“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Namecalling, and Threats

Gregg Roberts

Published January 8, 2011

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

        Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191

        German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

This article is a response to “Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?”, credited to “staff writers” at the Rock Creek Free Press, November 2010 edition, available at:


The “leading 9/11 Truth site” being referred to is 911Blogger.com. The authors of the article critiqued here chose to remain anonymous, and the article’s title doesn’t lend itself to an easily pronounceable acronym. Therefore I will refer to the article’s authors, along with their vocal message board sympathizers and Barrie Zwicker, as The Complainers. We will abbreviate Citizen Investigation Team as “CIT” and their video National Security Alert as “NSA” (noting the irony).

I normally prefer the high ground when it comes to accusations regarding intentions. However, since the Complainers routinely impute sinister motives to their critics, the reader must consider whether that behavior is more consistent with an intention to support or subvert the overall agenda of the 9/11 Truth Movement.


The Complainers’ article, like NSA itself, is fraught with logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty. Examples are discussed in the following sections:

A Running Ad Hominem........................................................................................................................... 2

A Key Exaggeration................................................................................................................................. 3

False Statements and Exaggerations........................................................................................................ 4

“There was no [plane] wreckage at the Pentagon”....................................................................................... 4

“CIT came along and proved [that] the plane flew away”.............................................................................. 7

“The leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence”.............................................................. 8

“Zwicker is an expert on the subject of infiltration of social movements.”...................................................... 9

“Many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without

   explanation or cause”............................................................................................................................ 9

Refusal to Acknowledge Rational Criticism and Respond to It Rationally...................................................... 10

Appeal to Popular Opinion........................................................................................................................ 11

“Authorities Would Blame Controlled Demolition on Al Qaeda”..................................................................... 11

A Severe Non Sequitur: Poor Political Analysis.......................................................................................... 12

Deceptive Mentions of NSA “Endorsements” or Reviews............................................................................. 13

Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................. 13

Page numbers refer to the attached PDF 


I credited "Doughnut" with the uncertain attribution of the mystery quote to Barry Zwicker, but it has been pointed out to me that blogger "George Washington" was the first to reveal Zwicker's identity, with Zwicker's permission:


A Running Ad Hominem

Most of the article consists of a running ad hominem attack, accusing people who run one of the admittedly “leading” 9/11 Truth websites of wanting to cover up mass murder. The Complainers correctly state “it would be surprising if the perpetrators of 9/11 had not attempted to infiltrate and subvert the 9/11 truth movement”, but knowing this alone does not help to identify the infiltrators. Sorting out the cast of characters requires close examination of the devilish details in order to distinguish among knavish infiltrators, simple fools, and sincere truth-seekers who have been fitted into a well-designed “snitch jacket” in the spirit of COINTELPRO. The implicit assumption of the Complainers is that criticizing the investigative quality of CIT’s work is the same as working to cover up 9/11 – a manipulative appeal to emotion. The accusation of disloyalty echoes the McCarthyists and their modern-day brethren. It comes from the same playbook used by those who defend the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, for which 9/11 served as the pretext, by calling 9/11 activists “terrorist sympathizers.”

The Complainers drew warnings from 911Blogger moderators, for their vicious and divisive attacks on other researchers, the real cause of the banning of which the Complainers … complain. A moderator told them that this was one of the reasons that they were banned. Yet this explanation brought no humility or lessened outrage to the Complainers. Is their reaction simply an inability to see their own misbehavior as others see it, or something more? Does it perhaps come from the idea that the best defense is a good offense? (Readers with a well-developed sense of consistency will understand my indulgence in some questions regarding the Complainers’ intentions, given that they “went there” first.)

Whatever the reason, many comments supportive or critical of CIT/NSA that violated 911Blogger rules were allowed to stand because of the overwork that is endemic to the 9/11 truth movement. Whatever inconsistencies there might have been, in terms of who was allowed to get away with what, say little or nothing about the moderators’ intentions.

A Key Exaggeration

The Complainers write as though the evidence against a large airliner having flown into the Pentagon were strongly in their favor, and they make vastly exaggerated claims for the power and the clarity of that evidence. Jim Hoffman’s essay, The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics, published in October 2004, finds that much of the evidence regarding what hit the Pentagon is inconclusive, and is incapable of being made much better than it is. Since the 9/11 Truth movement is working to uncover the truth about 9/11, against a backdrop of blatant lies that constitute an orchestrated coverup, it is important to deal very cautiously with facts. Deviating from the official story carries a heavy burden of proof, especially in the mind of the public. Speculation lays us open to debunking. Speculation that appears outrageous, and is proved wrong, can paint the whole 9/11 Truth Movement with a broad brush as crazies. We could lose all the hard fought ground we have gained, rendering our solid accomplishments moot. On these grounds, the question of what hit the Pentagon is a self-defeating choice as the focus of any demand for a new investigation. In one of his later analyses Hoffman concludes that “[the] evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757.” He added that while “the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77”, “that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.” We need to be willing to let the official story stand unless the proof to the contrary is extremely solid.

For critiques of the deceptive tactics used by CIT, see:

    * Victoria Ashley, “To Con A Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon 'Magic Show'

     * Chris Sarns, “Summary and Analysis of ‘National Security Alert’

     * Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts vs. CIT Methods by Erik Larson

     * Dawn Vignola’s Account vs. CIT’s Methods by Erik Larson

Here are three essays and a shorter but very recent piece describing what the Pentagon evidence actually shows. They also contain explanations of the severe disadvantages of focusing publicly on the question of what hit the Pentagon, and the benefits of focusing on the evidence that many other key aspects of the official account of what happened at the Pentagon are demonstrably false:

     * Jim Hoffman, “The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows

     * Michael Green, “How They Get Away With It.

     * Frank Legge, “What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth

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

False Statements and Exaggerations

 “There was no [plane] wreckage at the Pentagon”

It’s amazing that people who apparently consider themselves investigative journalists could make a statement like this. There are many pictures of plane wreckage at the Pentagon from 9/11:

Engine Rotor

Engine Compressor

Engine Diffuser

Painted Riveted Aluminium Exterior Skin Riveted Parts Painted Aluminium Exterior Skin Painted Aluminium Exterior Skin

Some people have argued that some of this wreckage did not come from a 757 (though that claim doesn’t withstand scrutiny; see http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html). But to claim that there was no plane wreckage is simply false – and the Complainers obviously should know that it’s false.

“CIT came along and proved [that] the plane flew away”

This is a laughably arrogant claim, considering the many trenchant criticisms of CIT’s methods and reasoning that remain unaddressed, let alone rebutted, many months after such criticisms were published and made known to CIT. Contrary to CIT’s marketing hype, only one witness, Roosevelt Roberts, claimed to have seen a plane fly away from the Pentagon soon after the explosion. CIT does not even describe Roberts’ testimony accurately. Roberts is not a witness to Flight 77 flying over the Pentagon through the explosion. He is a witness to what he considered to be a second plane (and which CIT considers the same plane) flying back in the same general direction from which Flight 77 came. It is only a presumption (and a poorly founded one at that) on the part of CIT and the Complainers that the plane Roberts saw was the same plane that all the other witnesses saw flying toward the Pentagon from the west or southwest.

What are the chances that that presumption is correct? Virtually nil:

  1. There would be no reason for the perpetrators to give all the witnesses on the west side of the Pentagon a chance to see the same plane flying back toward them after the explosion. In fact there would be every reason for them not to do that. Any flyover plane would have continued on, turning to the southeast toward Reagan National Airport, or otherwise remaining out of sight of witnesses who were intended to be fooled by the flight path and explosion.
  2. If the perpetrators had made such a mistake in their plan, or in the execution of the plan, as to have the same plane fly back toward the west or southwest after the impact, many other witnesses besides Roberts would have reported it both to the mass media and to members of the 9/11 Truth movement. Obviously, even more people would have been paying attention to what was going on in the area – given that the Pentagon was in flames, for the first time in history – than were paying attention before the impact/explosion.
  3. The interview with Roberts, of which CIT tries to make so much, was not conducted until many years after the highly politicized events of the day. Any investigator knows that witness statements are far less reliable under such conditions, regardless of whether there is any intent to deceive.

“The leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence”

It is somewhat bizarre for a successful DC-area alternative publication to complain that others are “suppressing evidence” that it has successfully been publishing to a substantial audience for more than a year. It is even more bizarre for the Complainers to choose as their target the managers of a website that provided extensive publicity to help get the Rock Creek Free Press off the ground, even though it allowed the new evidence regarding no-757 to be posted and discussed at length from the beginning.

Wikipedia defines “suppression of evidence” as a “term used in the United States legal system to describe the lawful or unlawful act of preventing evidence from being shown in a trial.” For the Complainers to accuse 911Blogger of “suppression of evidence” is another exaggeration, at best.

The Complainers’ article lauds the NSA DVD, which has surely been circulated to thousands of people. On top of that, thousands if not tens of thousands of comments have been published on various Internet message boards by the Complainers, ensuring that the 9/11 truth movement has had every opportunity to hear about their views.

To the extent that 911Blogger is now “suppressing” what CIT and its supporters submit as evidence, it is mostly because CIT and its supporters consistently violate the rules of civility at 911Blogger. A secondary reason is that most of the evidence and argument submitted in support of no-757 or flyover is poor and weak. No media outlet has any ethical obligation to publish material about which it holds these views. 

“Zwicker is an expert on the subject of infiltration of social movements.”

There is nothing in Zwicker’s published works or his Wikipedia biography that would support this claim. Zwicker has written extensively about how the media shuts out alternative points of view, but not about infiltration of social movements. Even if he had written such works, the argument presented is merely an argument from authority.

Regardless of the question of whether Zwicker should be considered an expert, here is something posted three years ago on 911Blogger and attributed without evidence to Zwicker by “Doughnut”:

…[W]hat’s needed is politically relevant education. Education about agents of all kinds, especially agents provocateurs, their history, who employs them, their tactics… While educating ourselves and others we can simultaneously actively combat agents of the state by refraining from engaging in the types of behaviour they employ to sow dissention: name-calling, rumour-mongering, insinuation. Especially specific name-calling. Refraining from this does not stifle vigorous discussion and debate…. (http://911blogger.com/node/11648)

How unfortunate that Zwicker has now endorsed a group that so regularly and thoroughly disregards this excellent advice. 

“Many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without explanation or cause”

There is no evidence to support this claim. The cause of any bannings has always been violation of the rules. It would be interesting to know who exactly “well respects” those who have been banned, besides their comrades who have also been banned or warned for the same reasons.

911Blogger has not violated anyone’s rights by warning, banning, or deleting posts. No one has the right to post there; membership and posting are privileges, not rights. 911Blogger’s admins do an excellent job of maintaining an environment of civil discussion. They have arguably defended the rights of those who have been defamed by aggressive members (whatever their position on the Pentagon).

People who refuse to behave themselves after several warnings or temporary bannings aren’t welcome at 911Blogger or at any moderated forum, no matter how much they may whine about it and blame others for the natural consequences of their incivility. If more forums rode herd on their members as 911Blogger’s admins do, the Internet would be a far more enjoyable and productive medium in which to engage in research and debate. 

Refusal to Acknowledge Rational Criticism and Respond to It Rationally

One of the hallmarks of crank science and propaganda is a refusal to engage in rational debate in response to rational criticism. The Complainers and CIT have mischaracterized criticisms of their methods and reasoning as “personal attacks,” while freely attacking the personal motives of their critics (snitch-jacketing them), and even threatening them. (It is easier to keep track of the different speakers in the passage below in the original, at http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-and.html.

CIT research[er] Aldo Marquis describes “the ‘team’ that came out after to help reinforce [the 'official story']. ‘John Farmer’, ‘Arabesque’, and ‘Adam ‘Caustic Logic’ Larson’. There is not a doubt in my mind that we are dealing with ops here. I dare Adam Larson to provide a history and proof of his identity. I defy Arabesque to do the same. You can all laugh, but what they do is called ‘neutralization’. This is exactly what COINTEL, does…”

Craig Ranke has also insinuated that Caustic Logic “made a sad attempt to neutralize our info… and he's a bad writer too. It's like he is a cointelpro flunkie but he keeps trying!” While Ranke says “neither [Arabesque or Caustic Logic] are smart enough to be actual cointelpro,” he contradicted himself elsewhere when he called Caustic Logic “a brainwashed minion of the Pickering/Hoffman/Arabasque [sic] squad  rather than a professional.” Ranke sums up his dismay that “people like the Frustrated Fraud have directed so much energy to spin and neutralization [sic] of the facts…”

…Aldo Marquis accused an entire online conspiracy theory forum of a conspiracy to manipulate their research:

“Craig, I told you. ATS [Above Top Secret Forum] is trying to control the information. This thread should not have been moved to our forum. Yet it was. I am not putting up with this spook operation at ATS.”…

… Eventually, the Loose Change Forum finally had enough of CIT:

    “It has been deemed necessary by the bulk of active admins of [the Loose Change] forum that Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke CIT are no longer welcome here. The reasons for banning are as follows:

    - repeated behavior and threads/posts aimed at only causing trouble

    - ignoring of repeated warnings and suspensions

    - starting irrelevant threads in the pentagon section, even after previous ones were removed

    - unnecessary character assassination i.e. “stop seducing married women, Russ" or "go smoke another blunt, Dylan"

    - threatening Dylan that they were going to 'expose' him”…

… # Aldo Marquis: “People like you and Jim Hoffman are dangerous to the truth. You will calmly suggest irrational suggestions in order that you mold the mind of the reader.”

# Aldo Marquis: “…You are such a disgusting entity. Call him you coward. Call him… What does that have to do with all of them placing it on the north side, Disinfobesque? … You are a joke and we're coming for you… Does one actually need to, you crackpot? The plane was on the north side. THAT is the smoking gun. Do you understand anonymous disinfo op? … You are pegged and a joke. You are a tool for the unitiated [sic] and unresearched. You peddle day dreams for these idiots who bought into the honey pot theory or LIHOP. Yet, you are simply that, an anonymous blogger who has never interviewed witnesses, victims, rescuers, firefighters. You've never even set foot in Arlington, huh? You make me sick.”

# Aldo Marquis: “You screwed everybody. You didn't do your homework. You made a movie that got heavily debunked and yet you CONTINUED TO SELL IT!!!!! You should be ashamed of yourself. Now you are releasing watered down version which now makes you and everybody who supported you look like fools. I actually back up my accusations with facts, research, evidence, and logic Dylan. That's not your department.”

For general background on how propagandists manipulate public opinion generally and with regard to 9/11, see:

Enforcing Mediocrity (http://911review.com/denial/bigtent.html)

Personal Attacks (http://911review.com/disinfo/intimidation.html)

Stigmatizing Critique (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/911mysteries/conflating.html

Appeal to Popular Opinion

Another fallacy in which the Complainers indulge is the appeal to popular opinion:

   In the 9/11 truth community, even among those who are not familiar with CIT, the general consensus is that no plane hit the Pentagon….

   [Barrie Zwicker:] Most people in the truth movement that I talk to in the real world are agreed that no plane hit the Pentagon.

Even if these claims are true, so what? Most people in the 9/11 Truth movement are far from having the time and skill to be excellent researchers and to be able to draw reasonable conclusions from ambiguous, hotly contested and often incorrectly stated evidence. Even on far less contentious questions, majorities are often wrong about facts and the conclusions those facts support. Survey after survey show embarrassing levels of ignorance among Americans about history, geography, and especially science.

Note also Zwicker’s swipe at the people who believe it’s more likely that a plane did hit the Pentagon, implying that they are not living in the real world – another ad hominem attack.

 “Authorities Would Blame Controlled Demolition on Al Qaeda”

I credit the Complainers for explicitly stating why they think no-757 at the Pentagon “is in a class by itself”:

“It may be possible to convince the American public that al Qaeda placed bombs in the World  Trade Center towers, but the public will never believe, (nor should they) that al Qaeda planted bombs in the Pentagon.”

How exactly is the first possibility any more reasonable than the second? What are the chances that the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center would ever be admitted by authorities, with the new detail of blaming that demolition on al Qaeda – with broad success?

There is no question of authorities ever blaming any major aspect of the 9/11 attack on anyone other than the official perpetrators. If this is really the Complainers’ reason for considering no-757 to be more valuable in our 9/11 truth efforts than the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, this only provides another example of their poor skills in political analysis.

 A Severe Non Sequitur: Poor Political Analysis

“Evidence of an elaborate deception at the Pentagon is iron clad proof of complicity at the highest levels of government”

In itself, this statement is indisputably true. However, by no means does it follow that we must promote every claim of elaborate deception at the Pentagon regardless of how strongly it is supported by the evidence. It is easy to show that there has been “an elaborate deception involving the Pentagon” without engaging in the factually questionable and emotionally provocative denial that Flight 77 was the attack aircraft:

  • That any plane was able to hit the Pentagon without even being intercepted by fighter jets (not the same as being shot down; but see the last point here).
  • That the incompetent pilot Hani Hanjour executed a tight maneuver with military precision in a passenger jetliner.
  • The failure to target the top brass’s offices in favor of the recently reinforced, barely occupied section. That section housed accountants who might have detected and exposed “off-the-books” spending of some of the missing $2.3 trillion, and the Office of Naval Intelligence, which might have been “out of the loop” of responsibility for the attack while other government employees and contractors were in on it.
  • Cheney’s order not to shoot down the airliner approaching the Pentagon – the “order that still stood.”

Wouldn’t undisputed facts that undermine the official story – or elements of the official story that are inconsistent with each other – be the best evidence for generating a new investigation? Instead, the Complainers keep insisting that we all focus on the most hotly disputed question in the entire 9/11 Truth movement. If people who have already taken the Red Pill and agree that 9/11 was an inside job cannot agree on a specific major element of what really happened, what reason is there to expect this element of our alternative account to convince people who are still in the Matrix? What does the screeching emphasis by the Complainers on a hotly debated point indicate about their skills in political analysis, if not their intentions?

Deceptive Mentions of NSA “Endorsements” or Reviews

The Complainers continue to refer to a brief review of CIT’s NSA video by Richard Gage as an “endorsement,” but they never (to my knowledge) mention that Gage subsequently clarified that he did not endorse the flyover theory, which is the entire point of the video:


In fact, neither Gage’s original review nor his explicit clarification agree with any of the conclusions presented in the video. Gage is a naturally friendly person who does not always express disagreement.

Peter Dale Scott also explicitly clarified that he does not endorse “flyover”:



The Complainers’ fallacies, confusion of facts with conclusions, absurdly improper emphasis on a controversial issue, and various forms of emotional manipulation have gone on long enough. We call upon them all, one more time, to retract and stop their personal attacks, stop rehashing the same arguments, and start taking a scientific and legal approach. Until they do that, and much more conclusive evidence regarding the Pentagon is released than has been released so far, the evidence for the controlled demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers will remain the centerpieces of a rational call for a real 9/11 investigation.


Response to 911Blogger Complainers - Final.pdf1.34 MB

what's the

"www.youtube......." for that Jon?
- cant make it work on my MacBook

Don't blame your MacBook...

It's only a screen shot...

Here's the link to the original short on youtube:


i like


More Dishonesty from Matt Sullivan

"It is even more bizarre for the Complainers to choose as their target the managers of a website that provided extensive publicity to help get the Rock Creek Free Press off the ground..."

At Visibility 9-11, we had also given Matt Sullivan a lot of help in establishing the RCFP. I had Matt on my show as a guest to help promote his efforts as well as a banner sized ad at our website. Matt, in return, started running a small add for the show and website in his paper. I wanted to return the favor so I produced a 60 second commercial that I ran on the show many times. Many listeners here probably have heard it. A commercial such as this would normally cost $300-$500 to produce. Costs include access to royalty free music, voice over talent, sound engineering and production, all of which were present in the commercial I made for Matt and RCFP and provided by me at my expense. I did this out of a sense of helping Matt with some advertising to my listeners as a way of thanking him for running the ad for Visibility 9-11 in his paper. For many months, this informal agreement worked well.

When RCFP started promoting junk science via CIT and Webster Tarpley, I wrote Matt Sullivan an email critical of his editorial decisions. I did not receive a reply and the following month, Matt had pulled the ad for Visibility 9-11 from his paper. I, about the same time, discontinued running the RCFP commercial on the show but left my interview with Matt in my show archives. Since then, Matt has continued to publish very questionable articles, including the fine piece of work referenced in the current article by Gregg Roberts.

Even more disturbing to me, I recently learned that Matt Sullivan is using the commercial I produced for RCFP without my permission. I first heard about this when a friend heard the commercial on the Alex Jones Show. I immediately contacted infowars.com, GCN, and Matt Sullivan to let them know that Matt DOES NOT have my permission to use the commercial I produced. I got a reply from infowars that the commercial was being played by GCN and that they didn't know what the RCFP even was. I never heard back from GCN nor Matt Sullivan and do not know if GCN is still playing the commercial or not.

I also recently learned that Matt has the commercial I made posted at his website and who knows where else he is using my work.

For the record, the commercial I produced for RCFP belongs to me, even though it's an ad for RCFP. All expenses for production and engineering of this mp3 were paid for by me. Matt Sullivan has never asked me for permission to use this file in any way shape or form. Matt Sullivan DOES NOT have my permission to use this file in any way. Any use whatsoever of my work is strictly forbidden and is more dishonesty displayed by Matt Sullivan.

Thank you ResearchGuy's and Gregg Roberts...

Thank you ResearchGuy's and Gregg Roberts for writting this article.

Articles like these are important to publicize

with all the junk and old news being re-spread about the pentagon. Thanks for the great compilation of links and more help confirming what actually happened.

The new research

Interesting how

The no plane at the pentagon crowd waits to start filling up the threads, perhaps till the thread has a certain number of comments? I'm a bit shocked, None here so far......Is this proof that critical analysis of the no plane position has solidified the truth and allowed for no further pontification of old pentagon theories? I sure hope so. Thank you 9/11 Truth News and all the researchers who have helped compile this info to help expose what in some cases is obvious intentional disruption.

This may be a defining moment

The way this is shaking out, it looks like the cream is rising to the top and galvanizing those of us who seek rational, credible inquiry. CIT and "flyover" looks like its headed down the path relegated to Judy Wood and "space beams."


here here!!

or is it 'hear hear!!'? either way, cheers you are right!

Devastating critique

Nice breakdown of the RCFP hit job, CIT and the history. Their own words and actions make them look horrible. Good to have all this collected into one article, w/ the supporting links.

All twelve witnesses that CIT interviewed

who could see the Pentagon said they SAW the plane hit the Pentagon, and a thirteenth said it did not fly over the Pentagon.

CIT claims that Maria de la Cerda is a flyover witness but she said:
North side flyover part 2 at 26:30
Craig: "Does that mean you didn't necessarily see the plane approach, it was already ah, but you do remember seeing an object."
Maria: "Yea, I saw the impact, I saw a fireball."

Sean Boger - Official interview 11-14-01
"I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us and he didn't veer. You just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I watched the plane go all the way into the building."
"So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered my head."

Robert Turcios
NSA Supplemental at 25:30
Craig Ranke: Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?
Robert Turcios: Fly over the Pentagon??? No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. (It) collided.

Sgt. Brooks
NSA Supplemental at 37:56
Craig Ranke: Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: Correct, from this location, where I'm standing right now, directly turning around and watching that plane literally go into…the Pentagon

Sgt Lagasse
NSA Supplemental at 42:38
And it flew into the building with very slight control movements. Yawed substantially into the building. It kinda made a, it kinda swooped into the building, which I guess is indicative but hitting the building, it kinda, you know, smashed into it.

Keith Wheelhouse
2nd plane cover story at 9:36
And then it just evaporated into the side of the building.

Penny Elgas
Interview with Jeffrey Hill - 2010
"It just flew in,. . . . . Just when it got to the wings I think, then there was an explosion which was all black smoke."
Original interview
"I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building."

Terry Morin
Original interview
"As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. . . . . . . The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball

Dawn Vignola
2:00 "I saw the, it was an American Airlines 757 and it came in, it hit the side, it hit the heliport, it came down Columbia Pike and hit the heliport.

Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman
0:40 "And I saw it hit right in front, it didn't crash, it didn't appear to crash into the building."

Vin Narayanan
"At 9:35 a.m., I pulled alongside the Pentagon. With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam. Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon.
The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball."

Joel Sucherman
8:20 "I seen it coming across my windshield and then I'm looking out the side passenger window and that's where I see the collision with the Pentagon.
Craig "So did you see it impact or were there trees in the way?"
Joel "No, there were no trees in the way at all. I did see it impact."

Albert Hemphill
"He hit the Pentagon at about the second window level."


Thanks for speaking out. This was needed, and it is very much appreciated. Glad to have you on the rational side of the Pentagon discussion, where evidence for a hypothesis, as well as lack of counterevidence, are requirements before lending it credence.


Thanks to Michiel and

Thanks to Michiel and everyone else for your compliments.

It would sure be nice if we could get more activists to just hammer away at the best two or three pieces of evidence, with accurate, memorable soundbites. Instead, everybody seems to want to find the 101st piece of evidence that's going to change the whole picture. There isn't any such piece of evidence. With the body of evidence that we already have, most people should spend 90% of their time communicating the best of that evidence in a professional manner to people who are in a position to do something about the problem, and 10% (or less) of their time learning about the latest new evidence.

We lack the kind of leadership (and followership) that was necessary to make the civil rights movement the success that it was, and we are trying to solve what is possibly an even more difficult problem. Nobody who was defending Jim Crow was fighting for their lives, but our opponents are. By the 60s, I don't think Jim Crow was institutionalized from the top of the US power structure on down, but the orchestration and cover-up of 9/11 was and is. And on top of all that, electronic voting gives public officials less to fear from voter dissatisfaction. The fix was in from the beginning.

Given all this, the irrationality of trying to keep the entire movement focused on the question of what hit the Pentagon (especially when the movement itself disagrees so trenchantly about it), should be quite apparent.

Reading through this excellent thread again

I was struck by one small sentence. After quoting Jim Hoffman pointing out that the evidence about what hit the Pentagon was inconclusive, and saying that this should not be surprising, given that the authorities have denied access to a lot of material, Gregg said:

” We need to be willing to let the official story stand unless the proof to the contrary is extremely solid."

That is such a simple, irrefutable proposition. It is the recipe for harmony and a unified front in the 9/11 Truth and Peace movement. Why is it so difficult to accept and follow? There is no solid proof that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. It is not supporting the official story to let it stand provisionally. Still I am attacked for simply letting it stand.

I observe the efforts by P4T to find proof that the FDR file was not from AA77. Their argument is based on the finding that the plane did not appear to depart from the correct gate. It is obvious however that the position reporting system drifts while the plane is on the ground so it cannot be relied upon. It drifts so badly that the plane appeared to taxi over the top of a building on the way to the runway, but that apparenlty does not bother those who try to find reason to dispute the idea that a plane hit the Pentagon.

Sadly the dispute continues. What will be the next illogical argument to divide us?

Poking holes

The argument from the other side is, of course, that there couldn't be any such drift and that therefore the FDR data was faked, and faked poorly, evidenced by data that doesn't make sense.

And indeed, how else could there ever be evidence of forgery without such clues...

It's interesting to see positions shift depending on the promise a certain line of inquiry or piece of evidence holds. It used to be that the FDR proved the plane flew 'too high' to have have hit the Pentagon, even though the last frames were missing, and even though an FDR found at the Pentagon can never support flyover. In those days, I questioned the authenticity of the FDR in the sense that I argued that the FDR data could be falsified, but faking it convincingly would be extremely complex.

Yet... I overlooked the simple argument that the FDR was found at the Pentagon. It could never support anything other than impact. Logical fact. Now that the FDR can be decoded appropriately and now that it refutes flyover, along with the other evidence, the FDR, according to Pilots for 9/11 "Truth" is inauthentic again. A litany of convoluted, obfuscatory arguments are trotted out, none of which amount to much more than nitpicking over details which are equally likely explained by misunderstanding or data reliability problems. It's reminiscent of the various anomalies in the 9/11 phone call records.... falsification-speculation. Why is fabrication of data a better explanation than drift? Because then it agrees with CIT's evidence, but there is something fallaciously circular about this argument. Perhaps better described as a catch 22.

Credibility is absent for Pilots for 9/11 Truth, who have repeatedly made claims that were shown to be ridiculously false, yet these claims were not retracted and continue to be promoted, and new ones emerge constantly. For P4T, bold-faced lies, in fact, are the rule, not the exception. Eventually, P4T's claims are all shot down, but it seems to me like they're simply stalling for time, anticipating the enormous loss of face associated with accepting they were wrong about the Pentagon attack, all along.

There is a very interesting corollary to the evidence for drift

It is clear from the behaviour of the plane in all the 11 prior landings on the FDR file, that drift always occurred while the plane was taxiing. This proves that GPS was not in use. The NTSB report also listed GPS as "not operating or unconfirmed". We see the course of the plane being quickly corrected after it takes off, so we know the system was working using inertial guidance, updated by DME and VOR signals when the plane was high enough.

In the absence of GPS, tracking accuracy based on DME and VOR is quite adequate for travelling from one airport to another, but nowhere near accurate enough for the precision required for landing. For landing, local guidance is provided to align the plane with the runway and set it on the right slope so that it will arrive at the runway at the right height.

Without GPS it would be impossible to control the planes involved in the 9/11 attacks using autopilot with sufficient accuracy to ensure a satisfactory outcome. We can conclude therefore that, at least in the case of the plane which created the AA77 data file, the plane was under human control.

The behaviour of the plane, after it was hijacked, certainly suggests control by an inexperienced pilot.


"The behaviour of the plane, after it was hijacked, certainly suggests control by an inexperienced pilot."

Was that for a while and then was there a change that looked like the inexperienced pilot had been overridden by something/one else ?

Behaviour of plane after hijack

Most of the time the autopilot is in use. The initial turn is perfectly controlled but contains the first clue that a human is involved - there is a step where the turn is steepened. The first descent is also perfectly controlled. Then the autopilot is turned off and the plane behaves very wildly, descending suddenly about 3000 feet, climbing steeply, descending, climbing, descending, climbing. Heading wanders also. Then the plane starts to fly at a constant altitude. This indicates the autopilot has been turned on again, but aparently only in altitude hold mode, as we see the heading, power and speed fluctuate. After the next descent the autopilot is again turned off. Never again is the autopilot fully engaged. Again the plane's altitude varies wildly, gradually becoming smoother, suggesting the pilot is getting the feel of the controls. The plane now performs its circle, during which the final descent is commenced. Altitude and bank angle fluctuate. All this time the speed is normal, but fluctuating. Only in the final stage do we see the throttles pushed fully forward as the descent steepens. Speed increases rapidly. Acceleration is now almost constant as the throttle setting is constant. During the last minute or two the plane appears to steady but does not adopt the perfect control that the autopilot produces. A very sensitive indicator is the vertical acceleration which never smooths right out.

I used to think that the autopilot had probably been turned on in Control Wheel Steering mode during the final descent as the course smoothed substantially, however the continuing fluctuations in vertical acceleration indicate otherwise. I think the gradual improvement in control might just have been the result of gradual development of understanding of the sensitivity of the controls together with the simplification of the task as the final target came close.

In any event, in the absence of GPS, total autopilot control could not have had the horizontal accuracy to hit the target. It appears that large manoeuvers upset the inertial guidance system and it takes time for DME and VOR to provide correction. As it is normal for planes to perform large turns in preparation for landing it is normal to find the position reports substantially incorrect after landing. At least that is what is observed in the prior 11 landings with this plane. The same would apply to the approach to the Pentagon.

so that points to

a human controlling the crash of AA77

Is it possible that this human was in an AWACS or some other place outside AA77 ?

It would be hard enough behind the windscreen

with a three dimensional view of the approaching target. The idea of controlling the plane accurately enough by looking at a two dimensional computer screen somewhere else seems pretty far-fetched. It is one thing to pull the trigger when cross hairs are on a target and fire a gun, as occurs with the drone attacks, but it would be quite another to produce the right swooping descent.

OK then

in all probability this leads to a consideration- As it seems the patsies weren't able to fly well, there was someone onboard who was excellent at flying and with no regard for their own life they crashed a plane at full throttle onto a specific target.

To do that they either believed so hard in the dream of an american empire or they weren't in their right mind

Therefore are we looking at the possibility that Charles Burlingame was brainwashed?

The patsies...

... had NEVER flown a large passenger plane, right? Only small planes, and not very well.

I don't think they could have performed the maneuvers that occurred on 9/11. It's quite a step from flying small planes with poor or average skill to an excellent mastery of a completely different, large passenger plane.


so as Franks line of reasoning indicates a human at the controls performing the manoeuvre ...
and as the patsies couldn't find their asses with both hands,
could it have been another person who crashed the plane
someone excellent at flying ?
could the regular pilot Charles Burlingame have been mk ultra'd?

On the other hand...

"Franks line of reasoning indicates a human at the controls performing the manoeuvre"

Is that just Frank's interpretation? What about the views of experienced pilots?

There is no proof whatsoever

that the named hijackers were even on board. It seems there is no difficulty in finding suicide bombers. Many of these are highly educated. Why not swap? Why not find pilots fairly good at flying a large plane, just not expert? In this scenario the inept trainees were just there to cause confusion. It is working.

Good points

simpler to envisage - they muddy the waters with idiots but use people that can actually fly. No proof that the named people were actually on the flights so hijackers could have been switched. Thanks Frank. Simpler that way than MK Ultra-ing a US pilot.

Kamikaze pilots

It may seem unlikely to us, living as we do in our particular culture, that skilled people could be peruaded to perfom suicide attacks. It is apparently not so hard to find such people in other cultures. This link mentions 1000.


Hi Frank, sorry if I've been unreachable (if you sent me any mails), but I was offline. Just wanted to let you know: a couple of weeks ago, I spoke to a KLM pilot about pressure and radio altimeters. He said the were both pretty reliable, but I followed up by asking if a pressure altimeter is still reliable if it's not corrected with the airport before approach. The answer is no. So there you have it. P4T are mistaken; as usual. Unless of course, either Hanjour or whoever was piloting the plane politely contacted Reagan Airport to correct the pressure altimeter before ramming a 757 and its passengers into the Pentagon.

Not that simple

Sorry SnowCrash, whether or not the pilot adjusted the altimeter on approach is not relevant to the argument. The altitude we are arguing about is obtained from the raw FDR data which is pure pressure, unadjusted by the pilot. We researchers apply adjustments to the raw pressure based on known meteorological data at the time. It is the correctly adjusted data which is too high to hit the Pentagon.

The radio altitude and the pressure altitude correspond closely while the plane is flying at normal speed and altitude, but diverge as the plane descends and accelerates. At impact the plane is flying very much faster than normal for a plane at low altitude so it seems reasonable to assume that the conditions are well outside the calibration envelope. Under these conditions the radio altitude will be correct as it is not affected by horizontal speed. It can only be confused by objects on the ground which might reflect the radio beam, but there are no objects close to the Pentagon which could do that. The radio altitude corresponds within a foot or two of the damage trail. I see no reason to doubt it. Some argue that the final low radio altitude is from a reflection from the roof of the Pentagon, but this is impossible as the prior readings do not show the sudden jump up that arrival at the Pentagon would create.


That changes things. But as it goes, for what it's worth, we have Gordon Bethune on the record saying a radio altimeter is more reliable than a pressure altimeter. [ Air Crash Investigation, Turkish Airlines Schiphol crash ]

What about the location of the Crash?

Programed? Planned? Random? I would think that any MK ultra tactic may be considered risky or less reliable if indeed the crash site was not random.

Test runs

in a simulator ?

I don't have a clue or opinion - i'm asking questions as i really dont know

I appreciate all considered replies - thx All- thx Vesa and peacefulwarrior

Show "WADR" by sullun

Shame on who?

Through the years, I've seen plenty of arrogant, elaborate posts, filled with hollow rhetoric (e.g. "Unfortunately, it will probably be lapped up by the starving, glassy-eyed masses like pablum.") but this really takes the cake.

Don' t just claim you're going to rebut this thesis, do it. Ad hominem? Your post is packed to the brim with it, and the overzealous use of hyperbole in an attempt to "smack Gregg down" is equally tragic.

If only you spent as much time studying the Pentagon as you did steamrolling your keyboard when you know you've read the truth, but not something you agree with.

The truth, remember? Truth doesn't favor conspiracy, coincidence or incompetence theory. Spent five to ten years believing the Pentagon was hit by missile? An A10? Truck bomb? Commuter jet? Did you fall for the flyover con job? It's all very exciting isn't it? And hilariously, mutually exclusive. What is verification? What is falsification? Think about that for a while.

Meanwhile, I suggest you conduct yourself with a demeanor becoming of another run-of-the-mill Pentagon know-nothing, instead of injecting some more self-congratulatory hot air into the "discussion" (e.g. "If I thought it would do any good, I would, easily, tear apart your thesis point by point." <-- what an outright embarrassing thing to say)