's brilliant analyses.

For me - the millions (billions? trillions?) of words that have been written attempting to "prove" the falsity of the OCT are superfluous. Anyone who isn't drunk, stoned, insane or in some sort of psychological denial can see that 7 was a controlled demolition.

Now on to the Pentagon: The Lloyd England (taxi driver) story promoted by the government is clearly false.
I won't even argue it because it is obviously ridiculous. CIT has illuminated the absurdity of this myth. So - whether they are right or wrong about which side of the CITGO station a plane flew over - they are definitely right about the Lloyd England story being absurd.

As I said - this comment probably adds nothing to the pace of world wide enlightenment - but I did plead guilty
to being sucked into the temptation to indulge in this discussion - purely because human beings are fascinated by mystery stories.

My prayers (thoughts, wishes) for the speedy and complete recovery of David Ray Griffin.

John, thanks for watching our backs

and doing so much for 9/11 Truth Movement. Please understand that many of us here in San Diego have known Dwain Deets for years and see him as a local hero.


Steve Walker


Regards John

PS - I hope Dwain will answer the questions I asked it would help us all understand his position as Balsamo likes to ridicule me and accuse me of being a fraud, a fake and a probable agent:) You lie with dogs you get fleas my grandfather used to say....

Mr. Deets,

you strike me as a very honest, effective , and courageous person. However, I think you may have misspoken here in this phrase:
"9/11 Truth spokesperson Dwain Deets"

To me, this phrase is stating that you are an official representative of an organized group called "9/11 Truth". This does not appear to me to be the case in more than one way. Can you clarify? I mean, who do you speak for other than yourself?

"A spokesperson or spokeswoman or spokesman is someone engaged or elected to speak on behalf of others."



You make a good point. I am not speaking on behalf of anyone or any organization other than myself. I consider myself a part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, but there is not commonality of viewpoints among all who consider themselves a part of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

I guess it is more accurate to say I am an individual within the 9/11 Truth Movement speaking out matters where my training and experience may help me to explain things more clearly.


Dwain, thank you for your unique perspective and for

having the fortitude to see and speak the Truth.

Perhaps you can clear things up? Do you believe airplanes hit Towers One and Two?

Show "Towers on One and Two" by dadeets



Ok, what specific suspicions do you have

about the videos?

In the past, outrageous claims have been made about the videos from 9/11. These claims have been used to ridicule the movement. People here remember this, and this may be why some have thumb-downed your comment.

I'm not at all implying that *you* would do this, and you may even be totally unaware of these past problems. But this is a good chance to clarify the statement you made above.

Show "Suspicions" by dadeets

Here's 43 angles of the second impact.

Please identify which ones are "suspicious" and what the problem is. This claim that there's something "wrong" with the impact videos is not backed by any scientific evidence. It's also one of the the oldest distractions in the book.
Full Quality Video:
Source List:
1. ABC LIVE (replay 1 minute later)
2. Naka Nathaniel New York Times (ABC Archive 9/11 16:59)
3. CBS LIVE (CBS What We Saw DVD)
4. CBS Replay (CBS9 Archive 9/11 16:37 pm)
5. Edited NBC Live + 9:11am Replay
6. Park Foreman video (CNN 9/13 1:58 am)
7. Unknown Amateur (BBC's 9/11 The Twin Towers documentary, engine sound dubbed in by BBC/does not appear on the CBS original)
8. Brooklyn Bridge unknown amateur (Moussaoui Trial video Archive)
9. Scott Myers (from his website -
10. Naudet (9/11)
11. Unknown Amateur (No planers claim it is from a website called, I retrieved mine via P2P)
12. Unknown amateur (I've had the .wmv file since late 2001, obtained via P2P, forgot the source, 1st 9/11 video ever on the internet)
13. Ronald Pordy (Anatomy of the Collapse documentary)
14. Luis Alonso (Anatomy of the Collapse w/ cameraplanet audio redubbed into it (
15. WPIX-TV replay (JKeogh Ebay DVD, at double framerate, originally it was in slow motion)
16. Michael Hezarkhani (In Plane Site w/ CNN audio track dubbed in)
17. Pavel Hlava, first aired September 2003 (forgot the source)
18. Youtube User Shizzzham (uploaded in 2007 account closed)
19. Jennifer Spell (Loose Change Second Edition w/ cameraplanet audio dubbed back in (
20. Unknown Amateur (Source
21. Evan Fairbanks (taken from PBS's Faith & Doubt at Ground Zero)
22. Gary Pollard - Cameraplanet (
23. Brian Gately - Cameraplanet (
24. History Channel (9/11 Conspiracies: Fact Or Fiction)
25. Luc Courchesne (Loose Change Second Edition)
26. WNYW LIVE Chopper 5 (source Dylan Avery)
27. History Channel (9/11 Conspiracies: Fact Or Fiction)
28. Yahoo video user Rocerny (source is gone, The video was originally half the framerate, I sped it up to the best match other videos)
29. NY1 LIVE (realmedia file from NY1 website)
30. CBS Archive 9:17 am replay
31. Devin Clark (
32. Peter Strid (YouTube user peterstrid, uploaded 2006)
33. UNknown amateur (BBC World 9/12 00:03)
34. Unknown Amateur (BBC World 9/12 00:03) continued
35. Unknown Amateur (BBC World 9/12 00:03) continued
36. Unknown amateur (BBC World 9/12 00:26)
37. FOX5 Archive (9/11 9:18 am)
38. Unknown amateur (Penn & Teller Bullshit: Conspiracy Theories/see also Bowling for Columbine)
39. CNN video (taken from PBS's Building on Ground Zero)
40. PBS Nova's Why The Towers Fell
41. Clifton Cloud 9/12 11:50 am NBC archive
42. FOX5 Archive 9/11 19:48 pm
43. NBC4 Archive 9/12 3:48 am
(Huge thanks to Nate Flach for compiling this)

There's more at

Rob "tends towards planes" Balsamo

It reminds me of when I called out Balsamo for support of John "hologram" Lear when he said he "tended" towards planes at the towers.

I've heard of keeping your options open and then I've also heard of allowing nutty theories to fester by indirect support with wishy washy statements...maybe they just like to stay popular with all?

NOTE: I warn all here any error you make in the comments here is considered as good as an essay you wrote to CIT and Pilots (Balsamo), if I forget to cross a t they broadcast it world wide through their networks. They publish private e-mails, anything to score a point! Be warned, especially those like me that have a family a 60 hour a week job and do make mistakes...of course I also admit them:)

Kind regards John

Hello Dwain...

Firstly thanks for your work for 9/11 Truth.

I have a few questions around the "impossible speed" claims made by Pilots for Truth.

1. Do you agree we simply do not have the data to establish the dynamic air pressure that will cause catastrophic failure of a 767-200?

2. Do you agree, regarding structural failure (especially wing flutter), it is a high Mach speed and especially past the Critical Mach Number that is the greatest risk to the structure of a subsonic aircraft?

3. Dwain do you agree that using an analogy/comparison between an aircraft at a very high Mach speed (99%) and a high Dynamic airspeed (415 Knots), in this case Egypt Air Flt 880 with one at a medium Mach speed (.77 well outside the transonic range) and a high Dynamic airspeed 450+ Knots in the case of Flt 175 on 9/11 is simply not scientific?

4. Do you agree that making an argument as P4T did in the their recent video release about the planes that hit the towers would be uncontrollable at high speeds by loss of elevator trim tabs due to Mach Tuck is wrong? As 767-200 does not have elevator trim tabs rather they have a movable vertical stabilizer?

There is simply no way to know how fast a 767-200 can go for a short period of time is there Dwain without the Boeing Test Data?

If you will entertain me here I have many more questions for you as you are qualified to clear up many issues!

I would love for someone like yourself to step up and be critical of the many, many errors P4T have made over the years so we can get behind that group and give the members the support many of them deserve.

Kind regards John Bursill

Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, Avionics - Boeing 737/767/747 Series
Sydney Australia

Equivalent airspeed


Let’s put it this way. If I knew Egypt Air 990 (767-200) had come apart in the air at 425 KEAS, I wouldn’t go onboard another 767-200 with the flight test objective to show it could be flown faster than 425 KEAS. (Note: your dynamic airspeed in point 3 should have been 425 knots, not 415.)


Ok point taken...

425 Knots equivalent I was going off memory:)

Is it not the .99 Mach that is the issue with 990(not 880)? I believe the Critical Mach number is approximately .89 for the 767-200?

I would like you to address the danger being the Mach number not EAS and the other questions?

It's also true to say it is only speculation as to why 990 broke up, is it not?

Also in point 4. I meant horizontal stabilizer not vertical stabilizer. Apologies doing a few to many things at once...was a work while posting....

Regards John


Is .99 Mach more dangerous to a 767-200 than is 425 Knots?

This is just one simple question, can you answer that? Please don't talk about another point!

The other very, very simple question was DO WE HAVE the DATA from Boeing telling us a what speeds a 767-200 will breakup?

Kind regards John

Aircraft Impact Videos Appear Authentic

There seems to be no scientific basis for questioning the authenticity of videos depicting the impacts of the WTC planes.

Thanks, Dwain.

dadeets - "911ARTISTS, You make a good point. I am not speaking on behalf of anyone or any organization other than myself. I consider myself a part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, but there is not commonality of viewpoints among all who consider themselves a part of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I guess it is more accurate to say I am an individual within the 9/11 Truth Movement speaking out matters where my training and experience may help me to explain things more clearly."

Great. Here's some art for your beautiful blog. These are from my friend's 9-11 Truth art show that's going on in Wellington NZ right now.

911 art fireworks

9-11 truth roger morris


Thanks Paul for your continued effort!

Roger is a great artist:)

Regards John

This is an audio response

to the quote beneath. It's about 1 minute at 1.03 MB.

John Bursill - "Thanks Paul for your continued effort!
Roger is a great artist:)"

Thanks Dwain

for your courage and efforts in the 9/11 Truth Movement!

Re: 43 angles of the second impact

You miss the point. It doesn't matter if it is 40 or 100 video records, when the plane flies "officially" so far beyond its red line, all information should be scrutinized carefully. Either that, or provide precedent cases where planes have flown 100 knots beyond their design limits, and were controllable.

Well lets just question everything?

Hello Dwain,

Craig Ranke keeps bringing up the fact a agreed that the government could of falsified photographic evidence at the Pentagon. Well of course they could of, but is it likely well no. It is very unlikely.

Faking 50 plus videos at the towers or projecting extremely high powered holograms from multiple positions in broad daylight to simulate planes is frankly near impossible and extremely unlikely. But beyond that it a very weak position to hold as a "spokesman" of this movement. Even questioning those videos does us damage.

I have noted that no one from the pilots group will address the "transonic speed" issue and the catastrophic effects of high speed commercial aircraft like 767-200 will suffer at .99 Mach. Using Egypt Air 990 as a proof that "impossible speed" was attained by 175 and 11 is frankly highly inaccurate and misleading.

One more time..

Do you believe that the greatest risk to Flt 990 was the fact that it was going through the sound barrier (.99 Mach) not exceeding its allow dive speed by 10 or so knots at 425 Knots?

I just want you to answer one question directly?

Kind regards John

Please state specifically

What is "suspicious" about the video footage.

Show "911blogger" by bbruhwiler8


There's no policy against discussing people who support TV Fakery or debunking them. Please stop trying to shut down helpful discussions. You just told the site owner to "take it elsewhere". Funny stuff.

Show "What is the policy?" by bbruhwiler8
Show ""suspicious" to stong a word" by dadeets

"Skeptical" about the impact videos....

What specifically in the videos makes you skeptical? Can you point to evidence that calls the authenticity of the impact videos into question?

Question Aircraft? Perhaps. Question Videos? No Apparent Need

If the towers could be tampered with to cause their destructions then it is plausible that the WTC aircraft could also have been modified to support extreme speeds at lower altitude. Vector trigonometry will hold that increased speeds generate greater accuracy of a projectile in a crosswind environment by reducing deflection angles and displacement per distance traveled, thus extreme aircraft speeds may have been introduced to assure attack success.

However, even if the aircraft were modified in any way, scrutinizing the authenticity of the videos seems unnecessary in this case.

One would be wise to clearly distinguish between scrutinizing information contained within these videos as opposed to appearing to call for greater scrutiny of their authenticity, which seems beyond question.

911blogger account

For Scribd, I have in the past created an account specific for 911blogger users so they can download the documents hosted there directly. For Scribd, the username is '911blogger' and the password is '911blogger'.

For docstoc, I have now done the same thing. Username is 'blogger911' ('911blogger' was disallowed) and password is 'blogger911'.

This is because Adobe Flash is or has become, essentially to its core, a copyright enforcement technology. (The origins of the technology lie with the same company who gave us the 'Macrovision' video tape/DVD copy protection scheme.)

I encourage everybody to download these documents so we can bypass the commercials foisted upon us in these totally redundant "document hosting" websites, who exist only to complicate the free flow and exchange of documents. Expect this to get a lot worse, as it already has gotten a lot worse the past decade.

No offense intended, Aidan, I'm very thankful for the interesting link, and I know you most probably didn't place that document there in the first place. However, I know one of my favorite sites, History Commons, does default to posting their documents to Scribd, and I would wish they'd just use an FTP server.

Show "Authenticity being beyond question?" by dadeets

You are making the claim

That something calls the authenticity of the over 50 impact videos we have into question. On what evidence do you base your statement?

Private vs. Public

The problem with arguing about possible problems with any of the videos of the planes hitting the towers is that you will end up arguing over the details. Such discussion works well in a private setting, but not in an open forum such as 911blogger. Openly discussing or debating that topic will distract people looking for evidence of 9-11 Truth from the more powerful and easily accepted facts such as the controlled demolition of the three towers.

As I have discussed with some of the more adamant supporters of 9-11 video fakery, even if it were true that the video has been faked, will proclaiming that actually help reach the goal? They agreed with me that the first and primary goal of the 9-11 Truth Movement is to reach the tipping point regarding the percentage of people who are aware that the official story is bunk. Hypothetically, even if it were true that videos of the planes hitting the towers have been 'faked', telling people in the street would be too big a leap for them to take, because we have all seen footage and some photographs of the planes hitting the towers over and over again, and we have all been told that's what happened over and over again. It's already been tough enough to get people to take a look at the most convincing evidence (though I am finding it easier than it's ever been these days :). At this point in time in the 9-11 Truth Movement, keep using what works the fastest with the greatest effect. AE911Truth has been a blessing in that regard. Thank you Richard Gage AIA and everyone that is on your team. Thank you David Chandler and keep up the good work.

No matter what anybody's individual opinion, research or take on the videos and photos of the planes hitting the towers, we need to avoid digging into the details... here or anywhere else where 9-11 Truth is openly the focus.

Authenticity Has Been Assessed For A Decade

These videos have been in the public domain for nearly a decade and carefully scrutinized and no one has presented any sound scientific evidence to prove that these videos are not authentic.

Show "Blank frame" by dadeets

Imperfect Live Television Via Airborne Helicopter Remote

WNYW's transmitter was reportedly atop WTC 1. Although WNYW transmissions were possibly already affected by the collision AA 11 with WTC 1, the signal interruption seems to coincide exactly with the collision of UA 175 with WTC 2, suggesting an unknown cause-effect relationship.

WTC 2 was an enormous electrical load. Sudden disruption of electrical service to that load due to UA 175's impact may have had a momentary affect upon the local grid which interfered with live television broadcasts.

In any event, events unfolding during the missing frames were documented by other closer camera views.

Justin listed 43 videos. Why question all for a glitch in one?

You have stated that you believe the planes hit the towers so why question the videos? I agree with Bruno that questioning the validity of the videos is a distraction from the scientific evidence of the controlled demolitions of all three skyscrapers on 911.

Thank you graciously agreeing to read my S&A. You asked for verification that CIT had interviewed four SoC witnesses which I then gave you [with references]. You now know that CIT falsely claimed that the witnesses were unanimous in confirming the NoC flight path.

Sgt. Lagasse and Sgt. Brooks said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon and Robert Turcios said it did not flyover the Pentagon.

Yet Craig claimed ""But the fact is that a flyover is 100% proven by the Citgo station witnesses alone."

Furthermore, Sean Boger was in the heliport control tower at the Pentagon.
He had the best vantage point, about 100 feet from the impact point. He also said he saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Yet Craig claims that "ALL of the north side witnesses were deceived into believing the plane hit the Pentagon."

Do you believe Craig's assertion that they were all deceived ?

Response to Chris Sarns


I am not questioning the videos because of a "glitch." I'm questioning them because the official airspeed of the 2nd airplane is too far beyond the dive speed to be reasonable. Therefore, as I said at the beginning, all sources of information pertaining to this issue should be examined more closely.

I did look at the statements by the four witnesses you listed, but didn't find direct testimonies of a SoC path. I am approaching the question of NoC vs. SoC as a separate matter from whether they say they saw it strike the Pentagon or not. One reason is it clarifies the NoC vs. SoC question. The other reason is a witness who is an excellent position to say if it was on the North side or South side is generally not in a good position to say if it struck the Pentagon or not.

Yes, Sean Boger is the one witness among this group who was in an excellent position to say if it hit the Pentagon or not. But, this position was also where his life may have been in danger had it struck the Pentagon. CIT suggests Boger may have been ducking for cover at that point, and may have assumed the explosion was due to the plane striking the Pentagon. I believe that is a plausible explanation, and therefore would not use that part of Boger's testimony to overrule the testimonies of all the other NoC witnesses.

If you have any statements these four witnesses said that represents a direct observation of the plane flying on a SoC path, please let me know.


Thank you for your reply

As to your questioning the videos. I respectfully disagree. It would be impossible to fake all the videos IMO. The videos cross-verify each other and they are proof that the plane did in fact fly at 425 knots and make the last second hard turn. It would be more appropriate to question whether the planes were "special" as per "Operation Northwoods" as Aidan has suggested.

The SoC witnesses did not relate to the Citgo station and CIT did not ask so that must be determined by what they did say about the flight path.

The "in the best position" argument is circular reasoning. It assumes the outcome as part of the proof. Those who described the plane as "flying over them" as they were caught in traffic were "in the best position" to see the plane on the south path.

I have watched all the uncut versions of the witness videos. Sean Boger was not the only person in an excellent position to see the Pentagon. Sgt. Lagasse and Sgt. Brooks had a clear unobstructed view of the Pentagon.

Terry Morin could still see the tail of the plane when it hit the Pentagon. "As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.

Albert Hemphill was in a perfect position to see the plane hit the pentagon [on the 5th floor of the Naval Annex, facing the Pentagon] but CIT did not include his statement in NSA even though he is a "NoC" witness. In his original statement Albert said "As he crossed Route 110 [27] he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5. What instantly followed was a large yellow fireball accompanied by an extremely bass sounding, deep thunderous boom."
Craig recently talked to Albert on the phone and then brushed him off as a liar.

Craig Wheelhouse was at the west end of ANC. He said he saw the plane "Melt into the building". CIT simply called him a liar and disregarded his statement.

That's six witnesses who have been interviewed by CIT and were in excellent positions to see the plane hit the Pentagon. They all said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. There are many more and CIT knows about them.

Knowing all this, leaving these witness accounts out of NSA and then claiming that they have proof of flyover seems a bit bizarre IMO.

Dwain, you

say that one or more videos *demonstrate* a speed 100 knots beyond maximum.

Using a video to determine actual airliner speed can be a touchy issue. A camera can, at best, only measure apparent angular speed with respect to its lens.

Tracking a distant rocket with a camera at a known observation angle, as you may be familiar with, it is far easier to estimate speed. In many videos of the planes, the plane-to-camera distance is changing rapidly, and the camera is panning. This makes speed estimation far more difficult.

So, my questions: (1) Where are the calculations showing, from one or more videos, this anomalously high speed? (2) Which videos are they?

Clarification on video-based speed

I have not said that videos "demonstrate" a speed 100 knots beyond maximum, I said the official speed is 100 knots beyond maximum. The official speed was determined by radar, not video. It was stated by an NTSB representative in terms of ground speed. Others, including me, have added the interpretation that it would be 100 knots beyond maximum dive speed.

There have been independent video analysis that, as far as I know, yielded results that are consistent with this speed. I'm not prepared to say anything about these analyses other than to say, what I looked at I found interesting.

Yes, I think some of the problems you bring up would make analysis of the videos to determine speed rather difficult.

Dear Richard and Dwain,

I was my understanding that AE911Truth did not delve into the Pentagon because it is a quagmire. So I find it inconsistent and incorrect for Richard to "stick his foot in it" by endorsing NSA [but not flyover]. Now Dwain has "stuck both feet in it" by endorsing NSA and flyover.

Again I ask you both to take a more critical look at CIT/NSA. What you have stepped into may be warm but it is not water. ;-)

AE911Truth not delving into the Pentagon

I am not looking into the Pentagon on behalf of AE91Truth. I use the analogy of putting on a different hat. In the case of the Pentagon, I am putting on my "retired NASA engineer" hat. I have a responsibility to look into matters where my background tells me the commonly accepted narrative may have some serious shortcomings.


You still represent AE911Truth

Your change of hats does not "disguise" your identity as a prominent member and spokesperson for AE911truth. ;-)

ETA: Come to think of it, you wear the "retired NASA engineer" hat when speaking for AE911Truth.