Visibility 911: A dozen Questons about Flight 77 from Kevin Ryan

working link:

original link:

A dozen questions about Flight 77 and the Pentagon that might lead to justice, and one that won’t

There are many questions to be answered about the events at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.    Here are a dozen such questions that, if answered, might help to bring about justice.

  1. Exactly how was Flight 77 hijacked, considering, among other things, that the alleged hijackers were said to be identified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board, and were not physically imposing (all 5 and a half feet tall or less, and slender in build)?[1]
  2. How was the nation’s air defense system disabled on 9/11, and how could anything have hit the Pentagon approximately 80 minutes after the first plane was known to be hijacked?
  3. Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?[2]
  4. Why were explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report? (Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar).[3],[4]
  5. Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives?   Note:  The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.
  6. Why was AMEC, the company that had just finished refurbishing Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, hired to lead the clean-up effort at Ground Zero?[5]
  7. Why did the NTSB not make public reports on any of the planes as is the normal procedure?[6]
  8. Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?
  9. Why was the official explanation for alleged phone calls made by Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olsen changed several times, and ultimately how could Ted Olsen’s story make any sense?[7]
  10. Why did high-ranking Pentagon officials cancel travel plans for the morning of September 11 “…apparently because of security concerns.”?[8]
  11. How could Hani Hanjour still have successfully piloted Flight 77 given his poor qualifications?[9]
  12. Why are those interested in The Pentagon not intently reviewing documents released by the FAA and 9/11 Commission that reveal startling questions about the aircraft and events of that day?[10]

Why are these questions NOT being pursued by independent investigators?  That’s because the attention of many potential investigators has been hijacked by the much less useful question of “What hit the Pentagon.”  This is certainly the favorite subject of intentional disruptors and official story supporters.

A great example was when 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara and I exchanged messages a few months ago.  He had written to my local group in an inquiry seeking support for his positions.  My response was apparently not to his liking, and he therefore sought something in my own work that could be criticized.  Despite the fact that the vast majority of my 9/11 work has centered on the World Trade Center, Army intelligence officer Kara searched through my articles and presentations over the last seven years and chose one minor statement I made about the Pentagon, in March 2006.  He then enlarged this into his own emotional statement, suggesting that those who question what hit the Pentagon do “a disservice to the men, women and children who died there that day.  Visit the Pentagon Memorial and sit on the bench of the youngest victim.“[11] Kara was most interested in discussing what hit the Pentagon only so that he could turn the issue into an emotional question about the victims.  That is usually the case with mainstream media hit pieces, and with intentional disruptors as well.

The question of what hit the Pentagon leads directly to the question of what happened to the passengers, as Miles Kara was trying to insinuate.  That fact was also emphasized by the leading promoter of the “fly-over” theory when he gave a presentation in Europe recently.  His presentation ended with the questions he really wanted us to think about.

Demand answers to the question of what happened to the people on the plane.

How did they really die?”

Where they killed them, how they killed them, I can’t know.”

I can only know what the witnesses tell me.”[12]

Is this a good way to encourage people to question 9/11, and to bring justice?  Obviously not.

Finally, note that “endorsements” are a good way to pit people against each other, and that’s exactly what has been done.  There has never been another issue in the truth movement that has required the pursuit of endorsements but, for some reason, this least important question about the Pentagon is promoted as an important issue requiring us to divide into camps.  Divide and conquer is the strategy of the intentional disruptor.

In other words, what hit the Pentagon does not bring us closer to justice but actually brings us farther from that goal because it exacerbates the divisions within the truth movement while we waste time.  That’s probably why the intentional disruptors and government supporters always drive the conversations to that one question.

People who are serious about 9/11 truth and justice focus on the facts that help us come not only to truth, but to a useful truth.  We should make only minimal reference to any facts that do not help us achieve truth and justice.  Instead, we should make note that what hit the Pentagon, for example, is a minor and nearly useless issue that is used by intentional disruptors and official story promoters as they work to keep the truth from being exposed.

[1] Complete 911 Timeline, American Airlines Flight 77,


[2] Norman Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission makes clear that Dick Cheney was tracking Flight 77 while it was more than 50 miles away from Washington DC.

[3] Mete Sozen has since become a leading spokesman for the official story about the WTC as well.  For more about him, see my articles “Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC ‘Experts’”, and “Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel”,

[4] Some very seriouis accusations have been made against Paul Mlakar by Prof. Raymond B. Seed of the University of California, Berkeley, Letter entitled Re: New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina, And the Soul of the Profession, October 30, 2007,

[5] Kevin R. Ryan, Demolition Access to the WTC Towers: Part Four – Cleanup,, February 11, 2010,

[6], NTSB Reports: Long-Hidden NTSB Reports Contain Flight Data,

[7] David Ray Griffin, Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials,, April 1, 2008,

[8] The Family Steering Committee for an Independent 9/11 Commission,

[9] Complete 911 Timeline, Hani Hanjour,

[10] See the FOIA responses obtained by the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington,

Also see the documents released by the 911 Commission,

Here’s an example:

UAL and AAL employees:  Contradictions about transponders.  ACARS data missing.  UAL had radar continuity.

Many of the documents are just cover pages saying the information is still “Restricted”. These include interviews of the CIA agents, Prince Bandar, and the first responders.

[11] Miles Kara, Archive for the ‘Bloomington Group’ Category, 9/11 Revisited website,

[12] Parody video of CIT tour and presentation in which, at 02:18, the speaker tells his French audience the reasons why CIT is working so hard.

Okay - forget about WHAT hit the Pentagon if you like

And ask: "Why are there not clear videos of "the destructive event" at the Pentagon?"

Nothing is proved by the

Nothing is proved by the failure to produce high quality video of the pentagon crash. Many high quality photos of plane debris do exist however

A plane or THE plane?

A jumbo jet is a jumbo jet - But "American Airlines" is just a paint job. WHERE ARE THE SERIAL NUMBERS OF THE TIME CHANGE PARTS?


Where are the serial numbers of the plane parts of the airplane that was allegedly 'swapped' for AA 77?

Have you ever wondered about that question? This about the tension between verification and falsification.

SnowCrash...are you saying...

...that there has been some VERIFICATION of serial numbers on the aircraft parts found??? at the Pentagon that PROVE that it was the "original" AA77 that crashed there?

IF SO...this would be so damn helpful!

Or, am I misunderstanding your query?

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

PS: We simply need a thorough investigation about everything all around 9/11...including the "action" surrounding the Pentagon and AA77. rdh


I'm asking for the serial numbers of the swapped plane instead. In doing so, I'm trying to demonstrate the cognitive flaws at work here, specifically, the tension between verification and falsification.

Verification versus falsification...

Is this not the most difficult thing to distinguish regarding ALL of the events of 9/11?

Its my view that the evidence at the Pentagon and regarding the flight of AA77 is the most tightly held and "controlled" evidence of ALL information regarding all of the events surrounding 9/11/2001.

This is why I think we need to:

1. Accept this as a reality...

2. Become more comfortable with the various "theories" or evidence trails that lead to varyiyng or sometimes conflicting conclusions...

3. And MAKE THE POINT...that BECAUSE the evidence is being witheld or carefully controlled by the self-serving authorities, there is no other manner in which ANY curious investigators could or SHOULD approach the analysis of the events surrounding AA77 and the Pentagon...aka...

...a variety of scenarios that match the variety of evidence trails that have been released by the HI PERPS...

Taking solid stands on certain theories, a small number of theories, or even just one for that matter is...


Instead, we should be comfortable with the variety of approaches promoting several "What could have happened..." scenarios...and concurrently...

...we should continuously make the points:

...that, as a responsible "truth-seeking community", we would be much farther along in our research and analysis IF the evidence was not being witheld by those who are covering their asses...

...that we would be IRRESPONSIBLE IF...we DID NOT look into a wider variety of possibilities or differing scenarios surrounding the flight of AA77 and the events at the Pentagon...

We should CONSTANTLY expose that IF the evidence about AA77 and The Pentagon was as OPEN and AVAILABLE to us as was/is the evidence found in:

...the WTC DUST...

...the now released "explosive testimony"...

...all of the citizen's video histories of the collapses...

...and the laws of physics...

...then we would have a better and more responsible report and analysis to offer to the public.

PUBLIC why NIST has had so much trouble with their job...and

...THIS is why the HI PERPS have had it so EASY to control the message regarding AA77 and the Pentagon.

I think that this tactic is a very good one [quite clever actually] and will play very, very well with the public because we have switched the game around and put the Feds on the defensive because the public mistrusts the government anyway.

This tactic is especially effective since there is a realistic "possibility" of explaining what happened to AA77 [the real one] if it did not strike the Pentagon.

...Operation Northwoods is acknowledged and certainly viable...

...and along AA77's flight path there is: opportunity, time, suitable geographic location, and "historical processes" that would fit into the "swap" scenario.

I also will argue two points [one specific to the Pentagon debris field] that have not been aired very much at all:

Morgan Reynolds had two goals with his COINTELPRO work...

[mostly accomplished on the agreeable/cooperative/mockingbird media]...

1. To establish that airliners are basically "beer cans" or "made from butter" and therefore would NOT make the impact holes on the WTCs that they did...

...BUT...the real goal here was to cover for the fact that it would not be unusual that there was so little debris" found at the Pentagon...and that A B757 would not make a large impact into the Pentagon either...

As a result, Reynolds set up the future Pentagon controversy in establishing the "flimsyness" of B757s...which of course, they are NOT...

2. Reynolds planted the seeds for the AMAZINGLY EFFECTIVE and EVER LASTING AND INACCURATE belief structure in many public minds that the 9/11 Truthers believed that there were NO PLANES that struck the WTCs...and that...

...the "NO PLANE-Truthers are Crazies" seeds have grown beautifully and the well planned and well executed COINTELPRO design was/is superb at undermining the 9/11 Truth Community...

And finally, given the capacity of the HI PERPS to control all the information surrounding their secret OPS, how does your question asking for the serial numbers for the "swapped in" airvehicle make any sense at all?

I must be missing something that you are trying to establish here.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA USA

Serial numbers

"And finally, given the capacity of the HI PERPS to control all the information surrounding their secret OPS, how does your question asking for the serial numbers for the "swapped in" airvehicle make any sense at all?"

Firstly, because you can't make claims of plane swapping without positive instead of negative evidence, (just because it could have happened doesn't mean it did happen, there is a distinct difference, besides the passengers and their belongings were found at the scene, ask John Judge's stewardess friend)

Secondly, because I disagree with you that the hi perps control all the information surrounding 9/11. They might have control in the sense that they can frustrate FOIA requests, they can hire spineless bureaucrats and stooges to write a fictional 9/11 report, they can torture terror suspects into 'confessing', all that is true.

Clearly though, the body of information and evidence gathered about 9/11 has been without cooperation of the hi perps, as you call them, and plenty of this evidential information has been supplemented by the mainstream media. In another comment, to Woody Box, I just cited a FOIA document and a CNN report transcribed on George Washington's Blog in support of the Mineta timeline. One is a government source, another is a mainstream media source. Don't you think it's time to acknowledge that it isn't as cut and dry, nor black and white, so that you can just hand wave all government and mainstream media sources?

The NIST cumulus database, how many mainstream media material is in there?

You can't frame the issue that simplistically Robin, although I appreciate the healthy skepticism.

Judge's stewardess friend

'besides the passengers and their belongings were found at the scene, ask John Judge's stewardess friend)'

I recall hearing about how Judge was shown some personal effect (bracelet maybe?) that he recognized as belonging to a stewardess who worked on Flight 77. I also recall not finding this evidence that convincing. Just because the FBI says the item was recovered from the Pentagon site doesn't necessarily mean it was actually from there.

The never ending story

With all due respect.

Has anybody changed their position on any point about the great Pentagon mystery?

If no one can convince anyone of anything, how can we convince anyone outside the TM?

Is there anything we can all agree on or at least come to a consensus?

Frank offered:
"Nothing should have hit the Pentagon"
"The government could end the controversy by releasing the videos"

Yay's and nay's?

Other offerings?

ETA: SC, Thanks for the compliment and referral. It resulted in Dwain and I having a private discussion and he is now aware that CIT does not have any "proof" of flyover. Whether or not he changes his position remains to be seen but at least he is willing to discuss the issue in a friendly manner. We both found the discussion educational.

One Yay - One nay

"Nothing should have hit the Pentagon" -- This gets a "Yay."

"The government could end the controversy by releasing the videos" -- This gets a "Nay" because the "government" is not a reliable source of information. I would imagine that given the many years that have elapsed, and given the advances in video technology, that a fabrication could be created that would be "perfect" down to the pixel. There would be no way to either verify or falsify whatever would be released.

NIST, however, has CERTIFIED FREE FALL! This is more than enough to warrant a new investigation. The fact that "the government" remains deaf to NIST's certification of free fall, should be enough to convince anyone that "the government" is not to be trusted with respect to anything.


Could you give me an idea of which cameras you want footage from? I.e. identify the security cameras in question specifically? I can think of some, which ones do you have in mind? Often the number '85' is referenced, but this is not specific at all...

Given the threats

I've been receiving from Ranke, who has set up a smear campaign against me, based on our e-mail correspondence in 2009 (me, Ranke, Syed) at least that's something positive.

I'm an informatics student, Chris, I recognize logic when I see it. You and I might not agree on everything, but your logic is solid. Hmmm, come to think of it, do we disagree about much? Mind you, Ranke hates you. At least, he left that impression in his threats.

It was bad enough to see Zwicker endorse CIT. Deets does not deserve this.

It's OK to disagree

That is what happens when people think for themselves. Ranke does not like anybody who doesn't believe his theory and is not terribly civil about it. ;-)

No worries. The fact that he smears people tells us who he is [or should]. Send his gems to Dwain and RG. Maybe they will finally realize what they are supporting with their endorsements.

As for our disagreements,[light poles?] email me and we can "have it out". Erik Larsen and I went round and round about Roosevelt Roberts and no one changed their mind but it was an interesting [and friendly] debate - and I don't hold his being wrong against him.
"I'm an informatics student" and I'm a sarcasimaster. Should be a lively debate.

zmzm, I'm not so sure they could fake a plane hitting a building but your concern is justified. Thanks for chiming in.

Rational disagreement is welcomed

I wouldn't mind joining such a debate on the rational merits of various positions (email me at daniel "." laliberte "at" My position tends toward whatever makes most sense regardless who agrees with me. In other words, science rules.

I've experienced Ranke's rancor a couple times and that was enough for me to suspect everything that comes out of his mouth and that of all his similar sounding supporters. However, the witnesses on his videos should be listened to carefully, and I am swayed by them that the North of Citco route must be taken seriously, along with its true implications (and not the assumed implications of CIT). I'm not disagreeing with a plane hitting the pentagon, as about half of those same witnesses claim, but the precise path and angle of entry are more debatable. I'm inclined to doubt the impact with the light poles, and the nice round exit holes on the inner pentagon wall, but I haven't seen substantial proof either way.

nothing should have hit the pentagon and videos

seems like a baseline for inquiry.

there would appear to have been a few moments of clarity during the 9-11 commission hearings.

one of them was the august 6, 2001 cia briefing paper, about bin laden being determined to strike inside the usa, with specific targets and methods outlined, being forced to be read aloud by the secretary of state, and at the time of 9-11 national security adviser condi rice.

the other was norman mineta's testimony in the emergency command bunker with vp cheney, discussing the flight coming into the pentagon. a testimony which cheney has claimed is mistaken.

these were both clues for the 9-11 truth movement to build on....

debating what hit the pentagon, in my view, cannot be separated from the deeper question, which is how anything hit the pentagon that morning.

norman mineta being, in essence, called a liar by vp cheney is deeply disturbing. his testimony was clearly based on a profound, unforgettable moment of crisis management where he was seated besides the main player controlling the outcome of the pentagon attack.

if the 9-11 truth movement wants to ignore this hole in the official story, it may be missing out on one of the most contradictory moments of that morning, in terms of who had motive to lie, and who had motive to tell the truth about the approaching air vehicle, and the execuitive branch's action in response.

how many video cameras were trained on the pentagon? some researchers have claimed there were at least several dozen.

where are these videos of what approached and hit the pentagon?

seems like a reasonable request, especially in light of mineta's testimony.


just want to thank you for your steady blog input. Keep'em coming!

I second that sentiment

Thanks for combing the internet and submitting as much material as you do.



Show "OK - all important points but" by dave mann


It looks like you suppose that pfgetty composed this post? He did not. It was written by Kevin Ryan, at Visibility 9-11.

Show "OH" by dave mann

The no plane at the pentagon

The no plane at the pentagon meme was one of the earliest attempts at challenging the official story starting in 2002 with Meyssan's book and the hunt the Boeing website. I suspect that there is a reason that stuff like this was circulating even before CD was being widely discussed and that is because some smart people understood that a community of citizen investigators would arrive soon to challenge the official story so they had to beat us to the punch with a red herring. Notice how seamlessly the idea of "no plane at the pentagon" aligns with the stupid idea of "no planes at WTC". That's the real point of all this pentagon talk, set up a false lead that will trick laypeople into associating 911 truth with crazy "no planes" talk. And I tell you the ruse has worked, but if we stay smart we can outthink them. There is a reason they allow talk of no plane at the pentagon in the MSM, it is a systematic attempt to marry the truth movement with that idea. Let's not take the bait! We can't be divided if we allow the strongest scientific arguments to prevail, not the marginal issues. Anyone looking for photgraphic evidence of a plane crash at pentagon can find it at photos disclosed in the trial of moussaoui clearly depict plane parts and even plane crash victims still strapped in their seats.


Well stated, IMO. Interesting. Thanks.

CIT's behavior

Actually, it's hard to imagine it's not intentional disruption when it has gone on for so long and so intensely.

Here's an example of how CIT's Aldo Marquis works as he is describing a blogger who has posted numerous analytical essays refuting the work of CIT:

You are an anonymous DISINFO agent. You fix your blog yet? How many times did Craig and I call you out and you still haven't fixed it. You are F____ disinfo. . . . You are such a disgusting entity. Call him you coward. Call him. WE HAVE TOLD YOU A MILLION TIMES. You can't see the poles from there. . . .You are a joke and we're coming for you. . . .

Here's an example of Craig Ranke claiming on a public forum that Dylan Avery deliberately covers up information:

"The bad news is that people are still refusing to accept it or insisting on minimizing the relevance of this groundbreaking evidence. Or even worse; they are deliberately covering it up as has just been done by Dylan Avery."

These are not only disruptive -- the opposite of a research discussion -- but are threats and lies as well. After awhile, people who behave this way are considered intentional disruptors and are banned from almost all forums.

For much much more of this, see:

To Con a Movement:
Exposing CIT's PentaCon 'Magic Show'

Sometimes I wonder if it is possible to have a blog

about the Pentagon and not mention CIT.

I won't hold my breath, but I do look forward to the day when CIT is not automatically introduced as if by reflex.

I hope that you and Jim are both well, Vic.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Thanks Victoria

Could a moderator perhaps fix this comment by Arabesque so that a closing </u> tag is added? That comment breaks the entire page...


Not exactly sure why it too so long to fix it, but thanks for pointing that out.

I have a thing about bad html, too.



Thanks for fixing!

Is this a legitimate question?

Was there an explosive event at 9:32?

"0932 ATC AEA reports aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon."

Three explosions!

I see one clock at 9:32 (top), and one clock at 9:31 (bottom)

It logically follows there must have been three explosions. It doesn't matter there are no witnesses whatsoever to the first two explosions: they are obviously government plants.

How do you like my impression of Dean Jackson? ;-)

P.S. My confidential source tells me Fidel Castro has long deceased. This source also said UA 93 landed at Cleveland. There is no arguing with my anonymous source! Oh wait...

Disclaimer: the above is 100% sarcasm. And in anticipation of the rejoinder: if a clock can be one minute behind, then why not six? And how can we know that damage didn't cause the clock to run temporarily backwards? At least one of them is a Skilcraft electric wall clock. Electric wall clocks are sensitive to electric disturbances:

Maybe they fell down at the moment of impact... maybe they didn't immediately detach from the wall outlet and the cord was still attached, maybe it wasn't...maybe they were behind, etc..

On 9-11 planes flew into buildings

SnowCrash said..."I see one clock at 9:32 (top), and one clock at 9:31 (bottom)"

Heck I can do better than that. Freeze frame the Naudet Brothers Movie at the 42:27 mark.........

and you can see that at 9:30 there were reports of the pentagon already hit, so those clocks are actually fast. This destroys the official story and proves 9-11 was an inside job.........or not..... we would have to get this confirmed with Jackson's confidential source......or not.


The clocks were most likely behind... it's folly to conclude that, based on the clocks, something must have exploded at the Pentagon six or seven minutes before the plane hit.. rather than conclude that based on other sources, it's likely the clocks were behind.

I'm open to evidence, but if somebody wants to go somewhere with these stopped clocks, then build a comprehensive case based on all evidence. You can't treat the clocks as an isolated occurrence, you have to examine the easiest possible explanation first: that they were behind and therefore indicating the wrong time. What are all the sources for the impact time? How many witnesses looked at their watch? When were the traffic cameras at Columbia Pike switched on? What time do the other cameras indicate? What about the leaked 9/11 pager data? And so on and so forth.

Bombs = evacuation

I don't think I would be hanging out in a building that had bombs going off. So if bombs were going off 6, 7, or 10 minutes before the plane (or invisible missile) hit, people would have been running out of the pentagon screaming "Bombs are going off". That didn't happen so I see no reason to think a bomb or bombs went off before the impact.


Indeed, it doesn't appear the clocks are cited as evidence of a different impact time of AA 77, (or bomb theory, whatever), it appears the clocks are cited as evidence for 'multiple explosions', or at the very least, an explosion at the Pentagon preceding the official Pentagon attack. I have trouble understanding why anyone could suggest this on the basis of a few clocks only, but it goes right back to the cognitive biases and flaws that torment this movement. If any bomb went off before the official attack, there should have been physical and testimonial evidence to support it. Clocks are low on that list... how could this simple feat of rational thinking, this logical barrier, have been circumvented?

It might be..

that since there were no seismic signals for the pentagon crash site as were available for the other 3 crash sites that day. The clocks may be the only telltale sign of the actual explosions and/or impact if the plotters were intending they all go off at the same time as is evident at the twin towers. just a thought



Witnesses... physical evidence.....


If I am not mistaken, the first story by the New York Times on the Pentagon event on 9-11 puts the time at 9:30.

Overwhelming evidence for 9:38

Adam Larson — "Overwhelming evidence for 9:38"

So.. either you, the NYT or their source is incorrect about the timing.

Not Sure Honegger ties in a crash with first explosion time...

HMMM...this assemblage of "info" from Larson seems a bit odd to me...and a bit of a sales pitch that all in itself is an indicator to think the opposite.

Hey, perhaps I'm wrong in what Barbara Honegger says in her white paper, but I do not think that she associates the 09:30-32 "first explosion time" with the crash of whatever may have crashed at the Pentagon.

So, the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE seems rather underwhelming in rebutting Honegger.

This Larson report has some of the same feel and tone of P4T, who its seems is more into "selling' distorting headlines than it is into presenting viable evidence.

Need more "thick" than this SnowCrash...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA USA


In subsequent reports, the NY Times uses 9:45. 9:30 was the original time reported. Me? No, I'm not claiming knowledge of the time of impact, just reporting what the NYTimes said.

Well, then

the NYT is wrong again. But... I haven't seen any sources yet proving that the New York Times either claim the Pentagon was hit at 9:30 or that they claim it was hit at 9:45.

Here, they cite the 9/11 commission report, so it's safe to say the New York Times conform. And they should, in this case, because 9:38/9:37 is about correct.

Times article

"A Hiacked Boeing 757 Slams Into the Pentagon, Halting the Government" by Don Van Natta and Lizette Alvarez, p. A5, nyt wedensday, September 12:

"American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 carrying 58 passengers and six crew members, was on a schedued flight from Dulles International Airport west of Washington D.C.when it was diverted and slammed into the five-sided, five-story concrete-walled structure at about 9:30 a.m., when Pentagon workers are well into their workday."


Ironic name for a newspaper, considering the subject matter. I wonder if the Washington Times was more accurate.

"American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 carrying 58 passengers and six crew members, was on a scheduled flight from Dulles International Airport west of Washington to Los Angeles when it was diverted and slammed into the five-sided, five-story concrete-walled structure at about 9:30 a.m., when Pentagon workers are well into their workday."
New York Times - A DAY OF TERROR: ATTACK ON MILITARY; A Hijacked Boeing 757 Slams Into the Pentagon, Halting the Government - 2001-09-12

"The plane hit the Pentagon at 9:45 a.m."
New York Times - AFTER THE ATTACKS: AMERICAN FLIGHT 77; A Route Out of Washington, Horribly Changed - 2001-09-13

45-30 = 15 ... standard deviation: 7.5 --> 30 + 7.5 minutes = 09:37:30

Mind you, they did get it wrong twice. Both cannot be true. This diminishes their credibility in establishing the time of impact. I'm sure you could argue that the September 13 report was a cover up for the first... but... come on. They simply got it wrong. Errors do happen, you know.

I suppose you were quoting your own oped, which is admittedly interesting, in which you also bring up the clocks. I believe those clocks are clearly a dead end though. So does Adam Larson:


Mean is meaningless in this case

'Crash, I'm not suggesting that I know what time the event occurred. What one needs to do is to ask the reporter where he or she got the times from. Then we must ask, on what basis were the times revised. That''s all. It's called investigation. You don't just jumble two potentially meaningless numbers together, and then get a mean. You first determine the meaningfulness of each number. Then you decide whether it is appropriate to average them. You seem convinced that the event occurred at a particular time. I have not studied the matter enough to have a similar faith in a particular number. But I imagine that times are important. For example, it looks like the revised time in which Cheney is said to have arrived at the bunker is too close to that at which the Pentagon impact is also said to have occurred. Thus, Cheney could not have been referring to the Pentagon attack when he told the young man that the orders still stand. You see these times take on significance in the overall scheme of things. As far as quoting from my story, actually, I did not, I typed in the quote from my copy of the newspaper of that day, although I could have just as easily lifted it from my story.

Thanks for the response

Not intending to promote the "no plane hit the Pentagon" disinfo "honeypot".

Certainly not interested in a sarcasm pissing contest on 911blogger.

Been at this long enough to conclude: You don't have to prove who did it and how. You need not--as some dishonest persons insist--somehow divine a comprehensive coherent vision of what went down that day. You never will. There was too much compartmentalization, too much plausible deniability, and there has been too much evidence destruction, witness intimidation and infiltration over nine years.

As Griffin and others have proposed, all you must do is prove the official public myth of the "New Pearl Harbor" upon which so much bloodshed, trauma and waste has been based is demonstrably false--a deliberate ongoing fraud. That is all. Not to obtain justice in a court of law, because no Elite will take that fall and even a limited sacrifice of surviving low-level perps would quickly escalate to implicate the whole System in a crime whose scope would just as quickly delegitimize that System to its foundations.

But you can perhaps deprogram the mind-raped public so they will be less vulnerable to fascistic coercion and manipulation, so they will respond to future "events" more freely, rationally and humanely and less like caged lab animals.

The timeline and official clocks don't bother you? No problem.

Just looking for cracks to put my crowbar in. That's all.

Thanks for your efforts and Godspeed.

Proving a negative

No offense intended, my comments can be a bit biting sometimes. I want to comment on one specific point you brought up: rather than proving the official story false, I'm more interested in seeing if I can prove maliciousness on the part of the USG true. This is the crux, and it goes to the very core of my disagreements with David Ray Griffin's work. Nevertheless, prof. Griffin has been very important for this movement, and I take him seriously, study his work, etc... but it is this 'proving a negative' approach that leads to formidable interpretation errors. It should be understood that falsification doesn't lead to any sort of established fact; it leads to a state of uncertainty, i.e. non-fact. The latter part is not understood by most of DRG's readership.

It's a complex matter and I need to explore this better, because what I've said here is, imo, overly simplified. I've been thinking about it, and currently this is my seminal position.

UR right, proving a negative is a weaker position

But I agree with DRG that it's the position we should adopt as a movement. As far as your personal pursuit to prove malicious intent, your concept is laudable, though I dare say you are vulnerable to a different set set of "interpretation errors." As a movement, it's too individualistic to be able to agree and adopt a prosecutorial disposition, which is what you're suggesting. Finding unanimity as a movement in "proving the Govt's story couldn't possibly be true" is a lot more fluid It's a position for the masses and not necessarily the thinker. As much as we'd all like it to be otherwise, we are not prosecuting anyone right now. We are establishing the grounds for future prosecutions. And so UR right, falsification leads to uncertainty, which naturally leads to further investigation, which is what we want.

The nanothermite paper

is an example of verification instead of falsification... and it's the most dark, ominous evidence implicating the USG yet.

Other examples of verification instead of falsification can be seen on jimd3100's blog.

Falsification is an important part of our strategy, I agree. The problem is the lack of understanding in the 9/11 Truth community what falsification entails.

Falsification doesn't prove the 9/11 flights were drones, it merely calls the likelihood of human piloting into question. However, when your objections are subsequently sufficiently answered by competing inquiry from 'debunkers', your position and your arguments are rendered moot. This is far more difficult in the case of positive evidence and verification of a hypothesis, such as the nanothermite paper.

We now know a plane hit the Pentagon, and the years of falsification of that fact have turned out to be a complete fiasco. Nobody ever provided credible positive evidence for a missile. Nobody ever provided tangible, credible positive evidence of a plane flying away from the Pentagon. All the 9/11 TM has done over the years is exclaim: "I don't believe a plane hit the Pentagon, prove it!", (a position of falsification) while unwilling to simply study the massive volume of witness testimony and physical evidence which proves otherwise.

well stated

nice imagery: "Just looking for cracks to put my crowbar in."

Wall clock issue

Adam Larson — "Overwhelming evidence for 9:38"

Larson cites an even easier explanation for other clocks showing earlier times: gravity, namely, with clocks that fall down bottom first, it may be that the minute hand is nudged downwards due to the shock of impact with the floor. In the upper clock in your post, you can even see deformation of the tip of the minute hand.

The ligetimate unanswered question

is not what hit the pentagon but what happened at the pentagon, why is so much evidence being withheld, and who is responsible for Washington being left unprotected for almost two hrs? When Corry Liddle (NY Yankee pitcher) crashed NORAD had combat air patrol over at least six cities in ten min. It took a little longer when I flew interceptors, but the process has always been intercept first then ask questions.

Plane Part #s

It would be nice to have a complete list of verified part numbers from this crash and the three other crash sites. There is no reason not to publish the data unless a coverup was needed.




The other reason to not release plane part information is to keep the conspiracy nuts hanging themselves with "no plane" and using the lack of data to light a fire under all those who will automatically assume there is a cover-up.

That's what Kevin's article is all about -- the one question of "WHAT" keeps us all going in circles and helps detractors easily make us look nuts.

Asking for plane parts continues that problem.

All of the military organizations in this country are hyper-vigilant about secrecy. Being inside a non-stop war machine creates paranoia on a lot of levels and policies of Orwellian nonsense. This was a hit on the Pentagon. Men in suits picked up scraps off the lawn. It's likely that none of those people or those who told them to do it even know what hit them at that point in time.

The real question is why those parts should be expected to be anything else but what the world expects them to be -- afterall, when was the last time a plane was swapped and later exposed as something other than the plane? Never. That's why the joke is on us if we keep pushing that question.

The fact of not releasing or publishing data obtained during a "terrorist" incident is extremely common and happens all the time across many different incidents and types of information. Why would we treat that behavior as unusual or indicative of a cover-up when it's done all the time? It serves to lure people into making claims that have almost no basis.

But more than all that, it keeps the real questions, as Kevin described above, out of the NATIONAL spotlight.

you are engaging in too much thinking worrying and projecting

We have a right to know how ALL FOUR planes were identified. It is our government and we have a right to those answers.

7 is still CD no matter what airplane parts say or don't say --- so our case remains solid no matter what.
If the parts all prove to belong to the planes the government claims they belong to - the case for false flag remains rock solid for umpteen other reasons. It is not useful to try to out think or out maneuver the govt. We should just demand as much real evidence as possible and not worry where that may lead.

Victronix...may I ask a question here?

It appears that you separate yourself from the "conspiracy nuts"...whomever they might be.

Would you please explain how you establish such a distinction between who you are and what you contribute, and those "conspiracy nuts" that you seem to hold such distain for?

This will be very helpful in comprehending your work on blogger.


9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA USA

One REALLY important question Kevin missed

One of the more important questions that gets overlooked about the Pentagon is Why is Donald Rumsfeld seen outside of the building assisting with carrying a stretcher? A task cut out for someone half his age of which two are walking right behind him. Wasn't he supposed to be in a video conference with Richard Clark and other officials? After all he is only the 2nd in command.

Other good questions:
- Why were no alarms sounded at the Pentagon, before or after the crash?
- Why weren't any serial numbers of any parts or the FDR recorded in any report.?
- Why was wedge 1 hit (targeted)?
- What about the Cockpit Voice Recorder.?
- Why was Dick Cheney giving orders anyway? Although he is a FORMER Defense Secretary, he is still the VP which has no formal military command unless the president is incapacitated.
- If Popular Mechanics claims that Hanjour flew on auto-pilot for the final 8 minutes before taking over the controls to hit the Pentagon, wouldn't we know from the FDR whether auto-piloting was switched on or off?

The last one is really more a personal question for my own edification, thanks for any input.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein

excellent questions

As elsewhere observed, if Rumsfeld was "in on it", his presence in the building indicates his confidence in accuracy of the targeting--meaning it was in some way "controlled" rather than merely "let happen".

His immediate presence at the scene to play paramedic while he absented himself from the NMCC was plainly absurd considering his duties as SecDef and even suggests guilty demeanor.

Cockpit Voice Recorder

What about the Cockpit Voice Recorder? There are multiple unanswered questions with respect to the Flight 77 CVR. According to the airlines, their CVRs were all solid-state versions, which are more resistant to damage than magnetic tape recorders 1. According to the NTSB, the Flight 77 recorder that it received was an L-3 Communications, Fairchild Aviation Recorders model A-100A cockpit voice recorder; a device which records on magnetic tape (contradicting the "solid state" quote from the airlines). 2 A story covering the NTSB's evaluation of the Flight 77 CVR stated, "its data was downloaded"; a term typically used for digital data rather than analog tape; and also suggesting that something was recovered from the recorder, rather than nothing as officially reported. The FBI, "took charge of the box and its data", relieving the NTSB of further analysis work on the CVR. 3 The NTSB did not conform to its normal protocol of including the serial numbers in its reports for any of the recovered recorders; thus hindering authentication and tracing chain of custody for the recorders. The government has not provided the serial numbers for the recorders, or other identifying information for the aircraft, in response to an FOIA request. 4

Thank Wildbear

for the CVR update




There are many details in the FDR which seem pretty hard to explain if under autopilot control. Gross oddities include rapid descent for 3000 feet after switching off autopilot, followed by rapid ascent, descent, ascent, finally arriving at the same level as when the autopilot was switched off, then autopilot switched back on. Then the behaviour of the plane shows that the autopilot was not reset in the normal manner as it shows fluctuations in power and speed while maintaining altitude, as though altitude hold was on but nothing else. It is pretty clear that an inexperienced pilot was on board, or a very sophisticated control program had been installed to give the appearance of human control.

Two questions

I've never seen discussed how one turns off the transponder in a plane. There must be some switch, I assume, on the dashboard of the aircraft? Apparently it's easy to turn off the signals by which a plane is tracked by air traffic control? Another question is, how can a pilot eyeball his plane over thousands of miles of terrain to its target? If planes generally operate at least semi-automatically, I would think this would be a formidable feat for any pilot, let alone the supposed hijackers.


Yes it is easy to switch off a transponder. What is suspicious is that the transponder was not switched to give the "hijacked" signal. When the plane was taken over by whatever it was or whoever it was, it was already on autopilot, so no need for any skill to maintain flight. Simply altering the autopilot heading will turn the plane back toward its origin. Eventually descent and course correction will be required. Very easy to set a course with gps. Very easy to descend - altitude hold off and reduce power. Any air hostess could do that. A seasoned pilot would have created a plan which included a descent far back in the right direction, then straight into the Pentagon. Have you ever wondered why the plane did a circling descent near the Pentagon? It exposed itself to observation and interception by doing that. The landmarks are large and easily identified - not many Pentagon shaped buildings - so eyeballing becomes easy in the end. Does that indicate an inexperienced pilot who needed to get close while high up for a good view in order to eyeball his approach?

Kevin, Thanks! Great piece!

Kevin Ryan, We owe you a debt of gratitude for all the hard work which you have done over the years. Thanks!
Some of Kevin's writings and presentations...

I like it when you "name names" and expose people who are connected to questionable government activities and 9/11.

Paul Mlakar
In my book, his name is mud. I am glad that his name comes up at 911blogger on "google searches".

Article about Dr. Paul F. Mlakar

Article about the offical Pentagon storyline and Paul Mlakar

45 page .pdf with GRAPHICS (and Paul Mlakar's name) entitled: THE PENTAGON BUILDING PERFORMANCE REPORT

Mlakar helped to write "The Handbook for Blast-Resistant Design of Buildings"

"History Commons" and Paul Mlakar
" ...Mlakar and Sozen had previously worked together on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing under W. Gene Corley, who is now assigned as FEMA/ASCE’s team leader for the World Trade Center investigation..."

The Building Performance Study team only inspects the Pentagon on two occasions. Team leader Mlakar is granted “limited access” to the site for a week from September 14-21, and on October 4, “controlled access” is granted to the full team, which meets with Corley and inspects the site “for approximately four hours.” All airplane debris has been removed by this time, as well as most of the loose debris from the impact and collapse. Along with interviews and technical information provided by the Pentagon Renovation Project, the photos and data gleaned on these visits are the basis of the team’s analysis of the building’s response to the impact of Flight 77. The study is completed in April 2002, though the report will not be released for another nine months.

Well done!

While the PBPR is obviously well known, these sources are very interesting. Thank you TomT.

Great Job, Kevin!

Thanks for putting it so nicely!

And what about...

that enormous black bag they carried out of the Pentagon, that took several men to carry? What evidence were they hiding?

In a general sense, though, and with all due respect to Mr. Ryan and his excellent research work for the 9/11 cause, of course we must ask what hit the Pentagon. Whatever hit the Pentagon would be analogous to the murder weapon in a homicide. Imagine homicide investigators not asking about the murder weapon. Of course they must ask! A homicide investigation is not complete until the murder weapon is known. Similarly, our understanding of the Pentagon incident is not complete until we know what - if anything - crashed into the Pentagon, IMO.

13) How did Hani Hanjour fly

that Boeing in the manner described by the official story?

Hani Hanjour Reloaded

Regarding the Question of the Airplane...

I think everyone on this thread is well aware of this, but, just perhaps to emphasize the point, here is an excerpt from a summary of the Operation Northwoods document from

"An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CJA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.

From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a "May Day" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MiG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft, which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the U.S. what has happened to the aircraft instead of the U.S. trying to "sell" the incident."

Pardon the somewhat-long quote. So, just to help highlight and illustrate where my point-of-view comes from, here is an official U.S. government document which suggests that a military drone, painted to look like a civilian passenger jet, would be switched with a passenger jet and then, posing as that passenger jet, be used like a pawn in an international chess game to fake an incident intended to lead to war with Cuba.

This, from our own government! So, with this history known to everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement, I think we are almost forced to ask what hit the Pentagon. We know too well what kinds of stunts they would pull - it seems there is almost nothing some elements in our government would not do to start war. Is this not true?

Re. the Pentagon: Here is a

Re. all 4 flights, most especially AA77: Here is a glaringly obvious conundrum which continues to elude both supporters of the official story, and those who challenge it:

Background: According to the official version, as well as the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 operation involved at least two years planning and research by ''the terrorists'. One of the biggest problems 'the terrorists' would have had in the forefront of their minds was, having successfully hijacked the planes (not the easiest task in itself), how could they then pilot them them to their targets before being challenged by the US Military? This is an especially relevant aspect of the operation, considering that the air space involved was over the US East Coast, the most heavily monitored and policed air space on Earth.

In the two years prior to 9/11, "the terrorists" would have known very well that if the completion of their operation was to stand any degree of success, they would have had to take control of the planes as close to the intended targets as possible, and then fly them at full speed, in a straight line, at those targets. Even in that scenario, there would be no guarantee of success: "the terrorists" would have been fully aware of a couple dozen USAF,US Air National Guard etc. bases within a few minutes flight time from the quickest routes along which "the terrorists" would have flown their planes.

The track record of the US Air Force in successfully challenging rogue flights over US airspace would have also been well known to "the terrorists". Each year on average, some 60+ "problem plane" incidents have induced a rapid response by defenses: the immediate scrambling of fighter jets, with almost universal success. In other words, "the terrorists" would have known, well in advance of the operation, that they stood virtually zero chance of successfully meeting all the requirements to circumvent numerous layers of security and completing the operation, all the way from (a) not getting caught by intelligence and law enforcement in the planning stages prior to the day itself, (b) successfully smuggling 5 operatives onto 4 separate planes without raising the suspicion of airport police, ground staff, ticketing clerks and cabin personnel in two separate airports, (c) successfully overcoming and disabling both cabin staff and flight personnel, without interference from able-bodied passengers, before the captain/copilot raised the alarm by quickly punching the "hijack" code, then gaining control of the plane and finally, and most significantly (d) flying at maximum speed towards the intended targets before the US air defenses went into operation.

Knowing all of this, especially taking into consideration the past efficiency and readiness of the US Air defense network, why would the organizers of such an operation have placed any faith in a team of young men with no combat experience, no experience in hijacking, let alone flying commercial jets, successfully giving such a powerful adversary the slip? The odds of success, even allowing for some errors and/or departure from normal operating procedure by US air defenses, would be very very slim indeed. The odds of success, given a normally efficient performance by the NORAD, the USAF etc., would be virtually zero: the flights would have been challenged *in the air well before they reached their targets*, thus rendering the operations a failure, even if they took the shortest routes towards their intended targets.

The US Government and corporate media has been promoting an illogical story on this count alone: They are claiming that a "terrorist operation" was planned in which the planners knew full well that, given a normal response by the authorities, (a) the operation would have likely failed before the planes were even commandeered, and (b) the operation would have *undoubtedly* failed, as regards "the flying into high profile targets in such heavily controlled air space aspect.

If the organizers of the 9/11 operation were truly foreign Islamic terrorists, how did they know IN ADVANCE that normal military/scrambling procedures operations would be suspended on that day, and for an extraordinary length of time? This must have been the case, in that the operation was carried out in a way which would have insured total failure given normal routine procedure!


What actually happened on that morning makes the aforementioned absurdity even more bizarre and unfathomable/unbelievable:

According to the official version, "the terrorists" successfully evaded ground security while carrying weapons, and boarded 4 planes, 3 of the airliners with 5 "terrorists" each, and one with 4. The planes subsequently took off, but rather than gaining control of the planes at a point nearest to the targets and driving them in as quick as possible to give them a fighting chance of success, "the terrorists" decided that this course of action was not fair play, and decided to give the US military enough time and warning guarantee interception. In the case of AA77, they USAF could have scrambled planes from as far away as 1200 miles away and still successfully intercept the 757 which flew all the way to the Kentucky border before doing a 180º and flying all the way back to DC. (An F15's top speed is >1800 mph!).

Then, rather than take the easy route and ramming the side of the building housing senior generals, the Sec. of Defense offices, etc., they decided to give the US Air Force even more of a chance to intercept by executing a descending circle around the building, to "fly into a section of the Pentagon which had recently been renovated and did not house any senior personnel. Extraordinarily, "the terrorists" decided that the "jackpot" was not an option, and elected to further "jeopardize the success of their mission" by electing a relatively very insignificant prize.

Why has nobody challenged the official story and the media with the rank absurdity of this part of their fairytale?

well written, totally logical, extremely difficult to refute

BUT - emotion trumps logic. THAT is the problem.
The good news is that eventually the emotion wears off. The bad news is that it takes a long time. The worse news is that a new false flag is always waiting in the wings to ignite a new round of emotion.,

The good news is that many of us are now awake to that game.

How will it all play out? Who knows?

Excellent, bloggulator!

Thanks for this little "cheat sheet" to forward to those who think Occam's Razor only cuts the way of the OCT (absurdly enough).


Check this from an insider:-

Check this from other "insiders"

From your link......

“There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel.” -- April Gallop page 2/15

Pentagon No Planers pretend that April Gallop is the only witness worth talking to although she's not actually a "witness", to what hit. That would be all those people outside the pentagon that watched an airliner fly into they don't count.

How come "truthers" don't mention Brian Birdwell? He was in the building too. Damn near died too. Here's why Pentagon No Planers don't mention him......

"The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs."

"You ask were the debris is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end." -- Sgt. William Lagasse


I see statements like that, I get FURIOUS because of all of those people who have promoted this bs, and HIGHLY contradicted argument that no plane hit the Pentagon.

I agree with many of Kevin's questions with the exception of explosions and phone calls. Erik Larsen, and jimd3100 have done a lot of work with regards to the phone calls that show there is reason to believe they took place. Regardless, I certainly don't want to be the one that offended a family member by suggesting their loved one never called them, if, in fact, they did.

With regards to explosions, it's a non-needed, crazy sounding argument. Because of clocks that show a different time? I have 3 clocks in my apartment, and none of them say the same time.

Current CNN bin Laden whereabouts story


has presented a wonderful opportunity to shed some light, your contributions are most welcome - maybe talk about the visit bin Laden is reported to have recieved in Dubai or UAE? on the eve of 9/11, stuff like that..

Comments are not moving so fast on this story, so it's a GREAT place to deposit some truths for "grokking"..

Seriously, get in there and deposit some info, can't be any worse than what CNN is offering up as "news".

Too little known for any conclusions...BUT...

BUT...I will take a stand on three portions of the AA77-Pentagon scenario that I just cannot ignore.

1. AA77 was the only airliner to be lost to positive radar contact on 9/1/2001.

And to my knowledge, nobody anywhere in any radar facitity, or in any other manner has ESTABLISHED that the airvehicle that hit the Pentagon [IF one did] was indeed AA77...the REAL one that DID depart Dulles.

If anyone has any positive information PROVING that the debris field at the Pentagion was created by AA77's crash into it, PLEASE post it ASAP as it is critical info.

[BTW...evidence found at the Pentagon a few days after 9/11/2001 that has NO assured line or track of "possession or custody", and that is presented by or provided by U S Government sources that have a need to PROTECT themselves, is NOT the moment anyway.]

2. I stand fully behind the great work of Barbara Honegger and the testimony and evidence that she has collected that establish EXPLOSIONS at the Pentagon occurred at or near 09:30-32...some 5-7 minutes PRIOR to the ALLEGED arrivel time of the ALLEGED AA77.

[And solely a personal opinion here that is not yet backed by confirmed evidence, but is carried by my own intuition: The hole in the "C" ring is just TOO neat and perfect...and the neat "landing gear" debris field are both a tad too suspicious and convenient to be a result of the "alleged" debris field created by the airvehicle that "allegedly" struck the outmost REINFORCED "ring" of the Penatgon.]

3. And here is a blockbuster that NOBODY in the entire 9/11 TM wants to do one single thing about.

[I'm just not yet competent enough to do this analysis myself...but could I ever shake the 9/11 Truth Tree!] ...

...and my background here includes A DIRECT REQUEST to "Pilots for 9/11 Truth"...who have ABUNDENT resources and expert members to research, analyze and expose the results of such an investigation.

Here it is:

If a highly accurate measurement and analysis of the:

...damage done to the low cement wall to the left of the genertaor...and

...the damage done to the top feft corner of the genrator...and

...the damage done to the top-center-right of the generator... undertaken, then...

...the EXACT TYPE of airvehicle that struck? those three points mentioned will be DEFINITIVELY ESTABLISHED!

There is ONLY ONE airvehicle airframe [most notably the underwing "weapons-fuel tank attachment mounts" or "flap tracks"]...that could have inflicted this EXACTING DAMAGE...

The damage to the low cement wall and the generator are the "WTC DUST" at the Pentagon...and for an interesting reason.

The damage pattern that I am noting has been collected by people OTHER THAN THE HI PERPS!

Its private sector photographs that expose the exacting damage pattern noted above...

...and the HI PERPS were not in control of this...

...except to DISMISS, COINTLPRO or DEFLECT CONSIDERATION OF...this EXPOSITORY damage... the everending flow of red herrings that we are fed on a daily basis...

...which is WHY this analysis has NOT been undertaken as of yet....

To repeat:

There is only ONE airvehicle on earth whose airframe and engine spacings and elevations could make the EXACT DAMAGE PATTERN to the...

...low cement wall...
...the top left of the generator...
...the top-center-right of the generator...

That's enough for now...more to come.

9/11 Truth or World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

PS: I feel that when asked to present my views about 9/11...AA77...NORAD...the an air traffic controller at the Vancouver, BC 9/11 Truth Conference a few years back, I presented a fairly solid and accurate analysis of what may have "gone down" regarding "The 9/11 Attacks War game Scenario", AA77 piloted by Chic Burlingame, and the Pentagon.

I believe that there is also a video available at [constructed by my Canadian friends and ignored by me...] that might be quite informative to all concerned. AND...BTW...the more questions the better! rdh

Bad link


Your link at the bottom goes to an inactive website.


Looks like they took it down...

I think that I have a DVD covering it as the Vancouver911 Truth Society may not have a copy either.

I'll try to put the DVD speech onto this site...but I'll have to find out how to do it first.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA USA

me too

couldnt get into the link- said domain expired
Robin do you have other way to catch up with you/ ur asociates
Douglas in london uk
private cab driver

This is a very interesting post

I wonder why no one has commented on it. Please do not be discouraged by the apparent lack of interest.


Everybody's minds are already made up...except mine of course.

I MUST point out that I asked P4T DIRECTLY [Balsamo] to do such an analysis...and the answer I got back was:

1. That they were too usy to take on such an anlysis...

2. That from what they already KNEW...the damage to the generator was there BEFORE 9/11...

3. That they welcomed any peer reviewed paper that I might want to submit.

I do find it strange that so many folks who have so much capacity to actually make such measurements and analysis...have not chosen to do so.

I've been asking this question for almost a year now.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
kingston, WA USA

Thanks for the comments

1) The question of why the surveillance tapes were taken and held by the FBI is a good one. The obvious reaction is that they wanted to hide something about the moments of impact. It also seems reasonable that the FBI, parts of which obstructed pre-9/11 investigations and had an informant living with two of the alleged hijackers and later stole evidence from ground zero, were trying to produce controversy about what hit the building.

2) I think the term "intentional disruptor" is much more appropriate than some of the terms we normally hear. For example, "debunker" is not at all accurate as it is normally used because the people described as debunkers fail miserably at debunking. However, if someone devotes all of their time to promotion of divisive issues which do not help bring about justice, yet do turn people away from 9/11 truth, then it seems fair to say they are disruptors and that the evidence suggests they intend to disrupt. We can't say why they are doing it.

3) Evidence for explosives includes the hiring of exposive experts to do the investigation and write the report (Sozen and Mlakar would not have been there if all was on the up and up), collapse of the roof (some disagree with me), and a good deal of eyewitness testimony. See these links.


Don't think the argument helps us at all, because it's just a theory.

Is it possible explosive experts were assigned to investigate what happened because of the massive explosion from the plane's impact?

Those witness statements tell me that they saw a massive explosion from the plane impacting the Pentagon. What do I know? It's not an argument I'm willing to spend time on because I don't think it will help.

Answer: Not the particular Explosive Experts they assigned.

"Is it possible explosive experts were assigned to investigate what happened because of the massive explosion from the plane's impact?"

"intentional disruptor" - Good term

I think the term "intentional disruptor" is much more appropriate than some of the terms we normally hear. For example, "debunker" is not at all accurate as it is normally used because the people described as debunkers fail miserably at debunking.
However, if someone devotes all of their time to promotion of divisive issues which do not help bring about justice, yet do turn people away from 9/11 truth, then it seems fair to say they are disruptors and that the evidence suggests they intend to disrupt.
We can't say why they are doing it.

Plane and explosions

As this witness and reporter show......a passenger jet hit, and yes, there were explosions. But not before the impact, and explosions does not automatically mean bombs.

Points raised

In the first link, the possibility of a crash explosion is discussed.

The existence of a shockwave at the WTC is denied, but I beg to differ. This has been a recent subject of discussion.

As I said a year ago: "As far as I understand it, cordite is an obsolete replacement for gunpowder, and I'm not aware of any explosives that use it.. So I don't understand what this cordite smell should be attributed to."

Hoffman's site claims it is used in aircraft gun ammunition. Really? No source is cited..

As for the white flash in the fireball, I don't understand why this would be inconsistent with a fuel/air explosion. I say this slightly in jest, but: where is the peer reviewed study of fuel/air explosion fireball color to back this up?

In the video above, a typical fuel/air bomb is demonstrated: in this case the fuel is dispersed using a high explosive, which is in turn ignited after a short delay. If you freeze the clip at around 0:58, you can see the color of the fireball, it starts off rather bright and white. So, in order for me to attach much value to this 'additional bomb' claim, I would like to see some experimental data on (accidental) fuel/air explosions.

Furthermore, a thermitic reaction is suggested by Jim, using the aluminum in the plane. I have my doubts about that. Of course, thermitic reactions can occur merely by clipping a ball wrapped in aluminum foil, but this isn't much more than a spark. Where is the precedent for such an occurrence? The data? This argument has been used by 'debunkers' to explain thermitic reactions in the WTC by way of 'friction' during the collapse, and even during the plane impact. I rejected that argument as unlikely then, and I reject this argument as unlikely now. Again, on a small level, perhaps, but sustained thermitic reactions require intimate mixing between the fuel (a metal) and the oxidizer (a metal oxide) at the micron scale, or smaller. You are the expert here, so you tell me :-)

Lastly, it has been suggested that a surface-to-air missile from the Pentagon may have struck the incoming plane. Yet I still haven't seen any convincing evidence there were active/automatic missile battery / SAM systems at all, save, perhaps, some anecdotal evidence. (Thierry Meyssan, John Judge)

In the second link, witnesses are listed, but again, this is all based on the false premises that the smell of cordite indicates a bomb, and that a shockwave and/or a whitish flash cannot be features of a fuel/air explosion caused by a violent plane crash.


The most obvious evidence for explosives at or near the moment of impact is the white flash shown in the video. Fuel cannot burn hot enough to produce white light.

The other piece of evidence that no-one seems to mention is the small pieces of debris landing and bouncing across the road near the camera. That is a long way from the impact site. How could they get there without an explosive? You need some patience to see this as most videos are cut off too soon.

A stretch

Whatever your position with respect to the no-planes argument, I think it is a stretch to assert that the investigation of the other questions is not being pursued because of the no-planes argument.

You can never be certain, but I'd be willing to bet that even had the no-planes argument never come up, the other questions still would not have been investigated by now.

Show "Pitting people against people" by dadeets

Giving advice on what's detrimental?

dadeets said..."The over-arching principal of the 9/11 Truth Movement has to be foremost on pursuing all available evidence wherever it leads. This article has been detrimental to that endeavor"

Not as detrimental as this......

Here is you admitting that you don't know much of what happened at the pentagon......

31:25 mark....

Q: "I don't know if you've looked into the pentagon at all?"

You: "I have not...uh..very little."

The CIT con artists looked at this as an opportunity to use you to try and get credibility, and you fell for it.....just a few weeks after your admission of not studying the pentagon, you endorse the dumbest theory of all, by a couple of con artists trying to pin 9-11 on INNOCENT reporters, funeral mourners, and cab drivers, among others...

You got pentaconned! How embarrassing! How does it feel to be manipulated?

can we refute things we disagree with with facts - not insults?

1: Calling a theory "the dumbest theory" - sheds no light. It is simply name calling. It is on a par with calling people "conspiracy theorists."

2: Calling people "con artists" is not evidence of their being con artists.

3: Stating that people are "INNOCENT" proves as little as stating that people are "GUILTY." If you want to present facts - please do.

4: Saying that someone got "conned" and asking them "how it feels to be manipulated?" does not mean that that person was or was not conned. It is insulting, unnecessary, and baiting.

Let us all present any facts or opinions we have in a civil manner.

Otherwise Leftwright will have to monitor us like children.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Calling someone a "con artist" is a serious charge, and one I don't think you have evidence to support (i.e. no one is being defrauded here).

Please desist from this behavior.

I think we should first try to agree on the actual facts and what constitutes credible evidence, and if the unknowns are significant enough one just has to accept that it is not possible to conclude anything with a high degree of confidence and continue collecting data.

We are a movement based on critical thinking and I think it important that as we critique everything and anything, as is our habit, we do it in as civil a manner as possible.

Please take the high road, as the low road leads off of this site.

John W. Wright

It's not called the Pentacon for nothing

LeftWright said..."Calling someone a "con artist" is a serious charge, and one I don't think you have evidence to support"

Interview with Craig Ranke 12/12/09.....
"We went there with no pre-conceived notions about what happened- we went there with no particular theory in mind. Our entire goal was to objectively ask the people on the street what they saw, and report it, and let the chips fall where they may.” --Ranke 2:05 mark

No particular theory? No pre-conceived notions? Let's go back in time to the beggining of 2006 before these guys ever talked to a witness or set foot in Arlington, and see that Ranke's partner made a post with this title....

"Meet Agent Lloyd A. England (Pentagon Plant)"

Why are they so gung ho about slandering this cab driver? I'll let Ranke explain......

"If his story is true, it really is make or break for the official story, it proves that plane hit the building." --Ranke 26:53 mark

And as faithfull pentagon no planers, we certainly can't have that can we?

As for the David Icke book in Lloyd's car, it was put there by the government. Why? Because they knew that Lloyd and his wife would take pictures of the car and the book would be in the pictures. The Government also knew that 6 years later Inspector Ranke would show up and see the pictures, and would think that Lloyde is "one of us" a good ol' fashioned "conspiracy theorist", so he's "ok". But Inspector Ranke was to smart for that. He knew it was all a setup to "fool" us conspiracy theorists. Sound crazy? Well here are Ranke's own words.....(BTW I don't consider myself a "conspiracy theorist" -so perhaps I'm "in on it")

"The idea here is, we believe is that this is part of the fabricated story, to make him endearing to we think he is one of us...They went so far, as to put the latest book by David Icke in his cab on 9-11" 27:40 mark --Ranke

"They're trying to make him look like a conspiracy theorist" 28:40 mark

But I shouldn't call them con artists because that's not very polite. Even if they con you into thinking his FBI wife could be his "handler"......

"He told me that he misses his late first wife (the mother of all his children) and when I asked him what Shirley does for the FBI he said "we don't talk about it". --Ranke

Surely they got that on tape? Like his "confession" which wasn't a confession?

"I'm not sure about his FBI employee wife though."
"For all we know even she could be compartmentalized as to his exact level of involvement." --Ranke

Spooky huh?

"In fact when I asked Lloyde what she does for the FBI he said , "we don't talk about it". -- Ranke

I missed that part of the movie, anyone else see it?

"But I did ask Lloyde when we were in the car on the way to the cab and he said "we don't talk about it". -- Ranke

Hey, that was when they recorded his "confession", which wasn't a come I didn't see that part?

"Yes she not only works for the FBI but when I asked Lloyde what she does for them he said "we don't talk about it"." -- Ranke

Must be some super secret stuff she works on....right? That is what you are lead to believe isn't it?

"Now as far as finding out what she did....I think that is pretty much impossible.
Feel free to call the FBI and ask them! Her name is Shirley Hughes." --- Ranke

If you called the FBI about this nonsense they'd probably just hang up on you. What if Lloyde was called though.......

I wonder what would happen if someone else asked Lloyd about his wife? What if she is just a cleaning lady?

38:50 mark
Q: Isn't your wife an FBI agent?
A: No, My wife is a cleaner.
Q: Oh, OK...
A: She works at the FBI building...she is a cleaner.

How come he didn't say "we don't talk about it"?

But I shouldn't call them con artists because that's not very polite. Even if they con you into thinking the witnesses they talked to were focused on the citgo station on 9-11, and the planes relation to it. None of the witnesses were focused on the citgo station, they were focused on a plane that they watched fly into the pentagon. The focus was on the plane and the pentagon and they watched one fly into the other, none of them paid any attention to the citgo.

BTW- How come his hood wasn't scratched? In order for the hood of a car to be damaged, something has to hit it. Nothing hit the hood, so why would it be damaged? If I were going to remove the pole from my car, I would deliberatly try not to scratch up my car...I guess I'm a funny guy. So can two grown men remove a lightpole without scratching the hood? Yes....

Witnesses that ruin their pre concieved theory that they deny is a theory or even pre concieved are all "in on it" and "fake witnesses". So how is this not a con job?

LeftWright said..."Please take the high road, as the low road leads off of this site."

If exposing charlatons making a mockery of the "truth" movement gets me banished...then so be it.

"charlatan - a flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with tricks or jokes"

You are free to expose anything you want using facts and logic,

just refrain from name calling, please.


Craig Ranke is a con artist.

Craig Ranke is a con artist. I think that statement is perfectly justified given his declaration that the "flyover" theory has been "proven." That's false and yet Ranke keeps repeating it. Ranke keeps repeating a lie to convince people it's true. Con artist. Period.

And frankly, I'm fed up with supporters of CIT back tracking and propping up Ranke's lies by claiming that he's only provided "reasonable doubt." The word "prove" has nothing to do with reasonable doubt.

Who are they defrauding?

FTR - I do not support CIT's NSA or any other of their work, but I support their right to do their work and their right to have an opinion about their work.

I could state that" I am the best dancer in the world", does that make me a con artist?

Just because some folks buy bunk, doesn't mean the seller is a "con artist".

As far as I know, no money is changing hands over this.

Please drop the name calling.


They have defrauded

David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Peter Dale Scott and Ed Asner among others.
CIT said the witnesses were unanimous in confirming the NoC flight path. Such is not the case.

They are defrauding everyone by implying these "leaders" of the TM endorse the flyover theory.

I'm not accusing anyone, I'm just asking:

If these guys are not what Sunstein warned us about, who is?

No one who downplays the significance of this ongoing disruption will answer this question. Of course, a specific answer would have to be in private email as accusing anyone of being an agent here is inappropriate.
However, you could state that there are people who are doing what a disruption agent would do.

The cogitative dissonance in the TM that will not allow some to acknowledge that there really are infiltrator/disruptors among us is no different than the cogitative dissonance of OCTers who refuse to believe their government could kill their own citizens.

Con Artists who spread Disinfo

LeftWright said.."FTR - I do not support CIT's NSA or any other of their work, but I support their right to do their work and their right to have an opinion about their work."

OK, so let's take a look at the "work" that you support their right to do.

Interview with Craig Ranke 12/12/09
4:17 mark: "We've had to deal with people trying to counter the information most people by attacking us personally but even by resorting to attacking the witnesses, believe it or not, so that's kind of where we are at."--Ranke

"but even by resorting to attacking the witnesses, believe it or not"

Witness Mike Walter:

"Mike Walter: This is from an earlier interview that I did here in the United States. My view was very good. There were some I was being honest....I wasn't exactly sure if the plane skipped before entering or just crashed into the Pentagon at a very low point in the building. But as far as my view...that was the only part that I had any question about..the exact way it entered. I saw the plane go into the Pentagon, there is no doubt, I had a very good view. I saw the wings fold back; I saw the huge explosion, the fireball and everything else that happened that day."

Witness attacked by CIT:

"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."

"We've had to deal with people trying to counter the information resorting to attacking the witnesses, believe it or not, so that's kind of where we are at."--Ranke

Witness Father Mcgraw:

South Of C witness. For evidence of this(and CIT Knows it)is CIT video 28 seconds in which shows him near lane 1 of the South Parking lot. Said the plane came right over him. This confirms the location where Roberts puts the plane, where the cab is, and where Penny Eglas puts the plane. He heard but didn't see the pole get hit.

He tended to the injured, dead and dieing at the pentagon.

Witness Attacked by CIT:

"What happened to the poor family that was waiting for him as he hung around the Pentagon?"
"McGraw has admitted to having a connection to the controversial fundamentalist catholic secret society Opus Dei."
This is notable because of the political intrigue surrounding this catholic cult. It is well known to be favored by the "Washington elite" as reported in the History Channel special "The Spy Next Door: Robert Hanssen".

"Robert Hanssen is a convicted traitor who was an FBI employee that sold secrets to the Russians for years. He was a good friends and parish members with former head of the FBI Louis Freeh who is said to have been instrumental in the Oklahoma City bombing cover-up. Both were devout members of Opus Dei but Hanssen was exposed as a sexual deviant who had extra marital affairs with strippers and secretely video taped sex with his wife while his friend would watch from a monitor set up in their spare room in the basement."

"His connection to a controversial fundamentalist catholic cult that has been tied to traitors, spies, the Washington elite, and conspiracy is most certainly notable within the context of this discussion." --Ranke CIT

"We've had to deal with people trying to counter the information resorting to attacking the witnesses, believe it or not, so that's kind of where we are at."--Ranke

Witness K Wheelhouse:

He saw the c 130 plane as the passenger jet was on it's way to hit the pentagon. He confirms that the Second Plane R Roberts refers to is the c130. That is why he must be attacked. CIT claims the c 130 didn't show up until 3 minutes later. However the pilot of the c 130 watched the airliner approache the pentagon and saw the huge fireball. If the pilot in the c 130 could see the pentagon and explosion then someone at the pentagon looking in his direction could see his plane. And Wheelhouse did. So did Roberts. CIT wants you to think Roberts's Second Plane was the plane flying away, not the c 130. Wheelhouse also drew the flight path of a South of C path and so definately must be attacked....

"And then all of the sudden we saw this big explosion, and I keyed the Mic again and said Washington, this is gopher 06 that airplane has hit the west side of the pentagon"

Keith Wheelhouse drawing a flight path that CIT does not want drawn....
1:43 mark, he draws the flight path of the passenger jet and the c 130. An excellent witness that CIT claims is a liar and 'In On it"

Witness attacked by CIT:
"But things will work out a lot better for you if you come clean. ...."There is really nothing more to discuss unless you want to confess, Kieth."

"We've had to deal with people trying to counter the information resorting to attacking the witnesses, believe it or not, so that's kind of where we are at."--Ranke

Witness Lloyde England:

Was damn near killed on 9-11 when a light pole crashed into his windshield proving a South of C path and an impact at the pentagon.
He is in his 70s and still gets up every morning to be at work by 4, 7 days a week. What did he get out nof 9-11? Bankrupt would be the answer...

"By 2001, Capitol Cab could no longer pay its bills. The company filed for bankruptcy.

"Lloyde A. England sank onto the wooden bench in a D.C. courtroom as the last major asset of the company he joined in 1959 went to the highest bidder."

"The logo, colors and radio-dispatch system of Capitol Cab Cooperative Association Inc., started by black cabbies in the 1930s, sold for $58,000."

"Now I've got to change my colors," said England, 70, as he stared down at the cowboy hat on his knee.

"Standing next to England's Capitol Cab No. 677 after the bankruptcy proceeding, he and Bugg say they'll keep on driving."

"We don't have anything but our cars," England said.

Witness attacked by CIT:

"A more simple explanation is that he is a long time intelligence asset who has been driving a cab around the streets of DC with a wire in it for decades." --Ranke

"Lloyde England has now been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been directly involved with this black operation of mass murder." CIT Website

"We've had to deal with people trying to counter the information resorting to attacking the witnesses, believe it or not, so that's kind of where we are at."--Ranke

Witness Madelyn Zakhem
“It was an airliner coming straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level.” -- Madelyn Zakhem

Witness Attacked by CIT:

"Madlene is a suspect witness. She is clearly lying about the flight path. We know because Edward blew it out of the water and we interviewed her, and now her bizarre behavior is explained. Madlene Zackem, the lady with the jewish last name, Israeli accent while displaying a crucifix around her neck is not telling the truth about what she saw." -Aldo Marquis CIT

"We've had to deal with people trying to counter the information resorting to attacking the witnesses, believe it or not, so that's kind of where we are at."--Ranke

member of 9-11 blogger Chris Sarns claiming he was conned by CIT:
"I bought the NoC witnesses unanimous con but thru debating here I quickly learned that that was false."

member of 911blogger snowcrash on Lloyd's "FBI Wife":
"Looking at the things his wife said, who works/worked for the FBI, it gets even weirder."

I wonder if snowcrash feels he was mislead or "conned" about what Lloyd's wife does for a living?

Kevin Barrett with Ranke on his radio show referring to Lloyde England states at the 26:25 mark:
"Given this guy has an FBI wife...."

He was conned and his listeners were then conned. This is a classic text book example of DisInformation. This is exactly how it's done. His wife is a cleaner and Ranke knows it. This is why Ranke never ever claims she is an FBI Agent. He lets others do that for him......

Classic textbook example of DIsinfo: Ranke goes all over the internet saying....

"He told me that he misses his late first wife (the mother of all his children) and when I asked him what Shirley does for the FBI he said "we don't talk about it". --Ranke

"I'm not sure about his FBI employee wife though."
"For all we know even she could be compartmentalized as to his exact level of involvement." --Ranke

"In fact when I asked Lloyde what she does for the FBI he said , "we don't talk about it". -- Ranke

"But I did ask Lloyde when we were in the car on the way to the cab and he said "we don't talk about it". -- Ranke

"Yes she not only works for the FBI but when I asked Lloyde what she does for them he said "we don't talk about it"." -- Ranke

"Now as far as finding out what she did....I think that is pretty much impossible.
Feel free to call the FBI and ask them! Her name is Shirley Hughes." --- Ranke

When Lloyde is called by Jeff Hill he doesn't say "we don't talk about it", he tells him she is a cleaner. Use some common sense.

38:50 mark
Q: Isn't your wife an FBI agent?
A: No, My wife is a cleaner.
Q: Oh, OK...
A: She works at the FBI building...she is a cleaner.

Use some common sense. If they would be willing to turn their camera on and take his words out of context and build up some phoney "virtual confession" video(another con) why wouldn't they just say "Hey Lloyde, your wife works for the FBI right? What does she do?" And have this on tape him going "Oh...uh...we don't talk about that". That didn't happen because this is a con job. The entire CIT scam is a con job.

They are con artists, and liars. So you go ahead and put it on the record that you are more concerned about the reputation of these con artists, than the reputation (and life)of 9-11 victims. Lloyde England recieved compensation from the 9-11 victims fund to get a new cab. So it's official. He's a victim of 9-11(and damn near got killed). Meanwhile you can go ahead and ban me for pointing this out, after all I am a fraud with no credibility. As pointed out in this post which you evidently have no problem with....

"I thought you were a fraud and you just proved it. More nonsense wholesale! You won't respond because you can't. You have no case. There are no facts to support any of your comments. You just keep blowing smoke. Try someone else because I give you no points for credibility. If nothing else CIT has showed reasonable doubt for the official pentagon story. This site is starting to smell badly mostly from folks who insist on calling people retards! You have any real cards show him or fold cause I'm calling your bluff JIMD3100!" -- peacefulwarrior

Indeed Jim

I fell for that FBI claim.

For context, a summary of what I said a year ago:

"Yep. This is why I recommended thepentacon in the first place. The witness statements. How can you not consider them? Lloyd's words are just .. bizarre."

"Ok, please remember that I consider myself neutral on this issue, but who was Lloyd referring to when he said the "people with the money"?

[...Lloyd is a conspiratorial thinker (like us in ways, let's not pretend to be superior, I just don't like Icke), and he was telling CIT what they wanted to hear..]

"Sure, and I disagree with CIT that a plane absolutely did not hit the Pentagon. But...this is about just considering the witness statements. Why on earth is Lloyd acting like this? Looking at the things his wife said, who works/worked for the FBI, it gets even weirder. The point is, I have no particular 'wish' for a plane to have hit the Pentagon, nor do I 'wish' for a plane not to have hit the pentagon. What matters to me, is the witness statement(s), that reveal profound contradictions. That's what the Pentagon story is...full of contradictions. CIT is just jumping the gun on the conclusions. In my opinion, if there was north side approach, there was north side approach. I don't fill anything in beyond that. Time will tell what the actual approach path was. But these witness statements matter. Very much, imo."

[...And they do matter, because they say the plane hit the Pentagon, moreover, the physical evidence matters too..profoundly.. And guess what? Time did tell what the actual approach was...]

"Yeah. For all we know Lloyd's ramblings are just a case of 'leveling' in a conversation. I tend to stay away from Pentagon speculation, but I really do want to know what is going on with Lloyd the cab driver there..and why the FDR data and p911truth interpretation suggest flight path anomalies also. Will have to invest some major time in it at some point. (Just out of curiosity) And does look like a booby trap"

And so I did.... [invest some major time in it] ... and guess what? At that point, I quit being agnostic, and henceforth said a plane hit the Pentagon. Progressing insight. However, as you can see, I was never completely fooled, and I'm proud of that. AFAIK, neither was Chris Sarns.

Now, I have Craig Ranke breathing down my neck, demanding a debate. Or else. The problem with that is, Craig thinks he calls the shots. He doesn't. If a debate ever happens, it'll be on my terms. I promised him, a year ago, I wouldn't discuss CIT further on 911blogger. I was a fool for making that promise, because it gave Ranke the leverage he wanted. It was a Faustian bargain. I'm breaking it. And I would ask the sincere truthers to unite against this deceptive crap, show that we won't be intimidated, and present our (very solid) counter-evidence so we can finally move on. A plane hit the Pentagon.

FTR: I do not think CIT are 'agents'. There is no evidence for that. I reject that notion for the exact same reasons I reject flyover. A 'disinformation agent' is not defined as 'somebody you disagree with' or 'somebody who tells lies'. A disinformation agent is somebody who gets paid or does favors for the government in the realm of propaganda. Disinformation agents are traditionally in direct contact with the CIA or FBI for instructions. Again, there is no evidence for that. And if you want to make sure you lose this epic battle for truth, all you have to do is defend your case with faulty arguments. So let's be careful what we claim or even suggest to be factual. Moreover, all Leftwright is saying that in order for CIT to fit the technical definition of 'con artist' they have to gain financially from their deceptions. Yes, CIT's methods are extremely deceptive, but they're married to their theory and they will not ever recant.

To Con a movement

Snowcrash said "[...And they do matter, because they say the plane hit the Pentagon"

Absolutely I agree.

snowcrash said...."If a debate ever happens, it'll be on my terms"

Would you debate Nico Haupt on wether planes hit the WTC? You are free to do as you wish but as I've said before I recommend against debating crazy people. Now there I go again "name calling" but what they are doing is indeed crazy. And so you know I've got threats as well....that was a bad move on their part.

Snowcrash said..."A plane hit the Pentagon."

Yep, and thanks to CIT we know it was a passenger jet. (Some already knew that of course)

snowcrash said-- "A 'disinformation agent' is not defined as 'somebody you disagree with' or 'somebody who tells lies'. A disinformation agent is somebody who gets paid or does favors for the government in the realm of propaganda."

disinformation :
1.Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation:

2.Dissemination of such misleading information.

Notice the word "or" in the above definition. I mostly agree with your definition, but again, it doesn't have to be for money and it doesn't have to be for a gov or intelligence agency. But it does have to be "Deliberately misleading information announced publicly"

In all my time doing this I have not accused anyone of being a Disinfo agent. I claim they spread disinfo. Because they do. It is obvious that this is intentional. Without further evidence the motive is speculation. But what their doing is the very definition........

1.Deliberately misleading information announced publicly
2.Dissemination of such misleading information.

snowcrash said..."Moreover, all Leftwright is saying that in order for CIT to fit the technical definition of 'con artist' they have to gain financially from their deceptions."

And I disagree that the only motive involved for conning people is financial. But the name fits anyway because they sell their BS on their website and at so called "truther" functions where they spread their BS. And who's buying it? Members of the so called truth movement. So who is being defrauded? The 9-11 truth movement.

They have a great deal...500 copies of their con for only $1000

Overpriced merchandise

Overpriced merchandise...That's the beginning of a good case for calling them con artists, as far as I'm concerned.

And I agree with the distinction between 'disinformation' and 'disinformation agent'.

I think that most people who buy their dvds,

have already seen them and know what they are getting. That does not constitute fraud.

[As someone other than P.T. Barnum once said, "There's a sucker born every minute"]

Also, I doubt that they have recovered the costs involved in doing their "research" or in producing the dvds, so they have yet to benefit financially from the sale. This also contradicts the idea that they are "con artists" who are tempting to defraud people.

Furthermore, I think that CIT's work is what their reputation ultimately rests on, and I am in no way attempting to protect it (long gone, imo).

What I am trying to do is to keep the atmosphere at 911blogger as civil and welcoming as possible (with a subject as controversial as they get), so that regulars and newcomers alike feel comfortable here and work to keep this site the growing, dynamic and important resource that it is.

What I don't want (and I suspect you don't want it either) is for 911blogger to become a place where slinging pointless accusations and counter-accusations creates a divisive, faction-filled environment, which only serves the interests of those working against the truth.

My concern is for the integrity of the site and I think the site should strive to keep the level of debate as professional as possible or we risk sliding down a slippery slope into a sea of mud.

It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, yes?

The pursuit of truth is based on critical thinking. What I see as the problem here, is that some folks need to work on their chops more and others need to realize that everyone has a right to be wrong and not have their motives questioned just because they may be wrong.

Additionally, I really would like to know what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11/01, and the only way to find out is to get a full, complete and transparent investigation into everything that went on that day.

Nonsense like this only wastes time and energy and further delays getting the investigations we really need.

Finally, I encourage everyone to critique everything as thoroughly as possible, just be civil about it (is it really that difficult to do?).


Do you see a bend in this pole?

I don't see a bend in this pole. It seems to be about the same size as the "piece", not the pole.
Who said it was the 30 foot bent pole? . . . . , Craig said Lloyd said that but there's no recording that I know of. Could Craig be wrong?


It was just three days ago that I wrote that this is the least important question related to the Pentagon. How could that new statement now be "what really is dividing us into camps?"

As I understand it, you were one of the people who singled this issue out, some time ago, with an endorsement.

Do you plan to issue a public endorsement for the other 12 questions listed above, or for any other question related to 9/11? Seriously.

Show "Kevin" by dadeets


I suggest studying the Pentagon intensely for two years before endorsing anything. All of the witnesses saw the plane hit, none of them saw the plane 'fly over' the Pentagon. If CIT can say they were 'fooled' about that, then we can say they were 'fooled' about the spatial location of the plane as it approached at high speed.

I agree CIT worked very hard. I don't think they are 'disinfo' agents. I think they are very, very wrong, and so do their own witnesses. Soon there will come a time where this issue is relegated to the bin like NPT, mini nukes, DEW and other scientifically untenable theories.

Dwain, I considered you a priceless asset to the 9/11 Truth Movement. But you have to remember that severe misjudgments happen to the best, and your understanding of certain subevents occurring on 9/11 is a function of time and effort. There are severe cognitive flaws at work here, and I think it's a tragedy that these pitfalls have so many in the TM in a stranglehold, even people I regarded as luminaries, such as Barrie Zwicker. There are experts on both sides of the issue you should consult. I recommend you consult with Chris Sarns and Adam Larson.

Chris Sarns' logic is watertight, although I may disagree with him on the viability of the north side flight path. Please put in some serious work Dwain, it's your credibility at stake here, and I sincerely wish you well, which is why I wrote this comment. However, brace for serious criticism if you continue down this road. (video fakery, UA 175's impossible speed and flyover)

Show ""All of the witnesses saw the plane hit..." by dadeets

Something NOT YET the Building Performance Report...

...just something that I see in the Building Performance Report that may be of interest...

If one takes away all the "non-column" damage and debris trails...and concentrates on...

...ONLY the interior column damage...AND

...creates a triangle of those internal columns that were damaged...AND

...then places an airvehicle on an approach angle and at the "entry point" in where its fuselage, wings and engines would create this BALANCED damage to the noted columns...then...

... a north course impact with the Pentagon seems to make the most sense...

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I think that in establishing the "angle of penetration"...which in turn creates the "flight path over the light poles"...or...the south course, the Building Perfromance Report establishes this entry angle by:

FIRST...establishing the light poles as an initial point of "impact" along the "south flight path"...[although not technically in contact with the Pentagon at that point]...and

SECOND...establishing the "oh-so perfect" exit? hole in the "C" ring as the opposite end of the impact path with the Pentagon...


...both of these points are used to establish the angle of penetration into the Pentagon...

...and further...

...provides visual and other information that can be used to "define" the debris trail...

...that is actually OFFSET from the column damage...

A Psy-Op?

I argue that there is a fair difference between the angles of pentration established by the damaged columns ALONE...


...the aforementioned angle of penetration established by the damaged light poles and the exit? hole in the "C" ring at the Pentagon.

In other words...the damage patterns do not appear to be supportive of each other.

If this is true, then which evidence and which angle of penetration presents the most viable case?

Just an observation and question on my part...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice...

Robin Hordon
kingston, WA

a north course impact with the Pentagon

seems to make the most sense

Something like this perhaps

100 ton, 550 mph

Chris and Kevin,

Imagine a small freight train weighing 100 ton, travelling at 100 miles an hour, on rails running toward the Pentagon at a right angle, as in Chris's diagram in the link above.

Now imagine yourself standing with your back to the wall of the C-ring as the train approaches. Would you feel safe? Would you stay there or beat a hasty retreat to one side?

As you stand there bravely, consider the way energy increases as the square of the velocity. So if this train speeds up on approach to 200 mph the energy will go up four times. Are you still standing there?

When the train gets up to 400 mph the energy goes up to 16 times the original. It then has the same energy as a 1600 ton train travelling at 100 mph or a 6400 ton train travelling at 50 mph.

Will it penetrate the wall? And there is still that last 150 mph to go.

Do you still think the plane would have not much penetrating power? Would it only go in one plane length? Is that because it is mostly made of aluminium while the freight train is made of steel?

I put it to you that if this 100 ton was just water in a plastic bag at 550mph it would sweep through to the C-ring. You had better move.

It would be more accurate

to imagine a 767 or even a 737. The Pentagon was not hit by a locomotive and that is not a reasonable comparison.

It appears that a plane blew up as it entered the building and there is no way to determine what the damage should have been.

All this is great debate fodder and as long as we can keep it friendly I'm all for it. The problem, as Kevin pointed out, is when people disrupt, intentionally or not, by turning a debate into a fight.

BTW: Do you have a URL for the video showing the debris falling and bouncing by?


Yes, here is the URL for the complete video from Judicial Watch:

Re what to imagine, I suggested imagining a 100 ton bag of water at 550mph and a 6400 ton freight train at 50mph. Both would have the power to push the wall away. Surely a plane would fit in between those two forms of material. Even if the plane blew up as it hit, it would still have the same mass, Not much came out backwards on the lawn so most of it went inside. All that mass at 550 mph would not stop in its own length, regardless of whether an explosion occurred.

I think it is time to abandon the north path approach, as it requires acceptance of materials behaviour that cannot be explained. Your logic, as a way of refuting the overfly theory by showing that the plane could have turned to reach the Pentagon, was good for a while, but the time has come to accept the straight line trail of damage can only be explained by a south path. The number of witnesses to the impact, and hence to a south path, far exceed the number of witnesses to a north path.

Thanks for the URL

It reinforces my theory that the plane blew up as it entered the building.

It cannot be determined what the interior damage would have been, your trains and water bags notwithstanding. I don't by your logic and I still think my theory is better than yours. ;-)

ETA: "straight line trail of damage can >only<? be explained by a south path"
It is extremely unlikely that the hole in the C ring was caused by the plane. Therefore, explosives were probably used. To what extent, we don't know. The directional damage could have been caused by explosives and the damage to the exterior wall was symmetrical, suggesting a straight on hit.

Exit hole

"It is extremely unlikely that the hole in the C ring was caused by the plane. "

Okay. I say it is extremely likely. What now? ;-)


A plane flying at an angle to the wall will still make a symmetrical impact mark. The only difference is that the hole required for entry will be wider. It was wide enough for all heavy parts of the plane, and then some.

Re the C-ring hole, no-one is suggesting it was made by the soft nose of the plane. It could have been made by the hard heavy keel or the front suspension.

"symmetrical impact mark"

The wings of a 757 are at a 37 degree angle and that is about the angle the plane would have hit the building on the SoC approach. The right wing of the plane on the SoC approach would have hit the wall over its entire length almost simultaneously so there would not be any folding back.The damage on the right side is not wide enough to accommodate the entire wing length.

The left wing hit the building at about a 75 degree angle and would have a smaller damage pattern.

What now?

Therefore explosives were probably used.

Frank is trying to say the lack of interior damage proves a plane on the NoC flight path could not have hit the building. I disagree. If explosives were used, it cannot be said with any certainty what the interior damage from the plane would be.

Since I don't believe

the light poles were faked, I think the plane flew SoC. Claims of light pole fakery so far have been based on argument from personal incredulity. I think the light pole fakery proponents carry the burden of proof, including their accusations against Lloyd England....That's why I get to say: "I don't believe" and the light pole fakery proponents do not: burden of proof. Make a claim, provide evidence, beyond falsification and into the realm of verification. Who placed the poles and when? Who smashed Lloyd's windshield and when? How did they damage his seats? Were the witnesses who saw the light poles hit mistaken?

Plus, plane passengers were splattered from front to back along the directional damage path.

Plus, the generator was hit by one of the engines. How did they stage the generator? No evidence.

There is a lot more to be said about all of this, but combined it pretty well locks in the official path.

The witnesses are literally "all over the map"

So it cannot be stated that either path is certain.

My opinion that the light poles were staged is based on deductive reasoning, not personal incredulity. I have presented the evidence that I consider proof - there are no gouge marks on the lawn.

Asking "who, how, why or when?" is a denial tactic. How the hell am I supposed to know? ;-)

"Plus, plane passengers were splattered from front to back along the directional damage path."
Or so we are told.

"Plus, the generator was hit by one of the engines."
That is supposition. A fence post is bent away from the building suggesting that what hit it was flying away from the building. It is possible that the fence and the generator were hit by debris from an explosion and not the plane.

There is a lot more to be said about this is correct but to say there is a "lock" on the official path is not IMO.

Only people "fooled" were the ones listening to CIT

Chris Sarns said..."My opinion that the light poles were staged is based on deductive reasoning, not personal incredulity"

The light poles were staged in order to create a "fake" flight path to "fool" people. Why? Why create a fake flight path? I've been told before(by others) it was to confuse people. LOL! Yes, it's confusing to try and rationalize this. It's not so confusing if it's not "faked" or staged". It's no more fake, than all those plane parts that were found.

I appreciate your efforts in studying this issue. IMO lots have been conned by this CIT fiasco. Most thought at the least it was eerie that Lloyd's wife was an FBI agent. But she wasn't. That was also a con. She was a cleaner at the FBI building. IMO you have not fallen for any part of this con job other than accepting a "north side" path. This acceptance(which is the main con in the pentacon) is a barrier in your acceptance of the light pole damage, IMO it is your acceptance of this "Northside" flight path that is causing your acceptance of "light pole staging".

R Roberts places the commercial airliner at the same spot that the plane hit the lightpoles, the same spot that Lloyde and his cab is (that was hit with a light pole) the same spot where Penny Eglas picked up part of the tail section that fell off when it hit a light pole, and flying in a direction straight at the pentagon. None of these witnesses know each other and all put the plane in the same spot--a South of Citgo path.

R. Roberts explains as he was watching TV(The NY attacks)..."It all came at the same time, watching the TV" 4:50 mark

Roosevelt: "Right; around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like."

The video points out where this is just before it's impact...

7:45 mark

Roosevelt: "Had to been no more than- had to been no more than fifty feet or less than a hundred feet."

video shows this as where flight 77 hit the poles where Penny Eglas was at....

7:53 Mark

Penny Eglas was near these light poles and confirms this as well, she said 40 to 50 feet....she is confirming R Roberts..

4:50 mark

their stories confirm each other...a passenger jet near the south side parking lot 40-50 feet up where the light poles were hit.

How do we know this is a passenger jet about to hit the pentagon? because of it's direction and low altitude.........

Roosevelt: "In the south- in the south parking lot over lane one."

Aldo: Okay. "Do you- do you remember which direction it was headed?"

Roosevelt: "Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there's a highway.

Roosevelt: "If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north heading towards the Pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, 'cause 395 went right into 27."

The video (the bonus video)points out this is flt 77 flight path just before impact....where the light poles were..
7:40 mark

This is a fragment of the tail of the plane that fell near Penny's car when it clipped one of those "staged" light poles that no one "staged".....

The key to this con job is to get you to accept a north side approach. When you accept it(because all the witnesses confirm it--BUT ALL THE WITNESSES DO NOT CONFIRM IT- IT'S PART OF THE CON) then you are more likely to go along with the preposterous flyover BS. If you're into drinking games, take a shot every time you hear Ranke babble the words "north of", because that's the key to the pretend the witnesses were more focused on the planes relation to the Citgo, rather than the planes impacting the pentagon. The witnesses were not at all focused on the citgo on 9-11....they were focused on the plane and the pentagon....not the citgo. They watched it fly into the building.

it's a matter of perspective.....!

I've already wasted enough time on this here....

Questions and Assumptions

"Why create a fake flight path?" - "Why did they drop WTC 7?" - I haven't got s frikin clue. I'm just an ass hole, not a psychopath. ;'-)

"IMO it is your acceptance of this "Northside" flight path that is causing your acceptance of "light pole staging"."
Incorrect, the two are separate IMO. I always thought the light poles were staged. I bought the NoC witnesses unanimous con but thru debating here I quickly learned that that was false. The witnesses are split [by design] so nothing can, or should be stated as proof or fact as to the flight path.

My theory is just that, a theory that best fits the physical evidence. The NoC v SoC witnesses are a "push" as far as I'm concerned.

It did occur to me that all the witnesses Craig interviewed could have been part of the con but that's just speculation. It is also possible that the SoC witnesses were part of a con.

Roosevelt Roberts is a perfect example of the omnipresent obfuscation. You can interpret his confusing statements any way you like. You interpret him as saying the plane approached from the south west and I interpret him as saying it flew away to the south west
At 4:00 "It was heading back across 27 . . . and it looks like . . . it appeared to me [he is thinking out loud] I was in the south . . . and that plane was heading south-west.

The Second Plane

Chris Sarns said..."It did occur to me that all the witnesses Craig interviewed could have been part of the con but that's just speculation. It is also possible that the SoC witnesses were part of a con."

The difference between the South of Citgo and North of Citgo are the light poles (and probably number of witnesses) The light poles are physical evidence that shows the correct path, the physical evidence confirms one side....not the other. Both can't be right. The witnesses are just that. Witnesses. CIT slanders the ones that ruin their "north" side approach. That should tell you something.

Chris Sarns said..."At 4:00 "It was heading back across 27 . . . and it looks like . . . it appeared to me [he is thinking out loud] I was in the south . . . and that plane was heading south-west."

He does NOT describe this plane as flying low, because it wasn't. He DOES describe it as a SECOND plane(so does CIT- they are deliberately trying to confuse you)there WAS a SECOND plane and Roberts describes it's path nearly perfectly. His statements are not confusing when you disregard CIT's BS and gather all the info.

Aldo Marquis:
"Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this .. this second plane, do you remember which direction it was heading?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"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."

Aldo Marquis:
"So like banking around, turning back around?"

Roosevelt Roberts:

Roosevelt Roberts:
"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."

Aldo Marquis:
"south west away from the Pentagon, okay, so kinda doing a U-turn in a way?"

Roosevelt Roberts:

CIT con:

Aldo Marquis:
"south west away from the Pentagon, okay, so kinda doing a U-turn in a way?"

The c130 flight path....

There WAS a SECOND plane and it was the c 130 and it's path is what Roberts described.

The flight paths of both planes....

This is where CIT and there "cheer leaders" say..."nope he said he thought it was a commercial airliner and the c130 is not a commercial airliner."

Steve Chaconas also thought it might have been a commercial airliner, but you tell me how would you describe this plane later....

here is the actual c 130 on 9-11....

Two planes....
Flight 77 and the c 130

Roberts described 77 as follows...
Roosevelt: "If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north heading towards the Pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, 'cause 395 went right into 27."

He also said it was low and near the light poles at the South Parking Lot.

You point out that he describes a second plane. That would be the second plane...the c 130.
At 4:00 "It was heading back across 27 . . . and it looks like . . . it appeared to me [he is thinking out loud] I was in the south . . . and that plane was heading south-west.

He described the first one as low near the light poles and heading towards the pentagon.
He never said the second plane was low, and he and CIT both call it a second plane. The c 130 was a second plane and he described it's flight path.

CIT deliberately made this confusing. It's not.

Chris Sarns said..."Why create a fake flight path?" - "Why did they drop WTC 7?" - I haven't got s frikin clue. I'm just an ass hole, not a psychopath. ;'-)

Hey! I thought I was supposed to be the a**hole here?

Magnifiscent obfuscation

"The light poles are physical evidence that shows the correct path, the physical evidence confirms one side....not the other."
Only if you think the plane hit them. ;-)

"He does NOT describe this plane as flying low"
I disagree with your interpretation but that's the point. I think Roosevelt's interview is designed to do just that. It's too superbly obfuscated.
It's not important that we agree on these points and it would be hard to find two people who don't disagree on some things.

We agree that CIT has not proven flyover and they are disruptive. Yes?

Truth Movement or Smear Movement?

Chris Sarns said...."Only if you think the plane hit them. ;-)"

Actually Lloyde and Penny Eglas among several others think the plane hit them. That's where I got the idea from. Could you provide evidence that they are "in on it"? He drove a cab in the area for 50 years. What did he get out of 9-11? I've already provided the evidence that he is part of a smear campaign....

38:50 mark
Q: Isn't your wife an FBI agent?
A: No, My wife is a cleaner.
Q: Oh, OK...
A: She works at the FBI building...she is a cleaner.

Would you agree that if he is innocent that it is despicable for a so called truth movement to accuse him of being a mass murder accomplice? Wouldn't you agree that is extremely harmful not only to Mr England but YOUR OWN cause as well?

CIT Jan 2006....
"Meet Agent Lloyd A. England (Pentagon Plant)"

These Pentagon No Planers HAD to smear this INNOCENT man......I'll let Ranke tell you why....

"If his story is true, it really is make or break for the official story, it proves that plane hit the building." --Ranke 26:53 mark

Enough is enough.


"My opinion that the light poles were staged is based on deductive reasoning, not personal incredulity. I have presented the evidence that I consider proof - there are no gouge marks on the lawn."

Emphasis mine...indeed this is your opinion, since it has no basis in experimental or forensic fact. There are no calculations, no experiments and no FEA simulations that buttress your opinion. You need to prove:

  1. That the light poles must have created gouges in the lawn
  2. That these gouges would have been visible in the photographs
  3. That the light poles weren't moved before they were photographed

"Asking "who, how, why or when?" is a denial tactic. How the hell am I supposed to know? ;-)"

You are supposed to know because you are essentially accusing Lloyd England of being "in on it" based on falsification based on false premises. I would like to see some verification, such as direct witness testimony of evidence fakery.

"That is supposition. A fence post is bent away from the building suggesting that what hit it was flying away from the building. It is possible that the fence and the generator were hit by debris from an explosion and not the plane."

Then what moved the generator towards the Pentagon, while simultaneously leaving the imprint of an engine puncturing it? And why is the fence post buckled in the middle, towards the Pentagon? I don't know why the fence post is on the ground towards the camera, but a lint is present to seal off the location, so I don't know whether it was touched. It could also have been blown backwards again by the jet engine exhaust, something that would have been more difficult to do with the generator. Again, you must prove it is physically impossible for this to occur, not just assert it, and you must reconcile this with the entirety of the physical evidence, as outlined above.

A plane hit the Pentagon. It flew the official path, SoC. Witnesses such as Albert Hemphill, saw the light poles hit. Lloyd was nearly killed. There is no physical evidence for shaped charges inside the Pentagon. And so on and so forth.


Well stated. How do I contact you directly SnowCrash?

You can try

my contact form.

If it doesn't work, we'll try something else.

By the way

There is foam on the ground in your fence post picture, indicating that firefighting efforts took place at the generator. A firefighter could have moved the fence post out of the way. Moreover, any explosion from the generator could have moved the fence post away also. And... the other fence post, directly to the right of the fence post in question, is slightly bent towards the Pentagon also. And so on, and so forth.

Inappropriate accusations

"you are essentially accusing Lloyd England of being "in on it"

Lloyd, like all the other pawns, had no idea what he was a part of and had no choice but to go along. You are effectively saying that all the NoC witnesses were "in on it" so don't throw stones.

"Would you agree that if he is innocent that it is despicable for a so called truth movement to accuse him of being a mass murder accomplice? Wouldn't you agree that is extremely harmful not only to Mr England but YOUR OWN cause as well?"

Yes, but your question indicates I feel otherwise and it's insulting.

These personal insults [indicating that I am a bad person] are unnecessary and inappropriate. Let's discuss the evidence and not each other.

The photos of the light poles speak for themselves. If you disagree, no worries.

Same with the generator fence. I just offered some evidence.

Ok so he was a 'pawn'

But... he was still in on it, according to you.. I'm not trying to be hostile here or accusatory... your disposition is different, you are acting like a skeptic, and I appreciate that. However... there was just no way Lloyd came driving up there with a damaged cab, to position himself for the Pentagon attack. There's no evidence, there are no witnesses that said the cab was already bust... and we've already discussed the physical evidence. Don't take it personal, you're not a bad person, but I am extending your argument to its inevitable outcome.

As for the NoC witnesses... They were neither in on it nor were they passively 'involved' nor were they pawns: they misjudged the position of the plane. They represent a small sample of the entire volume of witnesses, who in fact, all saw the plane hit the Pentagon or saw it in a position impossible to pull up in order to overfly the Pentagon. As Dr. Legge puts it: the explosion had not yet happened, so the 'deception' had not yet occurred. I know you agree the plane hit, you contest the path also, and you choose a hybrid theory: NoC + impact. I choose SoC + impact, based on overwhelming physical evidence + witness testimony. The part of the witness testimony that demonstrates impact trumps the part that draws the flight path. In combination with the directional evidence, this means SoC + impact, IMO.

Sounds very interesting

"Then what moved the generator towards the Pentagon, while simultaneously leaving the imprint of an engine puncturing it? "

Show the photo please.


Craig Ranke:

Geoff Metcalf: (See bottom right, click the image for larger version)

I've got much more on my own harddisk, of course, but posting them all on Photobucket would deplete my bandwidth limits.


Chris, you are still ignoring the physics. This 100 ton object, even if blown up, still weighs 100 ton. How much of this mass was projected backwards onto the lawn? Very little, therefore there was still say 98 ton travelling at 550 mph. How could it possibly stop in a plane length? If there was an explosion as well as high speed, a substantial amount of material should have been thrown backwards. We didn't see that. A substantial amount should have been thrown forwards so it should have assisted penetration. Furthermore the fragmentation should have assisted passage between the columns. It should certainly have gone further than a plane length. Why not accept the south path? It fits everything so much better.

What? Me ignore physics? Not a chance! ;-)

You are not qualified to say what the damage would have been. The wall was designed to absorb a blast. We cannot know if or how explosives were used so anyone saying the "know" what hit the pentagon or on which path is overstating their evidence.

Why can't we all admit and agree that we don't know for sure what happened at the Pentagon?

Well that's easy - I don't know for sure whiat happened at the P

entagon. But - since it's my Pentagon (and yours too) - I would surely like to KNOW.
Not that I EXPECT to know.

What's the name of that guy that actually does the physical experiments? It should be pretty easy for him to get a hold of a 20 plus foot light pole and and old wrecked car and smash the windshield - insert the pole and see if he and one other guy can remove it without it touching the hood. (Not that that would prove anything - which it would not - but it might be interesting.

But I do KNOW that 7 was CD. And that should be enough to warrant a new investigation of the whole thing.


The Pentagon is great for debate because nothing is certain, it's all arguable because there is an abundance of conflicting information - by design.

We can debate the Pentagon amongst ourselves but when trying to get someone to open up to 9/11 Truth, the scientific facts and the videos of building 7 are the best "evidence".

What's the name of that guy that actually does the physical expe

Not enough of us are doing experiments, including myself. We do need more experimental proof and less speculating, and much much less of the exaggerated assumptions and accusations. Having said that, I will proceed to add some speculation in the form of thought experiments, but I hope you will agree it makes enough sense to guide further investigation.

Regarding the light poles, I haven't seen (and I have looked) substantial proof either way about the likelihood that a plane impact could or could not account for the observed damage. The path of the plane is one thing to examine, in order to allow for an impact at all, but that is not what I am considering here.

If we assume there was an impact, my physics-based intuition tells me that a high speed plane wing would more likely snip off the tops of the poles leaving them standing. In addition, there would hardly be time for any crimping of the pole at the impact point, and it would more likely be sliced off cleanly, leaving an open hole. The higher the speed, the more likely this is true. How high a speed is required can be calculated, and experiments can be done. What the impact zone should look like, with aluminum on aluminum, is also something to consider.

This same high speed of the plane accounts for not enough time for the plane to rotate when it impacts the wall, and not enough time for wings to fold back, and not enough time for debris to bounce back into the lawn. The enormous momentum of mass at high speed causes it to move straight forward until that momentum is absorbed by whatever is impacted.

On the other hand, a low enough speed of impact would have time to cause a rotational twisting force in the poles and transfer some of the force to the base of the poles, possibly breaking the base off. However, keep in mind that these poles are designed to break off at the base when there is a sideways impact near the base, say from a car collision, but that is a different directional force than the twisting rotational force of the pole from a sideways force near the top of the pole. Given the flimsy material of these poles (they are hollow thin aluminum, right?), you have to wonder how much twisting force they could transfer down to the base. And how does that compare to the normal everyday force of wind on the pole, or during a heavier gale force wind? These questions about normal expected performance of the light poles should already be well known to engineers at the companies that designed and built them, and experiments have certainly been done to determine the answers. There should also be a large body of experience with the effect of high wind speeds, and maybe even with the impacts of various objects, including planes. Can we get some of these definitive answers please?

Now consider that if it does break off at the base for some reason, what's happening back near the top of the pole at the point of impact? In order to cause that much twisting force to break the base, the top had to remain intact and hang on long enough, during the crimping phase, rather than being quickly snipped off. Once the base has broken off enough, then the top needs to give way. If not, then the plane would have dragged the entire pole with it, or flung it some distance up in the air very likely landing much further away.

There is another force involved in the plane impacts with the light poles, which is the draft from the plane itself as it flew by. I'm not sure of the precise direction of this force, but given some people's arguments that the ground itself should have been ripped up by the magnitude of this force, it seems we might expect to see a lot more damage to other structures, including trees. There is a lot of chaos in the turbulence of the draft, but I believe it has an overall speed and direction that is fairly predictable.

And there is another force from the jet engine exhausts, which would have been in the backward direction relative to the path of the plane.

The damage we see, the evidence on the ground, shows the poles broken in two places, at the base and near the top, and both pieces lying near each other, and near the base. And this (supposedly) happened not just one time, but 5 times. This means that the plane speed had to be just right, not too fast and not too slow, in order for the poles to break at both the top and the base at about the same time. How likely is that to happen?

The poles are laid out approximately in the direction of the plane, but we should be able to say more precisely where the poles should have been found if they did in fact fall from the impact, and/or from the draft of the plane. Pole number 1, in particular, which was (supposedly) impaled through Lloyd's taxi windshield into the back seat, had to undergo a large rotation in the direction of traffic, but not enough to keep twisting and bend or break itself off or pull itself out.

More mystery. Enough to keep asking questions, and stop making blind assumptions.

My experience in moving heavy objects with the help of another

is that there is considerable dialog between the two movers - especially when moving something that is awkward and unbalanced. The light pole weighed about 190 pounds. I can imagine two strong men lifting a 190 pound pole that is symmetrical and lying on the ground. But what we have here is a 25 or so foot pole that allegedly is wedged into the space between the back seat and the back rest of the back seat. We have no idea how firmly the pole is wedged.
But we do know that the pole is sticking out over the hood of the car - which means one mover has to lean over the hood with his feet on the ground if he is to assist at the end of the pole that is wedged into the back seat. How difficult is it to bear weight when you can't position your feet under the weight?

Anyway, this is a very awkward moving job. In an actual situation, there would likely be a whole lot of dialog:

At the very minimum there would likely be the following conversation:

"On the count of three ---- lift"

"One --- two --- threeeeeeee."

That would be the minimum.

More likely, a conversation like this would ensue:

"Shit man -- this sucker is going to be a bitch to remove"

"Your telling me?"

"Okay - I'll take this end and you take the other end."

"Man - this sucker is really wedged in -- try to rock it back and forth"

"Yeah -- good --- it's starting to come out"

"Okay, walk straight back."

etc. etc.

That the entire "extraction" allegedly took place between two strangers without a single word passing between them, is not something that happens every day. But then again, this was 9/11 --- the day when all sorts of extremely "unlikely things" "happened" -- like a building crushing itself at free fall acceleration.

Jon Cole

Jon Cole is the civil engineer who has lovingly followed Newton's path to knowledge using the scientific method as his guide.

Jon Cole gets three thumbs up

Good work Jon.



Thank you for taking the time to read my Summary and Analysis. However, you only asked about conformation of the CIT SoC witnesses which I provided. I wish you had asked about Sean Boger, Sgt. Lagasse and Sgt. Brooks "who were in the best place to be providing their accounts". If you believe them, then the plane hit the Pentagon. If you don't, then you must discount their entire statements.

You admit that you did not study the Pentagon in depth. Like the other people who endorsed NSA, you did not study their evidence in depth either. They left out anything that disproved their theory and that was misleading.

ETA: The interior directional damage leading to the hole in the C ring was cause by explosives according to CIT. It had nothing to do with the plane hitting the Pentagon..There is some damage consistent with a plane on the NoC flight path hitting the Pentagon. A plane on the NoC flight path would hit the pentagon at close to a 90 degree angle.
Keeping in mind that this information is supplied by the government and they are not known for being completely honest.

We all make mistakes but refusing to admit a mistake is a bigger mistake. I will be happy to go over my S&A with you point by point anytime. This issue has been very divisive and the TM needs to relegate "flyover" to the trash bin, put it behind us and re-unite behind the most compelling evidence - like the fire on floor 12 had gone out over an hour before the collapse. ;-)

Show "Chris, we are hung up over the last part of your first paragraph" by dadeets

"In the best position" is circular logic

It assumes the conclusion as part of the proof. The witnesses on the freeway were in the best position to see a plane on the south path.

In a court of law, if you say your witness is "mistaken" about part of their testimony, then the entire statement in question. Saying 100 witnesses were all mistaken or fooled with slight of hand is a bit much. It sounds "nutty" and would be laughed out of any court. It simply does not fly.

There is NO chance that these witnesses were fooled and the plane flew thru the fire ball. They saw the plane fly into the bottom floor. As Rob Balsamo pointed out, a 575 cannot pull up suddenly.

Craig: Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?
Robert Turcios: Fly over the Pentagon??? [He was surprised anyone would ask that question] No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. (it) Collided.

Terry Morin said he could still see the tail when the plane hit. He also said the plane flew parallel to the Naval Annex which puts it south of the Citgo station. Terry Morin is a SoC witness.

Ed Paik was NOT in a position to see where the plane went. He was in an office west of the west end of the Naval annex and only saw the starboard wing over the parking lot.

There were only 8 NoC witnesses, not the 13 that CIT claims in NSA. NSA is riddled with false and misleading statements. I have studied all the related evidence very closely for a year and find NSA fatally flawed in many ways.

The G's required for the pull out and a matter of precedent?

Hello Dwain and Kevin,

The question of the G's required has been settled by the research of Legge and others and has now been confirmed by the the raw DFDR data final packet that has recently been deciphered. The G's required do not exceed approx 2.2 which is well inside the normal band if a gradual circular pull out is taken by the aircraft. Balsamo's claim hinges around the angle of attack and that the aircraft tried to level out in a very short space, this is not supported by the evidence now at hand or the physics.

As Kevin has said, in essence one must realize these things are controversial and that the pilots group (Balsamo mostly) have been unwilling to enter into a scientific debate just have CIT, with out papers on these issues for review and discussion it is hard to move forward.

Legge's work on the G forces remains unchallenged to date as I don't consider ridicule part of a academic debate.

Also I note you have failed to comment about what would be more likely to cause a 767 airframe to break up at 22,000ft (Egypt Air) it's 99% of Mach speed or its 425 Knots equivalent airspeed? This is the basis of the "impossible speed" claims made by the pilots group?

So far in my discussions with over 50 767 pilots not one has thought the massively powerful and strong 767 could not do what we saw on 9/11, besides the fact that it did by all accounts. As my simulator test at Sydney Jet Base showed the 767 could do far more than we saw on 9/11 based on the Boeing test data that it was created on.

A person as you with so much background in aviation must know that the events of 9/11 are unprecedented. The speeds, the crashes and the manoeuvres; so it stands to reason that without historical precedent and data from the manufacturers and investigators we really are unable to say much for sure. Supporting organisations that use the words like "it's a fact" or "it's impossible" regarding the events of that day is simply reckless in my view.

Regards John

Déjà Vu

With all due respect, but telling me what you've just told me is like you telling me Julian Assange is annoyed by 9/11 Truth. I know, because I've written about it.

There are threads here on 911blogger filled with debate on the subject of NoC vs SoC and flyover. There are massive threads on ATS. There are massive threads on Invisionfree. There are massive threads on just about any forum you can think of. What you present here as if it is new, isn't new at all: all of it has been addressed. That was what I was trying to tell you, albeit more diplomatic than I'm doing now: your knowledge about the Pentagon is insufficient.

When you speak, I hear typical CIT mantras:

  1. "drawing only from witnesses who were in the best place to be providing their accounts"
  2. "These witnesses weren’t aware of the implications of their accounts at the time they were doing their witnessing."
  3. "It also turns out there are no good (...) witnesses situated below the South path."
  4. "could it have flown either the North or South path from a physical evidence short of the Pentagon standpoint?"
  5. "they will then note the North path doesn’t line up with the internal damage in the Pentagon. Therefore, the plane couldn’t have caused the damage."

And, of course, the P4T talking point: "The g’s required for this would be unreasonably high. Makes no sense."

And it has the rather unsettling effect of sounding both wet behind the ears and brainwashed. I'm saying this to you coarsely, because I think it's necessary. To address these points:

  1. CIT don't have any witnesses who could see the CITGO and were located SoC. CIT don't include the witnesses who claim the plane was SoC in NSA either. Why? Please think long and carefully about this.
  2. The witnesses weren't aware they were being shafted either: no witness supports flyover. None of them saw a plane fly away, most of them saw the plane hit or saw it fly in a position where a pull up would have been physically impossible
  3. It's a fact that nobody duplicated CIT's work. This has been the major basis for CIT to claim supremacy; yet the fact of the matter is that nobody cares about the CITGO gas station and the position of the plane in relation to it; there are about a hundred witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Is that part of the flight path?
  4. If the directional damage is faked, then the plane was blown up on impact. Easy eh? If you say I'm wrong, I'll say your evidence is fake.
  5. See above

Of course, we should turn this around:

"There is no problem flying the North path whatsoever. "

Uhmm.....yes there is... the light poles and the directional damage. Therefore, all CIT's witnesses (the ones they don't censor from NSA, that is) are wrong. It's that simple. Somehow, nobody dares say this, because they think it's impossible. They think wrong. Positioning a plane moving at high speed in relation to the ground is no comparison, cognitively and optically, to seeing it collide with a building.

The light poles place the plane south of CITGO. Since the light poles weren't faked, that means CIT's (selected!) witnesses are wrong. That's where the physical evidence ends, so backtracing the flight path further using physical evidence is nigh impossible. This brings us to P4T's claim that the plane couldn't have made the descent without breaking apart. Somehow this rings familiar bells... something about a plane hitting WTC 2. Nevertheless, Frank Legge and others have debunked this claim as based on a straw man argument.

Moreover, have a look at this:
cit,citizen investigation team,pentagon,flight aa 77,9/11

Follow the red line. Impossible? Or not?

Dwain, I'll say it again, study harder at this... I don't see any particular value in having this debate, I have full confidence it would end in my favor, which is why I wanted to warn you to consult with experts from the other side before proceeding. I have no idea how long it will take you, or if it will ever happen at all, but at some point, reality has to kick in.

When something happens, an event occurs, one investigates. After hundred witnesses say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon, when the plane knocked down light poles, when the plane confetti is littered over the Pentagon lawn, when the facade has the outline of a hull and most of the wings, when there is directional damage, including passenger and hijacker DNA, some people still strapped in plane seats, when a friend of John Judge was shown the body parts of her dear friends and colleagues, when there is a plane engine component matching the one used in AA 77, where there is clear evidence of an engine hitting a generator, moving it towards the Pentagon, when there is a cut into the top of the generator from the flap track, then....

The plane hit the Pentagon. The USG can be as secretive as they want about it, trying to throw us off track, I am not going to be fooled. And I deeply regret wasting years thinking anything else happened to the Pentagon. How could I have been so mistaken? Because when initially examining the event in .. oh say 2004, I did not do my own research, instead I relied on documentaries such as 'In Plane Site', which grossly misrepresented and cherry picked the evidence. Had somebody presented me Eric Bart's witness compilation, and shown me the interviews with all of those witnesses, I would never have fallen for it. I'm deeply embarrassed anybody, including myself could have ever stepped into this cognitive trap with their eyes open. I didn't have the knowledge of cognitive flaws and biases I have now.

Lastly: it's quite witty that P4T are so worried about the descent of AA 77. Are they equally worried about the impossible U-turn described by Roosevelt Roberts?

I know none of this is really going to change your mind. In fact, it may even strengthen your current position because of the unwillingness of social human beings to let go of personal theories and viewpoints. That form of cognitive resistance has been written about many times in academia.

The Boston Globe — How facts backfire

Oh, and lest I forget, yet again this is an issue of verification versus falsification. I would like to see more of the former when promoting an extremely controversial theory. That means: flyover witnesses. There are none.

Point taken

You make your case with strong conviction. Some of it I view with amazement. For example, when I said there is no problem flying the North path whatsoever, I really wasn't considering the light poles as credible physical evidence. I still don't. However, I will take a harder look at matters such as these.

the light poles

As an amateur blacksmith, I am a member of several blacksmith's forums. I showed a picture of one of the bent lightpoles and asked the forum members if a violent blow to one of the poles could result in its deforming into a graceful bend. The moderator of the forum said that the poles were already bent. This was incorrect as the braces on the poles were arched, but the poles themselves were straight. I told him that the poles were originally straight - and he replied that he had driven that road and the poles were already bent - and that I should consider the case closed.

In other words - he did not and would not answer the question.

I also posted a picture of Lloyd England's windshield on a professional glass repair forum and asked if that windshield had been struck once or many times. The first reply I got was that it looked like someone took a sledge hammer to it. I asked again if he meant that it had been struck once or repeatedly, and the moderator of the site (who was also the owner of an auto glass business) removed my questions and emailed me asking why I wanted to know.

In other words --- I got no definitive answers either from the blacksmith's forum or from the auto glass repair forum.
On the contrary, the moderators of the sites ran away from the questions.

From this I conclude nothing in the way of facts with respect to either the poles or the cab driver's windshield.

But it is obvious that many experts who are qualified to speak, will not speak.

For this reason, I think the jury is still out on the lightpoles.

Nevertheless, I agree that the Pentagon is controversial whereas building 7 is not controversial to anyone who understands elementary physics.

If you want to PROVE controlled demolition of building 7 - you have no problem as it has been PROVEN.

If you want to have a lively discussion - then the Pentagon is the subject for you.

Light poles

Don't ask a blacksmith -- ask a computational physicist. What you need is Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of some sort to establish the expected light pole deformation. For this line of work, Ansys is the market leader, I believe. The physics of collision dynamics is anything but intuitive. Objects colliding at high speeds behave unexpectedly. Example:

In the mean time, I have this to offer:
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic — THE LIGHT POLES Clipped or Staged?

Adam Larson remarks that the light poles are designed to snap off so as not to damage vehicles that impact it, such as planes:

"Russel Pickering's analysis at found that they were 27.66 feet high, made of .188 inch-thick aluminum, 8 inches in diameter at the base and 4.5 inches at the top and topped with 70 pound lampheads. The reason the wings wouldn't be damaged is because the use of a "breakaway style" pole design. As Pickering explains: "this limited damage factor is why the FAA requires these type of poles in the "safety zones" around airports and helipads. They recognize that this type of pole minimizes damage to aircraft." He cited the FAA's rules: "any structure located within 250 feet of runway centerline has to be frangible, which means the structure needs to break away when hit by an aircraft to minimize damages to the aircraft and its pilot."

Show "Here's a simple way to settle the issue" by zmzmzm


is a conspiracy theorist. He had a David Icke book on his passenger seat on 9/11, iirc. CIT did not understand the profound effect of their 'bulldog-style' interviewing on Lloyd and his wife. They got riled up and paranoid. Lloyd was clearly afraid of CIT's research, and afraid of becoming involved in something he didn't understand. So he tried to be 'smart' with CIT, which had the exact opposite effect of making him look suspicious. Similar things happen in police investigations with mouldable and impressionable interviewees, often leading to miscarriages of justice. This is a serious issue: here in the Netherlands, in the past 10 to 20 years, we've had several cases of innocent people being locked up for murders they had absolutely nothing to do with, but 'confessed' nonetheless.

Yes, I believe Lloyd. The physical evidence supports him. CIT are untrained, or rather: half-trained in the psychology of witness interrogation.

What is going on here?

The above post begins by calling Lloyd a "conspiracy theorist." (The tried and true way to derail rational discourse)
The next sentence is that he "has a David Icke book on his passenger seat." (An attempt to characterize a person's mental state by a book on his passenger seat.)

And the post gets two up votes.

What is going on here?

Show "David Icke book on the backseat means what" by peacefulwarrior
Show "The lightpole penetration and removal story " by zmzmzm
Show "Thanks, for the support on this." by peacefulwarrior

In order for the lightpole story to be true

The pole would have had to spear the windshield like an arrow - traveling perfectly straight with no end-over-end or side-to-side or twisting movement of any kind. If it did not fly straight like an arrow, its torque would have taken out the whole windshield - not made a nice neat hole in it.

Anyone who has any sense of how leverage works or how material objects behave in the material world would not buy any part of the light pole story - from penetration to removal - without a convincing demonstration.

Further, the whole idea of extracting the light pole with a silent stranger while a "plane is crashing into the Pentagon" is absurd. It would be like finishing your crossword puzzle in the midst of a 8.0 earthquake. The whole story is absurd.

Also, in order to bend tubing (the light poles are just large tubes) in a graceful curve, you have to bend them around a solid curved object. You can't just strike them at one point. Has anyone ever seen a tubing bender?

Only a people (unfortunately a large portion of the US population) who are detached and ignorant of the way material behaves in a material world - would not immediately see WTC 7 as a controlled demolition. And only a people who are so ignorant of the basic laws of physics would still remain unconvinced in the face of admitted free fall for 2.25 seconds.

So - why are so many on this board running away from the light pole story? Unlike the towers, it presents an opportunity for simple, inexpensive experimentation. Your question is excellent. Has anyone tried to remove a 22 foot light pole, allegedly wedged into the space between the upper and lower sections of the back seat?

Proof of lightpole arguments are required, by both sides

What you have said here is mostly very reasonable, and I don't understand why people have voted you down. You said, among other things: "The pole would have had to spear the windshield like an arrow - traveling perfectly straight with no end-over-end or side-to-side or twisting movement of any kind. If it did not fly straight like an arrow, its torque would have taken out the whole windshield - not made a nice neat hole in it."

Maybe people are not aware of the angle of the road relative to the angle of the plane approach. Assuming the pole would break at the base in the first place, it would be rotating in the direction of the plane, unless the draft of the plane pushed it sideways. And assuming it has rotated to be in line with the oncoming traffic, when it impacts the car, what stops it from continuing to rotate further, either ripping through the windshield, or bending the pole sharply, breaking it off, or pulling itself out again?

However, no one is arguing that the pole was extracted while the plane was crashing into the Pentagon, which would have happened only seconds later. Rather, it was very likely a few minutes later that a stranger might have helped, for whatever reason, to extract the pole. People generally know you are not supposed to tamper with the scene of an accident, but it also seems understandable that people were not entirely rational during this event.

Assuming the extraction happened, I don't see it being problematic that it could have been done without scratching the hood of the car, and way too much has been made about that possibility. The heavier end sticking out about 15 feet would have pulled itself down as the lighter end was pulled out from the window, thus clearing the hood. And being aluminum, the whole thing didn't weigh all that much. Two guys could have managed, though Lloyd says he was knocked down in the process. If it is plausible, then trying to argue against it tends to defeat your case unless you provide sufficient proof to make it sound more implausible.


"what stops it from continuing to rotate further, either ripping through the windshield, or bending the pole sharply, breaking it off, or pulling itself out again?"

That, in fact, could have happened, and you can detect some damage to the windshield that reveals this. It's not a perfectly round hole.

Click the picture to get the large version.


If you read and take David Icke seriously, then, yes, you have mental health issues.

Why? Because Icke believes he is the son of God, that a "secret group of reptilian humanoids called the Babylonian Brotherhood controls humanity, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie."

Icke is a nutcase, and has attempted to infiltrate the truth movement, luckily it failed. I believe it was Annie Machon, a valuable asset to this movement, who said that both he and her ex, David Shayler, visited the same 'healer', both times with devastating results.

Show "So - does Professor Steven Jones have mental health issues" by zmzmzm

In short


Show "Where exactly does he say he is the son of god" by peacefulwarrior


I see the Wikipedia link above is defective.

See DAVID ICKE: The Lizards and the Jews, from 5:47 onwards.

Terry Wogan: "Let me get the story right. The press claim that you claim to be the son of God"

David Icke: "Uh-hmmm."

Terry Wogan: "Is that true?"

David Icke: "Yes, you see the thing is that ... [Laughter] It's quite, it's quite funny really, you know, 2000 years ago, had a guy called Jesus sat here and said these same things, you would still be laughing, it's really, pretty funny that we've not really moved on that much."

He goes on to predict tidal waves, eruptions, earth quakes... you get the picture.

As for David Shayler, see Call me Delores, says MI5 whistleblower David Shayler and
What renegade MI5 officer David Shayler did next...

I quote from the Daily Mail:

"He appears to mirror the thoughts of former sports presenter David Icke who once claimed 9/11 was arranged by the 'Global Elite' and that George Bush , the Queen and singers Kris Kristofferson and Boxcar Willie were 'Reptilian figures.'"

And from The Independent:

"I have spent my life telling difficult truths and now I am in the same situation again. I am the latest reincarnation of the Christ and live a life of unconditional love. Suddenly my whole life makes sense. By exercising the common law right of free will, we can all break out of the system that has enslaved us, started wars and left us mired in debt."

Looking much thinner than the rotund spy who spent four months in a French prison without charge in 1998 and was then later sentenced to six months' imprisonment in Britain for breaching the Official Secrets Act, Mr Shayler is fond of expounding on the many "signs" (from biblical codes to the film The Da Vinci Code) which he says have proved him that he is the current incarnation of the Messiah – a role he says was previously performed by King Arthur, Mark Antony, Macbeth, Lawrence of Arabia and his immediate predecessor as the embodiment of Christ, Che Guevara.


He is also complimentary about David Icke, the former BBC sports presenter who has gone before him in revealing himself as Jesus's reincarnation before suggesting the world is controlled by shape-shifting lizards. Mr Shayler said: "David has done some enormously important work. I see him as the John the Baptist to my Christ. I have spoken to him on the phone and suggested we meet."

As for Lloyd England, if he really believes David Icke, he's misguided, but I was being hyperbolic. Many people believe David Icke and they're certainly not all mentally ill. They're misguided. Icke himself and Shayler though, they're not quite sane, in my humble opinion. Shayler had, in the words of his ex, Annie Machon, a 'severe breakdown'.

From The Independent:

"I believe David is a good and honorable man but he has had some form of severe breakdown. I do blame the Government and the intelligence agencies for what he had become."

Followed by a comment by clinical psychologist Gelsthorpe:

"Psychologists warned that the espousal of unusual beliefs should not be interpreted as proof of mental illness. Simon Gelsthorpe, a clinical psychologist based in Bradford, said: "A lot of research over the last decade has looked into the occurrence in the normal population of traits that society has traditionally seen as a mental illness. Hearing voices is way more common than we had thought, as is the holding of unusual beliefs. A lot of these so-called indicators of mental illness are in fact relatively common and part of normal life."

Sorry, but I don't think proclaiming to be the son of God is mentally healthy. You can chide me for disagreeing with a clinical psychologist on the matter, so be it. Read this.

From the Wikipedia article about David Icke:

"In 1990, he visited Faith Healer and Psychic, Betty Shine, under the auspice of consulting her regarding his progressive rheumatoid arthritis, but was informed during the session that he was a healer placed on Earth for a purpose."

If I recall correctly, Annie Machon claimed Shayler had visited the same 'healer', although I'm not 100% sure about that and I cannot recall the source.

In short, MI5 reduced Shayler to a wreck, and then the MI5 vetted media did their little hit job on him, topping it off with a guilt by association attack on 9/11 Truth. How convenient.

Show "David Icke does not seriously say" by peacefulwarrior

Not a river in Egypt

When asked if Icke is the son of God, his reply was yes. (ETA: and he subsequently compared himself to Jesus)

And that is the end of that. He may have changed his mind, but that is irrelevant. At one time, he said it and he meant it.

Cheney not a traitor for exposing the covert status of a CIA agent? Joe Wilson disagrees, but I'm sure that report is where you got this line of thought in the first place.

And an UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. Not an alien. So, essentially, there's nothing special about UFOs. Aliens visiting us is technically impossible, yet statistics prove that there should be other intelligent lifeforms in the universe, due to its sheer size and age. Also, statistically, we are likely to be the most intelligent species in the universe at this point. [See: mathematician and statistician Amir D. Aczel, "Probability 1: The Book That Proves There Is Life In Outer Space"]

Yet, none of this matters to 9/11, unless the crazy folk such as Icke pretend to represent 9/11 truth. They do not. 9/11 research is about rational inquiry, not about new age delusions. We're wandering too far off-topic. Interesting exchange, but this is my last response.

Show "Let Snowcrash be the mental health expert" by zmzmzm

I do think

that Lloyd England is a conspiratorial thinker, yes. I judge people on what they believe: if you believe the earth is run by shape shifting lizards then I'm not really impressed by your ability for discernment. I think it is this mindset that may have caused Lloyd to react to CIT the way he did. I do not blame Lloyd for anything. I do blame CIT for jumping to conclusions, labeling him the "first known accomplice" and claiming he had made a "virtual confession". What happened there was uncalled for.

Let's stick to facts indeed, not wishy-washy allegations against witnesses of being involved in mass murder.

By the way, I am currently being threatened by e-mail by Craig Ranke for speaking about flyover here. I promised Craig in 2009 I'd debate him and to cease discussing CIT online until the debate but had to rescind on that promise for health reasons. I then took a time out for a year, recovering, as you may remember. Craig is now threatening to 'expose' my 'lies'. That's how it works, zmzmzm, ever been in that position?

A definition- sort of

I think David Icke might be a fool.
A fool acts crazy and gets paid- tick and tick
the thing about a fool is they can tell the truth without getting their head chopped off-
amongst the mumbo jumbo he spouts that has us mostly screaming "get it away from me ! " like superman with kryptonite or the wicked witch of the east with water... there is mixed some fact
now many of us feel that mixing fact with straight up .... well, very out there stuff (queen's a lizard!) is something that can make us in 911tm look like nutters but at the same time , when no-one else had, to my knowledge, the fool mentioned the project for a new american century on national uk tv in a follow up terry wogan show.
personally i'd like to see newsreaders reading out "the news today- researchers have compiled sworn testimony and documented evidence in a book called crossing the rubicon that contradicts the official story of 9/11"
but that's not happening
so better someone than no-one
better a fool than no-one at all
and that rhymes

- the fact that the fool spouts truth sometimes is just normal for a fool and i expect some will have thought "this guys mad but what was that he just mentioned- i might not look him up as he's a nut job but i might look up PNAC"
few i know but road to 9/11 truth was via severe drinking after a wedding and somehow a cousin planted a seed of... curiosity in my mind by showing me loose change
teetotal since 3 years now- maybe harsh reality via 911 truth sobers one up! maybe i just outgrew a phase!

im sure ive offended people of all kinds- sorry, im sure there was a nicer way to put it but there's a war on for your mind so have a piece of mine!
(and my mrs is into alien stuff- love her to bits but does my head right in!- just got to make it past 2012 and all being well she'll back down and find another hobby!)

for the benefit of the , well, perhaps those not getting my humour- the queen isnt a lizard- sorry maam! you're a bald ape like ther rest of us!


the fool spouting occasional truth doesn't discredit us

us associating with the fool would discredit us- of course

so, poor fool - he must be castigated as i have done here

he speaks truth too sour

Everyone believes something that someone else thinks is crazy

I'll make it simple to save time:

People who believe in God think Atheists are deluded.
Atheists believe people who do believe in God are deluded.

There are endless examples similar to the above.

WTC 7 in freefall is an admitted fact. There is no need for any further discussion to justify a new, impartial investigation with subpoena powers.



I applaud your attempt at applying calm and reasoned logic to this question. Unfortunately you appear to be missing some points and without them, no matter how logical your process, the outcome will be flawed. Please give this your serious consideration.

[I shortened this to 2 points because I thought the previous point 1 was not worth arguing about and I like short posts.]

1. You say there are: "ten very compelling witnesses testifying to a North path." and "no good (solid, reliable, what ever you wish to call them) witnesses situated below the South path." This is completely false because every witness to the impact is a witness to the south path. This is because the direction of damage is consistent with the south path but rules out the north path. Clearly the witnesses to a north path, overwhelmed by south path witnesses, were in some way deceived. There are a substantial number of very sound eye witnesses who have been interviewed and may be heard saying they saw the plane hit, who were in an ideal position to determine that it did hit. A good example is Albert Hemphill. Listen to him saying "the plane passed over my right shoulder" "it cleared the bridge" (that must be the overpass of VA27 over Columbia Pike) "It piled in between the first and second floor" and "I saw one plane and I saw it hit. It didn't pull up. It didn't turn left. It didn't turn right. It went right into the Pentagon." His position, looking out of a window high up in the Navy Annex was perfect. He couldn't have got it wrong. And there are others.

2. You assert: "The plane would have to be coming in high enough to clear an antenna upstream from a set of light poles that it allegedly struck and knocked over. But, it would have to descend sharply, then abruptly level off before striking these poles. The g’s required for this would be unreasonably high. Makes no sense. "

"Makes no sense." you say. Here we come to a point about which there can be no dispute. Clearly you have not studied the calculations involved in making this claim though you have been given the opportunity to do so. Clearly you are relying on calculations offered by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. The Pilots claim is flawed in three ways. First they assume the pilot would be stupid enough to fly in a straight line from the VDOT antenna to the first light pole before pulling up, then they get the elevation of the ground wrong in positioning the first pole hit, finally they get the calculation of the g-force required wrong. They claim a g-force of 10.14. In actual fact it would be possible to fly with a g-force no higher than about 1.6 or 1.7, depending on how much clearance you wanted to give over the VDOT antenna. The new decoding of the FDR file shows that the ideal course was not flown and a maximum force of 2.26g was briefly recorded, still well below the legal limit for the plane, 2.5g. To save you some trouble with this I will email you a spreadsheet which sets out the calculation. I look forward to your response.


I’m glad you agree that you were among those who “singled out” the one, least important question with your endorsement.

You say that your singular support was warranted for the purpose of “keeping a set of eyewitness testimony” and to counter an effort to discredit those who gather this critical information. That’s a pretty vague explanation for having taken the step of making a supposedly controversial endorsement.

Where was this eyewitness testimony going, that you had to rescue it for the good of all? Are you working to preserve all sorts of critical 9/11 information, or just this stuff? I think that we can all agree that the “set of testimony” was not at any risk whatsoever. It will still be here years from now, after all the endorsements are forgotten. No amount of disagreement will destroy real information.

On your second justification, what happens when attempts are made to discredit 9/11 investigators? For those of us who have lived that reality for many years, the answer is - we go on, in many cases with increased resolve. We don’t campaign for endorsements and our efforts to gather information are not in the least affected by such efforts.

Luckily for all of us, the truth is not a popularity contest.


Charlie Giles, a good friend of mine, as dead, was detrimental to this endeavor as well.

Show "Agreed...this post is self-limiting..." by Robin Hordon

The Baker's Dozen Question...

Very shortly after 9/11/2001 itself, the world was informed that the Pentagon attack air vehicle [presumed to be AA77] made a significant right descending turn in order to strike the Pentagon at the recently modified and reinforced section of the Pentagon.

The TURN has been verified by the FAA's ATCs who watched it happen live on their radar scopes at Dulles Tower/Potomac Tracon...and even Chris Stephenson an ATC at National Tower says that he saw AA77 in a descending right turn outside his tower window when the air vehicle was just north of National Airport.

[Of course, at that time this air vehicle was NOT YET assumed to be AA77...and ALL parties were still using the term "UNIDENTIFIED" when describing this primary radar target. Stephenson COULD have ID'd the air vehicle as being PAINTED like an American Airliner...but I do not think that this is part of his report or testimony...IE: that he saw the specific paint job...but its possible.

Anyway, that Stephenson has stated that he "saw AA77" simply proves that the media was deliberately misled by the HI PERPS with the design to MAKE it into AA77, and that eventually the world came to PRESUME that this unidentified target WAS AA77...and this perception has taken a deep hold.]

Anyway, the Thirteenth Question:

We were informed very early on that AA77? started this descending turn from 7000 feet and my question is:

What is the original source of this information...IE: WHERE did the 7000 foot number come from?

It seems to me that there are only two possible answers to this question:

1. From the FDR [as unreliable as it is]...

BUT...its my understanding that the FDR was NOT READ until several days after 9/11...and that the 7000 foot number was put into play BEFORE the FDR was read.

2. From a military air vehicle's IFF [Identification-Friend-or Foe] radar transponder on board the UNIDENTIFIED primary target.

Its important to note that the FAA transponder on board the REAL AA77 was shut off over eastern Ohio and no transponder signals were ever seen from the original AA77 after that.


I seem to remember that Ari Fleischer and others [perhaps Mineta etc.] were given briefings about the "intended destination" along with radar data about this unidentified primary radar target WELL BEFORE any other people or press...and again, BEFORE the FDR was read. However, I am not positive about this and I believe that ABC has a report about the 7000 feet but again, its BEFORE the FDR was read...I think?

That this "unidentified?" primary radar target started its descent at 7000 feet is the type of information that could have accidentally slipped out of NORAD, The Secret Service or the PEOC without the usual and competent "filtering"...or...

It could have been slipped out quietly by a truthteller employee/participant who KNEW that it was a military air vehicle that Mineta and the "young man" were monitoring...and that person wanted someone to pick up on this lead...which I have done with this question.

To repeat: What was the original source of the 7000 foot altitude from which AA77?...aka....the "unidentified primary target" started its descent from?

IF...this answer is NOT from the FDR...then its from a military air vehicle.

So, along with Honegger's early explosion time, these would become "game changers" regarding what happened at the Pentagon and what happened to AA77.

And YES...there is a viable scenario and location where AA77 could have been "swapped out" and a replacement air vehicle could have been "swapped in".

I am NOT making the claim that this happened...I AM asking a key question here...and IF it turns out that it was NOT the original AA77 that crashed at the Pentagon, then these will be two very important leads for further research and analysis.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

No personal attacks here, please

[This comment was originally in response to a comment thread that has been removed, however, the points are still relevant as the underlying negative sentiments appear to be unresolved. ]

Personal attacks and thread hijacking are against the rules.

While you are entitled to express your opinion, there is no reason to escalate by linking to another site and another subject just to continue whatever personal feud you may have with another individual.

Please refrain from doing so from this point forward or you will find yourself in moderation (with freedom comes responsibility).

A note to everyone, please do not engage in personal attacks upon anyone, this also includes baiting and badgering people for any reason. I would also encourage everyone to limit the amount of sarcasm (clearly labeled or not) that you use to make your points on this site. It really isn't that difficult to make the same points in a civil manner is it?

I think the standard everyone should use is to consider what someone new to 9/11 truth and just becoming aware of the 9/11 truth movement would think if they come to one of the most dynamic and useful sites and find a bunch of alleged activists and researchers engaging in personal attacks, baiting, badgering and streams of sarcastic comments.

It is possible to disagree with someone and be civil, yes?

Remember, brothers and sisters, it takes two sides to create division and thus divisiveness.

This is not to say that I think we should all be singing kumbaya in a big, all inclusive tent. It means take the high road and let the facts and your logic win the day. In the end this is what will win the public over to the truth.

The truth shall set us free (we still have quite a long way to go in finding out the truth and there is always the next level of truth to pursue, too).

Love is the only way forward (one does not have to like someone to love them, btw).

Be the change you want to see in the world ( I have no interest in a snark-filled world, do you?).

Good job moderating

Removing that thread was wise.

FTR - One of the other moderators removed the thread,

while I was commenting on it, which I think was the wisest and simplest thing to do.

My original comment was very similar to the one above, btw.

We're trying to keep the site as dynamic as possible while maintaining some degree of civility and decorum, but some don't seem to understand the rules and guidelines (or perhaps feel that they are entitled to break them with impunity).

It can be a difficult balance at times.

Thank you for your continued interest in the site and work on behalf of 9/11 truth.


John W. Wright

I am glad that 911blogger is here. Thanks ya'll

A lot of new people visit 911blogger. I want people to become informed and to also observe a friendly community of fellow truthers.

I think the standard everyone should use... to consider what someone new to 9/11 truth and just becoming aware of the 9/11 truth movement would think if they come to one of the most dynamic and useful sites and find a bunch of alleged activists and researchers engaging in personal attacks, baiting, badgering and streams of sarcastic comments.

You asked why Cheney was giving orders...

I do not have the source handy, but the Office of the Vice President is actually chartered with responsibility for military "preparedness" of US armed forces. As a consequence, for example, this gives him the cover needed to authorize and plan "drills" such as those "drills" in play that morning.

Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?

"Why are these questions NOT being pursued by independent investigators? "

The "Cheney" question, as you pose it, cannot be answered, because it makes no sense. It makes no sense because it is based on the false promise that Cheney tracked Flight 77. He did not track it because he was unable to track it , like the air traffic controllers from Washington Center who unsuccesfully searched for a primary radar echo of Flight 77 on its way back to Washington. This has been pursued and discovered by an independent investigator:

"Where was Flight 77 after 8:56?"

Do you think reinforcing the "It was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon" dogma is a "good way to encourage people to question 9/11, and to bring justice? ", despite plenty of counterevidence?

I don't.

Here's what the OP manager of Washington Center told NEADS

at 9:32:


"American 77, at flight level 3-5-0 [35,000 feet]. However, they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened."

"so what we have done at the surrounding centers here is tell everyone to look out for limited codes, primary targets, or whatever the case may be. And that was the last time, that was about fifteen minutes ago since I talked to the Indianapolis Center Operations Manager."

Check out the NORAD Tapes, Channel 4, for yourself. Listen to it. This is what the manager said. Washington Center did not spot a primary (transponder-off plane) going back from Kentucky to Washington. How could Cheney track something that was not there?

The NORAD Tapes..

If you are referring the NORAD tapes on which the 9/11 Commission based their account on, I am not so sure we can rely on anything they tell us. The accounts taken from the tapes vastly differ from the 2nd and long standing time frames given by NORAD (and numerous other published reports) back on Sept. 18, 2001. That timeline stood as official for 3 years until the 9/11 Commission Report was issued. These may have been doctored in order to absolve the military from any responsibility for not responding.

Norman Mineta's testimony clearly states that a plane was by tracked by Cheney while in the PEOC. How it was being done is unclear although I would speculate that it was being tracked and info relayed to the PEOC via the E4B seen flying over the pentagon shortly after it was struck.


Have you ever listened to the NORAD tapes?

The audio flles as they were first published by the Loose Change Crew - not any former accounts , summaries, transcripts etc. - are probably the most authentic source of what happened on this day.
They are certainly not faked, the people talking there are no actors pretending to sit in a NEADS bunker. You can virtually look them over the shoulder what they did in response to the hijacks.

It`s possible that things were cut out. But the words of the manager of Washington Center are not being cut out. They are there, and they clearly send Mineta's recollections that Flight 77 was tracked by FÁA radar into the realm of fantasy.

By the way - and I wonder when people will finally realize it, *sigh* - Mineta contradicts himself. According to his own account, he arrived at the White House when people were running out. This was at 9:42. Impossible for him to arrive at the PEOC bunker before 9:50.


People were running out of the Executive Office Building and people were coming out of the White House. The EOB was evacuated earlier, was it not?

(Between 9:20 a.m. and 9:27 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Transportation Secretary Mineta Reaches Bunker, Meets Vice President Cheney

Besides, the conversation between Cheney and the military aide could not have involved flight 93, it was never '10 miles out' of Washington.

The EOB was not evacuated earlier

People were running out of the EOB AND running out of the White House at the same time (about 9:42, after the Pentagon attack) . All available sources confirm that, including live TV pictures. And Mineta confirms it, too. Which is proof that he didn't enter the White House before the Pentagon attack.

I find it remarkably that so many people advise to "concentrate" on the WTC demolition because the Pentagon case looks too opaque for them but at the same time cite Mineta as the most reliable and credible witness despite many problems in his account.

You don't have to be concerned about anybody's "account"

Because NIST admits freefall and freefall is impossible in a gravity driven collapse.
That closes the case to anyone who understands elementary physics and isn't emotionally blocked.


was evacuated at 9:26

This is ridiculous

you state "the EEOB was evacuated at 9:26" (refusing all other available sources) as if this is undeniable evidence. As the source for this undeniable evidence you send me (and the interested reader) to an old 911blogger link with dozens of comments and you want me (and the interested reader) to browse through this stuff to find the evidence for the 9:26 evacuation?

Come on, man. This is ridiculous.

By the way, the question is not when the EEOB was evacuated but when people started to RUNNING OUT there. Can you provide me (and the interested reader) a source that people were running out of the EEOB at 9:26? If you do, please tell me the accurate place where the information is obtainable (comment #12 or so).

Not very ridiculous

I refer to the TSD timeline (page 6) in this FOIA request as discussed in this post by Aidan Monaghan. That''s the only timeline that makes the slightest bit of sense. However, I understand you may disagree with me on that. There are other comments from later interviews with special agents that support the later timeline, however, upon close inspection of the document, you'll see it's littered with contradictions, critical (possibly timeline and Mineta-related) sections that are blacked out, in what looks like a deliberate cover up effort for Dick Cheney.

How about this though. If the 50 miles out, 30 miles out, 10 miles out story by Mineta wasn't related to AA 77, then it must have referred to UA 93, correct?

What reference point would have been discussed? I could imagine Camp David, but Camp David is 80 miles from the crash site of UA 93. Washington DC, obviously, is even further out.

View Distance between UA 93 crash site and Camp David in a larger map

Nothing in that FOIA request Secret Service report even remotely makes plausible the notion that the Mineta/young man incident involved UA 93. The "shelter" has the same facilities as the PEOC, btw.

See also this. Perhaps you could critique that?

Getting more ridiculous

To determine when people were running out of the EEOB we don't need a "TSD timeline" and foolhardy interpretations of it. This incident has been reported by all newspapers, news agencies, authors (Ruchard Clarke), and there is even TV footage, all of them showing that this happened at 9:42, after the Pentagon was hit.

Concerning the "50 miles out, 30 miles out..." the reference point is clearly DC, what else? The official story claims that this target was "phantom flight 93", i.e. something like a radar icon of Flight 93 without the associated plane. We don't need to believe the official story here - it was probably a *real* plane (Flight 93 or something else) and certainly no radar icon. But this is a thing Mineta didn't like to speak of.

More background here:

Mineta and the elusive plane crash at Camp David.

As you wish

This is a complex issue. I do take the TSD timeline seriously, and I don't think that's foolhardy, it think it merits attention. No need for condescension, especially not if you nonchalantly sidestep some obvious problems, also discussed in the link to George Washington's blog. You do realize there are two locations here; the 'shelter' and the PEOC, and Cheney was in the 'shelter' (an intermediate location also referred to as 'the bunker') before AA 77 hit?

I will read your blog post, of course. Could you at least clarify this: flight 93 never came closer than... say 120 miles out of Washington before it crashed. How could this have been the plane discussed in the incident? Are they 70 to 110 miles off?

Looking through Lexis Nexis, Bob Woodward, among others, explains it as two incidents: one with AA 77 approaching DC, and one with UA 93 coming in. In both cases, someone was updating Cheney, but only in the last case did a military aide come in and ask if the order still stood. Are you aware of this? What's your take on that? [Edit: I see this is addressed in your blog post, nevertheless, maybe you would still like to answer]

Edit 2: Oh no... you're promoting the bunk 'mystery-plane-which-landed-at-Cleveland' theory.. Sigh. Nevermind... I'm not going to get into that, I truly have better things to do. (Sorry)


1) Of course the PEOC and the "shelter" (an corridor underneath the White House) are different locations.
Cheney was probably 20 minutes in the corridor before moving to the PEOC. Out of the corridor he was able to do what he want (telephone calls etc.) without being documented. But Mineta was not in the corridor. So what?

2) You apparently haven't checked the NORAD tapes or the FAA Command Center transcripts. Multiple hints that UA 93 was being tracked after the Shanksville explosion, at places southeast of Shanksville. Do you buy the official story that this was only a false radar blip of UA 93?

3) Yes, I'm the author of "The Cleveland Airport Mystery". Michael Ruppert is probably a too lousy investigator for you to motivate you to get into the matter? He has featured the stuff in his bestseller "Crossing the Rubicon" over two pages and classifies it as excellent research. Have you not read "Crossing the Rubicon?"


I've read "Crossing the Rubicon". That was long ago, though, I can't remember Ruppert's Cleveland coverage. Honestly, I don't think I've looked closely enough into the possibility that there might have been a phantom track for UA 93, approaching DC. Especially not recently. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Robin Hordon should know all about this though, and he has also explained the difference between a 'track' and 'something else' in the past... There were two terms: one for an actual radar return, and one for a projected course. As for the rest... I'm discussing with Mr. Sarns at the moment... I can't do two things at the same time. For now, I yield to you, Woody.

Just for the record: "Crossing the Rubicon"

Ruppert writes (p. 587):

"Excellent research by a German independent journalist using the name Woody Box, however, raised another far more interesting possibility. In looking at what happened to Delta’s Flight 1989, believed to have been a fifth hijacking, Box discovered that the Cleveland airport was mysteriously shut down, and that two airliners (instead of the reported one) landed there on the morning of September 11th."

It follows a two-page quote from my original article. After that, Ruppert goes on:

"The question almost asks itself. Was Plane X Flight 77? Was it Flight 93? There were even reports that Flight 93 was confirmed to have landed at Cleveland’s airport, which I did not have time to chase down. (I can’t do everything.)"

The reason Ruppert liked the "Cleveland Airport Mystery" is probably because he was a cop, and as a cop you often have to clarify space-time discrepancies. This is exactly what I did with Cleveland: I made out space-time discrepancies. And these discrepancies point to the existence of a doppelganger of Delta 1989 at Cleveland Airport.

Just in case you (when you're finished with Sarns") or someone else decides to go into the stuff: here's "The Cleveland Airport Mystery" for Beginners:

This just in

Someone fired shots at the Pentagon early Tuesday in what security officials described as "a random event."

No one was injured in the predawn incident in which shots were fired into two windows at the sprawling Defense Department just across the Potomac River in suburban Virginia.

Steven Calvery, director of the civilian Pentagon Force Protection Agency, told reporters that authorities would have to re-evaluate their assessment if they find the incident was part of a larger plot. He said authorities did not yet have any suspects.

Calvery said a number of his officers reported hearing five to seven shots fired at about 4:55 a.m. EDT near the south parking lot of the Pentagon. The building, and roads leading to the property, were shut down as officers did an initial sweep of the area. They were reopened 45 minutes later.


Officials said it was the first incident of its kind since early March, when a gunman opened fire at a security checkpoint into the Pentagon in a point-blank attack that wounded two police officers.

The shooter, identified as John Patrick Bedell, 36, of Hollister, Calif., was shot by police and died hours after being admitted to a hospital in critical condition. Authorities had no motive for the shooting, but there had been signs that Bedell may have harbored resentment for the military and had doubts about the facts behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Shots hit Pentagon; Police label it ‘random event’

One of the Sunstein set-ups? we go again...

Brace ourselves for another volley of accusations.

So, it turns out that shaping the 9/11TM into speaking for peace...and

...taking on We Are Change's CONFRONTATIONAL TACTICS...may...

...have been a pretty good read about being set-up for future cointelpro falls...

...dontcha think?

Keep alert here gang...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Thanks Kevin!

As I said on my Face Book page "When Kevin talks I listen".

As all you long time activists for 9/11 Truth know there are simply is no hard working and more logical men for 9/11 Truth than Kevin Ryan. When he gets involved in an issue it is normally soon resolved! Unfortunately as Dr Legge has found out this issue is not easily resolved even when your motives are pure and your logic sound!

Good luck and welcome to the front lines of "true faction" as the disruptor's like to call us:) Our "faction" for a better word is about hard evidence and clear objectives; the most important of those objectives include justice for the 9/11 victims and peace on earth. By the way there is no faction "true faction" but there are people who see logic and what battles and subjects are worth promoting and which ones are weak and divisive:) The idea that there are factions has been promoted by the disruptor's seemingly because they want the situation to be a choice between them and us...the rest of us!

Kindest regards John

Other facts:

1) Kevin Ryan has apparently forgotten to talk about the military airplane E-4B that flew over the city of Washington. This is nevertheless one of the important facts of this morning of September 11, 2001. Quote of the study of Mark H. Gaffney about this airplane: “If the E-4B was on a legitimate mission on September 11, why does the military deny its presence? Why would they do this? When people lie it is generally because they have something to hide. Is the US military any different? »

2) Norman Mineta Testimony

“Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission about his experience in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as American Airlines flight 77 approached the Pentagon was not included in the 9/11 Commission Report. In one colloquy testified by Mineta, the vice president refers to orders concerning the plane approaching the Pentagon: “There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant.

Commissioner Lee Hamilton queried if the order was to shoot down the plane, to which Mineta replied that he did not know that specifically.”

It is obvious that the "9 / 11 Commission" should have identified and questioned this young man to ask him obvious questions. What were the orders of Dick Cheney? Why the plane that approached of Pentagon could not be slaughtered? Why, if it was not possible to shoot down this airplane, there was no order to evacuate the Pentagon?

This young man is still alive today?

3) The faillure to defend the sky on 9 11:

A comical aspect!

“Interestingly, at the May 2003 hearing, NORAD officials claimed that the fighters from Langley were sent to fly over the Atlantic Ocean instead of heading directly toward Washington. [NORAD Testimony, 5/23/03] This would jibe with “Honey” ‘s account of the fighters being too far east. NORAD officials admitted that had the fighters traveled faster and headed directly toward Washington, they could have theoretically arrived there before Flight 77. But NORAD claims the fighters had to fly over the ocean because NORAD didn’t have jurisdiction over land. [NORAD Testimony, 5/23/03] Said NORAD Commander Major General Larry Arnold: “Anything that takes off in the United States is considered a law enforcement issue—- or was considered a law enforcement issue, prior to Sept. 11.” [AP, 5/23/03 (C)] Arnold added, “And, of course, [the fighters were] out over water because our mission, unlike law enforcement’s mission is to protect things coming towards the United States.” [NORAD Testimony, 5/23/03] This makes no sense, especially given that earlier in the day fighters flew over land to reach New York City, and that NORAD officials decided to override official regulations from the first word of the first hijacking. Were they hoping the hijacked planes would oblige them and join their fighters out over the ocean? If we add “Honey” ‘s account suggesting that the Langley fighters actually took off later than admitted and headed toward New York City, and if we believe NORAD’s original explanation that no fighters at all scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit, then we can at least see an explanation as to why the Langley fighters would have been headed toward New York City. But the level of incompetence this implies is breathtaking. »

Other important fact : The "9 / 11 Commission" has admitted that NORAD lied. See: “9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon”

Scapegoating Norad (George Washington's Blog):

Did I miss something that the "young man" said?

I must have missed the recollection or testimony where Mineta stated that the "young man" came into the PEOC and told Cheney that:

... AA77 was 50m miles out...

...that AA77 was 30 miles out...

...and that when AA77 was 10 miles out...

...the young man asked about standing orders.

I'm sorry, I just missed this part of the story...DUHHH!

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingsyton, WA USA

Of course (excuse me for my

Of course (excuse me for my poor English, I am a foreigner) I'm not sure that the aircraft mentioned by the young man was Flight 77 and personally I do not think that Flight 77 crashed at pentagon because of some physical and testimonial evidence. There were no major jet fuel fire at the impact zone, there was no seismic signal on impact, there was no crater, despite an official speed impact of 530 miles per hour and the fact that for the wings of a Boeing 757 could enter in the first floor of the pentagon, the plane had to be in a slightly downhill course. There were witnesses at the Pentagon that have been surprised by the lack of aircraft debris and witnesses they thought was the detonation of explosives at the time of the impact. Images of a crater caused by a plane crash in Iran.

Another plane crash in Iran :

 "TEHRAN, July 26 (Xinhua) -- Head of Iran's Civil Aviation Organization, Mohammad Ali Ilkhani, said that "high speed" was the cause of the plane crash in northeastern Iran on Friday, the official IRNA news agency reported on Sunday.

Upon technical investigations and reading the CVR (Black box) of the Russian-made Ilyushin Il-62 plane, it was found that "high speed" was the cause of incident, Ilkhani said Saturday evening according to the report.

"The investigation shows there was a kind of disorder in the cockpit and the pilot had no full concentration to control the plane," he said, adding that the plane should have had a speed between 145 and 165 miles during landing, while the investigation says its speed was 197 miles that moment. »

So the accident was caused by an excessive speed of 197 mph when the plane neared the ground! But we are supposed to believe that the Boeing 757 that would have struck the first floor of the Pentagon approached the ground at a speed of 530 mph. Recall of the purposes of the captain Russ Wittenberg:

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's.  And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky.  I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." 

It was imperative that the «  9 11 commission » identifies for questioning, the young man quoted by the testimony of Norman Mineta. The important fact is that the the aircraft which he had spoken (I do not know if this aircraft was or not flight 77) was not shot down and there was no evacuation order of the Pentagon.

Why can't I see the plane in the fab five frames?

I have heard discussions that indeed you can see a plane but to be honest I have not. Do I say that no plane hit the pentagon, absolutely not.

If a 757 did hit the pentagon, why not release the video showing it? Could someone prove it was not the right plane from the video? What purpose would it serve not to show the video. Perhaps so that when a bunch of no plane theories become representative of the 911 truth movement they could be debunked? Maybe, but that would also mean that the fab five frames were perhaps modified to create or fuel the controversey.

Regarding the pilot, few people believe that Hani Hanjour could have flown the plane based upon the final approach of the alleged crash. So what does that mean? A human pilot was going to potentially miss the target and had to turn the plane around to hit it? The below average hijacker pilot decided to take the hard approach to prove he was better than those jerks who wouldn't rent him a plane thought he was. Or is our remote control technology that advanced these days that it surpases human capabilities with faster than human computations. I recall the remote control technology goes way back and was used or better yet messed up in the Death of Joe Kennedy.

Please consider these questions are intended in a serious and honest pursuit of increased awareness and are not meant to be divisive or condesending.

You can't see a plane?

Neither can anyone else. You shouldn't have to "try" to see a plane. A plane is a big thing and it does not look like a dandelion or an apple tree.

Show "Why doesn't anyone want to address this issue?" by peacefulwarrior
Show "Over the last few weeks I have gotten about 30 negative votes" by zmzmzm



I will

[dignify the five frames with a comment]

This is a reasonable approximation of what happened, although I do still see some flaws. I'm sure I will be attacked as a 'shill' for posting this, but I guess that goes with the territory of not going along to get along.

blurry video

I guess everyone has long ago come to the conclusion that the video is too vague to prove anything. We don't know the frame rate so do not know whether there should be another image of the plane. We don't know whether it has been doctored. To me it just seems to fit in with whole Pentagon evidence story - it is ambiguous and no doubt deliberately so, in order to get good people arguing about what happened that day. We still are. The plan to get us arguing has been very successful.


Have you considered that the position where the light poles were clipped gives you height information for the plane's wings? Have you ever included that in any of your flight path calculations? I would find that rather interesting. Just an idea.

pole impact heights

Yes Snow Crash. Send me your email address and I will send you a spreadsheet where the final seconds of the flight are graphically displayed.

You hit the nail on the head

"Let them discuss themselves to death" has been very successful.

First notification of 77 to military @ 9:27am

According to air traffic controller Colin Scoggins (Boston), the first notification of Flight 77 to the military was made at 9:27am by Colin.
"The controllers at Indy Center assumed the plane had crashed...." says Colin.
Colin says that he will answer emails and any questions.

See 911Blogger node -

Colin Scoggins - Historycommons

On Sept 11, 2010 there was a symposium in Dallas with a panel of air traffic controllers who were handling situations on 9/11/01.
C-SPAN recorded this event entitled "Navigating Chaos: Aviation’s Response on 9/11".
WATCH here...

Details about the event

This requires...

...a very comprehensive analysis and reply.

Most likely I will create a separate blog entry as there is some very meaningful stuff here.

However, after watching the ATC group, I will make the same point that I made with Bronner's Vanity Fair article...AND...the movie...UA93...and that is that:

All those responsible for NOT DEFENDING the USofA on 9/11 are constantly "moving the critical times" downstream so much so that an uninformed reader [or a pathetic kiss-ass slob like the guy/plant who allegedly so admired these three] will easily understand that after all, it was too late for anyone to do anything about the "hijackings"...

Wesley Baker wrote an article about my feelings about "The First Fifteen Minutes of September 11, 2001"...and my concerns still stand...even though wave after wave of those responsible pat each other on the back for doing a great job AFTER the critical time period [which indeed the FAA's ATCs certainly did in landing all the aircraft so quickly and safely].

Also, Lynn Spencer was given special access to NORAD [and more] in comparison to what other investigators were allowed to get.

A brief look at her background, training, certification and public-private? employment gives a clue as to why...she is a very dependable "Sarah Palin" soothing face.

Its my understanding that in her book, Spencer tried to get Cheney off the hook by noting that Cheney and Mineta were talking about UA93 being 80 miles out instead of the UNKNOWN primary target being 50-30-10 miles out. This is a big problem for me and I have to do more reading to get at this issue properly.

But, most might agree that her questioning was BEYOND marshmallow was embarrassingly sticky-gooey-feely-touchy...ostensibly to get the audience AWAY from dealing with critical facts such as TIMING OF EVENTS...including HISTORICALLY LATE response times.

..and to get them into worshiping their new HEROES!

Also, it appears that the HI PERPS are reading our stuff because of the number of times this panel said AA77...AA77...AA77...I think they set a world record.

Actually, this heartens me and makes me think that we are really on the right track with our questioning of the events at the Pentagon and with AA77.

The "National Approach/Tracon" [which I have understood was called the Potomac Tracon] controller was a dude who was involved WAY AFTER THE FACT...but he added the required suspense, emotion, and bravado to the conversation.

Never knew that Sliney was a I have a clue as to why he was positioned at THAT job on his first day..."good legal answers".

Interesting panel...and please remember the acronym ALTitude REserVation...which was in place over the New England Region on 9/11.

Its a reserved military airspace playground in which they can do anything that they want...and fly anything in their that they need...without the FAA or anybody else knowing one single thing about such secretive ops. Can anyone say E4B"...or...Doomsday Plane?

Another absolutely perfectly fashioned "psy-op" and "disinfo" performance... they are GOOD!

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA USA