David Chandler Talks About His New DVD “9/11 Analysis” and Rationalizes the Pentagon Debate on Visibility 9-11

Show notes and interview by: John Bursill

This timely and important Podcast is a MUST listen!

Listen here: http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1874

David who describes himself as a “pacifist” talks in great depth about his journey on the campaign for 9/11 Truth and Justice which he is passionately dedicated. Many of you may be aware it was David who is credited with getting NIST to admit WTC Building 7 fell at a an acceleration consistent with free-fall due to gravity; which I and many others view as the single most powerful debating tool for us as 9/11 Truth advocates! David disputes he is solely responsible for this and says that Jones, Ryan and others were central to this achievement but it was his question that drew the answer in the end so it seems. David also talks about the highly political timing and nature of the NIST Building 7 report.

We then move on to talk about David’s his new DVD “9/11 Analysis” which is comprised of a compilation of his powerful work to date and some new material into one concise resource. This DVD is available for sale now and can be purchased here: www.911speakout.org

From the site:

“The 9/11 Analysis DVD project is a compilation of the many short analysis videos David Chandler has produced and uploaded to the internet over the last few years, woven together with an interpretive narrative. The current release is in English, but the plan is to follow this with a multilingual release. We need to raise funds to cover the production costs to make Phase II a reality. Please order your copy now and/or help out with a donation.”

In the second part of this frank and informative interview David talks about his strong stance on the Pentagon fiasco that is now threatening the whole credible body of 9-11 research. The aggressive nature of the advocates of “no plane hit the Pentagon” has lead to a situation that is already out of control as has been seen by Ventura’s terrible error of judgement with his episode of “Conspiracy Theory” for True TV on this subject. The case made by David for us not to be seen as a “Pentagon Movement” for it could mean our destruction is the best I’ve heard to date!

For David’s analysis of the Pentagon Debate please see his and Jon Cole’s web page dedicated to the issue: http://911speakout.org/?page_id=219

Here is an exert: “The Honey Pot – On the other hand the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories. (This kind of attractive diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a “setup” to be discredited at a later time.) This is not the only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited. There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space lasers. Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at all they were just holograms. What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?”

NOTE: You may have seen or heard on the net that CIT has said that I John Bursill made a commitment to them to leave this issue alone in a discussion had with Craig Ranke, this is true. I changed my mind many months back after the work Dr Frank Legge was doing around the Digital Flight Data Recorder data re-analysis of which I was involved. This and the aggressive moves by CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth to convince the 9/11 Truth Movement that the “fly over” was a proven fact has forced me back to this issue. I apologise for my back flip but I feel it is that important that I speak out and support those that do the same for the survival of the 9/11 Truth Movements credibility.

Intermission music by AJ Perez.
Ending music by Coppermine.

Dr Frank Legge coming up next!

Hello all,

Hoping this will be front page soon as unfortunately it's time to be a little agressive with our push for clarity with the Pentagon issue!

From the 56 minute mark or so our conversation about this highly contriversial subject takes the info war to the next level? Well I and many others think so...lets make being "reasonable" and "accurate" with our evidence and information our mantra this year; as people like Chandler, Ryan, Jones and Legge believe this basically a "do or die" moment for this movement.

Sink or swim people this is not a popularity contest...:-)

Kind regards John

Listeneing now

at 1:05:09.

Thanks, John. Thanks, Mr. Chandler.

Well it's serious John, I

Well it's serious John, I don't know if I'd characterize it as "do or die" though. Waiting for your show.

There is a very visible disclosure effort and accompanying mood that is sweeping the globe right now. It's more than Wikileaks -disputed by some as they are. People are reaching their Fed-Up- With -Lies tolerance levels. An important document was recently obtained revealing that a very high Vatican official was condoning a policy of withholding child abuse cases within the church from the police. It's the Wendell Potter- Michael More thing. There's more of that going around and it's looking contagious. I am optimistic!

Thanks John...

...there is no doubt that if the media are successful in demonstrating the the "9/11 Truth Movement" are a "no plane hit the Pentagon Movement" and then they show that is absolutely not the case to the public then in my view we are finished...so it is "do or die"!

Why because our window of opportunity is already closing due to the time past and the energy left in us all.

Regards John

Great Show!

Thanks for the show! The part about people possibly being confused by the difference between a 200mph plane crash and a 500+ mph crash into a reinforced wall was very informative.

Related - Audio mp3 (January 15 2011) 9/11 Disinfo Dangers -

Special Thanks to Jon Gold and Yougenedebs for calling in:


Show "Science vs. Theory" by metallus2

At this stage of the campaign it's not about opinions!

It's about facts and getting them to the public.

This is the year that could or make or break the struggle for truth and justice for the victims of the 9/11 attacks.

Regards John

to the crash skeptics

Personally, I don't have a problem w/ someone who is skeptical and wants to see hard evidence that AAL 77 hit the Pentagon, such as photos with verifiable serial numbers, the autopsy reports and DNA tests w/ chain of custody records, clear video of the plane hitting the Pentagon, etc. However, even if released, these will not be proof enough for some, and some will insist they must be faked.

What bothers me a lot is the claim '9/11 was an inside job cuz AAL 77 didn't hit'. The 'didn't hit' claims- and the doubts- are based on cherry-picked witnesses, quotes and photos; this is not reasonable, scientific or honest. And, this practice has been used to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Who wants that?

There's significant evidence an AAL 757- in all probability AAL 77- hit the Pentagon, and much of it was on the public record soon after 9/11, though more has come out in the years since; the FDR and radar tracks, more than several dozen eyewitnesses to impact, the damage path, plane parts and wreckage strewn all over the inside of the building, the lawn and even out to the highway, according to photos and witness accounts. There's no evidence that any of the photos were faked or that witnesses are lying. Plus, it doesn't make sense that the 9/11 plot was made even more complex, and the risk of exposure was greatly increased, by not crashing AAL 77 into the Pentagon.

skeptics, please- review the material at the links Snowcrash provided in this thread, that have been provided in the dozens and dozens of Pentagon discussions over the years.

metallus2 Good God man, this


Good God man, this isn't about being nice to one another nor is about "opinions" for Christ sake, it's about sloppy science and murder, mass death, illegal wars, a country over-run by greed, corporate values and deceit on a thoroughly permeated basis...the Penatgon debate emanating from CIT is a crippled farce. We must fight its inaccuracies because lives depend on it. Our movement is not fractured. It's under attack from people within the movement and perhaps a brigade of infiltrators. The hard core of this movement are on course and un-conflicted. We are not fractured.

Immediately voted you down

for suggesting "it could have been a missile."

People who still have the nerve to suggest that get no sympathy from me whatsoever.


Not even CIT, its leaders nor its followers buy or sell the missile moonshine anymore. That's how lifeless and meritless this hypothesis is. Bringing it up as a possibility gives it an air of legitimacy or continuity here on 911blogger, and I can't imagine any bonafide reasons for doing so anymore. One can't claim ignorance of the facts; this website has been inundated with Pentagon research, especially recently.

Hence the immediate down vote. I agree with John & John, too.

In closing, to cite Jim Hoffman again:

at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant!


Zero witnesses for a missile. Zero. Not ten, not three, not one witness, but zero.

Show "“Zero witnesses for a" by tit2

No you didn't

Seriously, you are claiming that there are witnesses because people said they heard what sounded to them like a missile?! Did you not read the comments above? Unbelievable. Debunked missile at the pentagon ideas are old, outdated, and hurtful to the movement. Do more research on this 'tit2' please before repeating this old cherry picked quotes which don't prove anything other than that folks heard something pass by them very quickly. Oy vey.

100's of witness's saw a plane!!!! Enough said.

BTW: John and David this was a really great show. Very inspiring and a necessary bold statement which needs to be repeated far and wide especially among the 9/11 Truth community. I'm very grateful to you both personally. And the truth movement in general is very lucky to have you two gentlemen as part of it. Thanks for helping us stick to the facts and calling spades spades, and hearts hearts ;)

Show "I am French. My purpose was" by tit2

When you see the photographs

When you see the photographs of airplane debris that snowcrash and others have provided from the pentagon what do you think you are seeing? A mirage? Seriously what is your explanation of those photographs? Do the photos not matter to you are are you just not convinced they are pictures of airplane parts? Why is this stupid debate still around consuming so much of our energy? We need a new consensus around this so that we can move forward toward the tenth anniversary looking strong. And if that means we alienate all of these pentagon people I think that is very much to be desired. I know it's painful but the truth hurts, this movement can't be populated with people who have no respect for evidence. That would only serve to discredit us and believe me, there are folks out there counting on us to act stupid.

Show "I read this sentence" by tit2

and so could the hole in the pentagon

have been done on another pentagon they had in area 51 and then shipped in carried by chinooks just to complicate their plot further?
wake up!

reveille toi mec!

rassoir d'occham - applique- le!


1 i have control of planes that i crash into buildings eg WTC
2 i want people to monger war partly as revenge for a plane crashing into the pentagon
3 i use one of my controlled planes to crash into the pentagon

how difficult was that ?

a possibility isn't evidence

just cuz something is theoretically possible doesn't mean it occurred. tit2, do you have any actual evidence that plane parts were planted?

Many of the witnesses at the link Snowcrash provided for you remarked on the tremendous noise of the jet engines.

It appears you have not taken the time to review the evidence, posted in comments and at the links posted, that AAL 77/a 757 hit the Pentagon.

You've presented no evidence that AAL 77 didn't hit, but are trying to raise doubts that it did- to what end?

There's already a great deal of evidence the OCT is false, evidence pointing to insider involvement, evidence which hasn't caused divisiveness and discredit for the 9/11 truth movement. Why are you focusing on unsubstantiated claims that are?

Furthermore, you posted a link to webfairy/killtown, two notorious promoters of the TV fakery/holograms claims.

Show "About the “tremendous noise" by tit2


I'll reply to this nonsense in detail later. If I can be bothered. First, there is this ATC recording with the C-130 pilot that saw AA 77 go down at the Pentagon. He wasn't in a position to see the impact itself, just a plane descending on a northeast heading, following by the plane disappearing and a pillar of smoke at the west wall of the Pentagon.

What might a reasonable person derive from such an observation, tit2?

And... no flyover of course. Oh wait, you haven't even progressed to that level of misinformation yet, you're still stuck in a time capsule with Thierry Meyssan's 'Le Pentagate'.

Anyways.. please listen.

Any comments?

Because you know... I'm pretty sure you never, ever, ever heard this recording before. And I think you need to.


"I reported the analysis of Killtown on this subject, which seems to be relevant. (It is true that this one supports the no plane theory for the twin towers which is unfounded)"

Well guess what: the no plane theory for the Pentagon is equally unfounded. Now why would a no planer be telling you no plane hit the Pentagon either? It boggles the mind.

About plane debris: could you give me the low down on plane debris sightings at the WTC? Because as is clear from this comment, which, by itself, completely demolishes the notion that no plane hit the Pentagon, there are more pictures of plane debris at the Pentagon (that I'm aware of) then there are pictures of plane debris at the WTC.

You haven't replied to that comment, because you can't. You'd be forced to resort to the 'everything is fake' defense... which is delusional at best. Instead, you've apparently decided to completely ignore the comment, the list of witnesses and the photographs, pretend they don't exist, and carry on merrily with the Pentagon no plane stuff.

I can't understand it. How can anybody be this resistant to logic, fact, evidence and rationality? Have you been in some kind of long hibernation for seven years since Meyssan's books came out? What excuse can you possibly have? Are you simply unable to come to terms with the fact that a long-held and cherished belief about the Pentagon is not partially, but fully and completely false?

I could address everything you say in detail; how Jamie McIntyre was quoted out of context:

"MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon"


I could educate you about the Doppler effect, and how this caused people the hear the sound of the plane significantly later than they would have had it been traveling slower than it did, how many others did, in fact, hear the plane, how still others were so traumatized by the sight of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, that they literally had an auditory blackout, how April Gallop was wounded, navigating through a pitch black Pentagon where you couldn't see a hand in front of your face, how a concussion can knock out your sense of smell, how other people did smell jet fuel, and how people in general have unrealistic expectations from high speed plane crashes into buildings.... because they had never seen one before...

I could tell you also about special pleading and cherry picking.... and all these other cognitive biases you appear to be afflicted by.

I could tell you that the most reasonable explanation for people not seeing plane debris is (A) because you cherry pick these accounts in favor of others where witness do report seeing debris... and (B) because they didn't happen to see the plane debris where and when they were looking. I could tell you you'd need witnesses who actually saw people planting plane parts.....which is verification (proving) instead of falsification (disproving) + filling in the gaps with fantasy.

But why?

What would be the use? I'd be wasting my time wouldn't I?

removed: off-topic comment about UA 93

tit2, if you want to discuss UA 93, find a thread on the subject, post your comment, and it will be bumped up in the tracker.

The subject of this thread is Bursill's interview of Chandler, which touched on the Pentagon controversy, among other things.


[T]he only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand.

crash fluid dynamics- above a certain speed the plane smashes to smithereens on impact with a reinforced wall and behaves in a fluid-like way like they use water to cut metal in some factories, so the fluid injects a hole through the pentagon

dont forget the ground floor was open plan

the ring construction applies to floors above

total disintegration of planes tested that were going far slower than the 757 that hit the pentagon

the bits of truth that you have marry with the truth of the true account

i chopped the folowing out of http://911truthnews.com/the-pentagon-attack-what-the-physical-evidence-s...

Debris is Consistent with a Jetliner Crash

High-Speed Crashes Reduce Aircraft to Small Pieces

Few people have direct experience with the results of high-speed collisions of aircraft into strong barriers. Most aircraft accidents occur shortly after takeoff or during attempted landings, and do not completely destroy the aircraft. In contrast, uncontrolled crashes into terrain usually reduce aircraft into fine debris, leaving little if any parts identifiable by casual visual inspection. The debris fields of several jetliner crashes pictured here show the surprising paucity of apparent debris many crashes produce. Crashes of aircraft into buildings also typically leave little in the way of large debris, as the December 5, 2005 crash of a C-130 into an apartment building in Iran illustrates.

It is noteworthy that many crashes that left very little to no large recognizable pieces involved much lower impact speeds than the Pentagon attack. Since the Iranian C-130 was attempting to land, its airspeed was probably less than 150 mph.

Debris from the Attack Plane is Widely Distributed

Crash Test

The Sandia crash test of an F-4 into a concrete barrier reduced the plane to rubble. (source)

Crash Examples

This photograph shows the crash site of a DC-8, a jetliner of about the same size as a B-757.

Fire Damage Example

This photograph shows what fire can do to an aircraft. This was all that was left of a Boeing 747 after it caught fire while landing.

Pentagon Debris Fields

This photograph shows a portion of the lawn near the heliport.

This photograph by Steve Riskus shows a foreshortened portion of the debris field in front of the Pentagon’s facade. The far end of the heliport is about 100 feet from the facade.

Debris Inside Pentagon

This photograph of the C-Ring punch-out hole shows a significant quantity of aircraft debris.

This photograph shows scraps of metal, some with green aircraft primer paint, piled wrapped around a damaged column.

Debris in Yard

This photograph shows one of the larger pieces of debris on the lawn in front of the facade.


Show "About Jet Fuel" by tit2


Thank you once again for doing the heavy lifting here with so many others, that week after weak clean up the misinformation here that gets posted!

You said " BTW: John and David this was a really great show. Very inspiring and a necessary bold statement which needs to be repeated far and wide especially among the 9/11 Truth community. I'm very grateful to you both personally. And the truth movement in general is very lucky to have you two gentlemen as part of it. Thanks for helping us stick to the facts and calling spades spades, and hearts hearts ;)"

A comment like this from time to time makes it so much easier to continue to fight :-) As you know this is predominantly a thankless campaign and one that unlike my father's work will not earn me an Order of Australia (maybe some gaol time lol), but your appreciation is more meaningful to me than any medal!

As you know we resist this war machine because we see no other choice, that is our lot! But taking the time to support one another from time to time in word at least brings us closer together in brother/sister hood.

Kind regards John

Heartwarming Sentiments

Thank you so much John. I am very honored. You deserve all the praise good sir. I would feel so very comfortable with reasonable gentlemen like you and your associates speaking for 9/11 Truth. If only we had more thoughtful adults like yourself representing us in the public eye! I'm also incredibly grateful that we have such amazing people on this site like the sweet Mr. SnowCrash who always take careful time to focus on the point and present it professionally. Thanks again to everyone who puts there hearts and minds so deeply into this cause. Your selfless, tireless efforts will be rewarded! The truth is outing in bits and pieces more and more everyday.

Reread the comment

I'm sure you just click reply before reading. The witnesses you cite saw nothing, didn't see a missile, therefore they are not witnesses to a missile. The accounts you cite are irrelevant.

"I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."

— Steve Anderson


"Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon."

— Deb & Jeff Anlauf


"Once they stabilized Brian, they transferred him to George Washington Hospital where...the best, cutting edge burn doctor in the U.S. 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."

— Brian Birdwell


"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building."

— Sean Boger


"As former Cincinnatian James R. Cissell sat in traffic on a Virginia interstate by the Pentagon Tuesday morning, he saw the blur of a commercial jet and wondered why it was flying so low. ''Right about the time it was crossing over the highway, it kind of dawned on me what was happening,'' said Cissell, son of Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Jim Cissell. In the next blink of an eye, he realized he had a front-row seat to history, as the plane plowed into the Pentagon, sending a fireball exploding into the air and scattering debris - including a tire rim suspected of belonging to the airplane - past his car. (...) In the next seconds dozens of things flashed through his mind. ''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said. While he remembers seeing the crash, Cissell remembers none of the sounds. ''It came in in a perfectly straight line,'' he said. ''It didn't slow down. I want to say it accelerated. It just shot straight in.''

— James R. Cissel


"The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and 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. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building."

— Penny Elgas


"Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds.The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5. "

— Albert Hemphill


"I saw this very, very large passenger jet," said the architect, who had been packing for a move. "It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere. . . . It was very sort of surreal."

— Terrance Kean


I could go on and on, but let's switch to video testimony:

Pentagon eyewitness Steve Gerard

Pentagon eyewitness Tim Timmerman

Pentagon eyewitness Dawn Vignola

Pentagon eyewitness Mike Walter

Pentagon eyewitness Don Wright

Pentagon eyewitness Michael Kelly

Pentagon eyewitness Joel Sucherman

Pentagon eyewitness Omar Campos

Pentagon eyewitness Isabel James

T. Carter speaks about what she saw at the Pentagon (hint: body and plane parts)

Pentagon victim / hijacker DNA


Pentagon attack errors
ERROR: 'Only A Small Plane or Missile Could Have Caused Pentagon Damage'
The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows

Physical evidence:

"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."

"Pentagon searchers encounter grisly scenes"

"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."

Rense.com (no alternative)

And so on and so forth. I mean... seriously.. who do you think you're talking to and why do you think I would let you get away with this?

For good measure: Jeff Hill:

Now, do we have a deal you won't bore me with missile nonsense again? Frankly, it's annoying.


People should consider both the evidence which clearly links an airliner to the pentagon crash site and common sense. By common sense I mean this: what possible motivation could the perpetrators have had for faking an airline crash at the pentagon? Clearly there would be no good reason for anyone orchestrating the attacks to give eyewitnesses an opportunity to view something other than a plane hitting the pentagon, and there is no need for anything other than a plane to have been used to achieve the desired effect.
Further, consider the implications, if the airplane didn't hit the pentagon then the real plane would have to be spirited away to a secret location and the passengers disposed of. Who thinks that that is an effective way to carry out the attacks? It just doesn't make sense, it's like saying let's make this attack as inefficient as possible, we need an event at the pentagon and we have this plane in the air but you know what why don't we divert the plane from the pentagon and then set off a bomb inside of it to make it look like a plane hit and then find something to do with the passengers; let's not consolidate these two events, dealing with the plane and hitting the pentagon, lets make them two separate events. Instead of killing two birds with one stone the perpetrators would be throwing two stones at one bird. Even though doing all that will make it so that eyewitnesses will not see a plane coming toward the building, and would require advance placement of explosives in the PENTAGON etc.
Seriously, the no-plane at the pentagon meme is neither supported by the available evidence nor plausible from the perspective of common sense. Of course a plane should never have made it all the way to the pentagon, but on 9/11 all the planes improbably made it to their targets because of a lack of air defense.

re "I'm sure you just click reply before reading."

If tit2 is just clicking before reading then (s)he is limiting his information
a self inflicted crippling of his epistemology
(i'm learning long words in Cognitive Infiltration!)

Cheney's Orders & War Games

Might this be the right way to play the Pentagon? I support the "WhatOrders?!" approach:

Show "Moron" by indio007

«I could educate you about

«I could educate you about the Doppler effect, and how this caused people the hear the sound of the plane significantly later than they would have had it been traveling slower than it did"

The author of that sentence is "Snowcrash», in response to one of my messages.


Tit2 France.

I think the above

reasonably approximates the explanation below. Approximately two seconds between observation and overflight. However, to make these calculations more accurate, they'd have to take into account the height difference, the distance perpendicular to AA 11's flight path, AA 11's acceleration, and the air temperature in NYC at ~8:46 AM.

Notice there is a period of relative silence before AA 11 impacts. Why? Obstruction by the building in the foreground? Yes. But does it account for everything? I don't get it. <sarc>This must mean everything is fake.</sarc>


And of course, must not forget sound propagation, i.e. how far sound waves travel before they 'die out'.


It seems

you're a little bit confused.

First, you write a very confusing sentence:

"I only want to comment on the "100's of witnesses" known as tit2."

How do hundreds of witnesses equal the 911blogger user 'tit2'? Could you explain to me how to deconstruct this sentence?

"you can't find 50plane witnesses."


"If you remove every witness with a press affiliation, you probably can't find 10."

I don't think so, but what's your point? You appear to be channeling David Ray Griffin and his idiotic dismissal of witnesses because of their 'affiliation', whatever the hell that means.

"That's here nor there cause witness accuracy is shit. This is a scientific fact that is easily replicated."

In that case, nobody witnessed a missile, and there's no physical evidence for a missile either. There. Easy, isn't it? Of course, it's not that easy, and it is specific aspects of witness testimony that are inaccurate, such as the exact trajectory a plane took from A to B before slamming into the Pentagon façade. Fact is, dozens of witnesses saw a plane, and what's more, they saw it crash into the Pentagon. Tough shit for the Pentagon no planers. (That is, it seems there are still people around who think there was no plane on the scene in Arlington at all)

"The most atrocious item you posted which compelled me to respond though is this comment...."

Interesting. The doppler effect was the breaking point? ;-)

"It would seem your the one that needs the doppler effect education."

This is how a plane and its sound waves look, when the plane travels supersonically:

You would hear nothing until after the plane passes.

...when the plane travels at the moment it's breaking the sound barrier:

You would hear nothing until the moment the plane passes.

...when the plane travels subsonically:

You would hear something, but depending on the speed of the plane, you have a fixed amount of time between hearing and observing, declining as plane speed increases.

The last case is our test case, as it resembles AA 77's final lap. Here we go.

"It is interesting that this does not appear till about 4.5 seconds before impact, at which point the plane has accelerated to about 470 knots, significantly above the "maximum dive velocity", 410 knots."

Source: Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Pg. 12

241.79(m/s) * 4.5(s) = 1088.06(m)

Actual speed:
Speed #1 470 knots = 241.788889 m/s = 540.866341 mph = 870.44 km/h

Reference speed:
Speed #2 300 knots = 154.333333 m/s = 345.233834 mph = 555.60 km/h

Person is 500(m) removed from approaching plane, lined up straight on the flight path. Ignoring height difference for convenience.

Time before plane arrives:

Speed #1: 500(m) / 241.79(m/s) = 2.07(s)
Speed #2: 500(m) / 154.33(m/s) = 3.24(s)

Time before sound of plane arrives:

500(m) / 343(m/s) = 1.46(s)

Time between noticing the plane and overflight:

Speed #1 2.07(s) - 1.46(s) = 0.61(s)
Speed #2 3.24(s) - 1.46(s) = 1.78(s)

It's almost a cruel joke your flaming people as ignorant.

What I said was:

"I could educate you about the Doppler effect, and how this caused people the hear the sound of the plane significantly later than they would have had it been traveling slower than it did"

Meaning: they heard the sound and had less time to act on it before the plane arrived. The faster the plane travels, the less time between hearing the plane and the plane arriving. Therefore, I believe my observation was correct. I would welcome any corrections to the above. Yes, the speed of sound, when in the same medium, and with the same temperature, remains the same. But what we're dealing with here is the speed of the plane relative to the sound waves it produces.

Some people heard the plane as it approached, and possibly saw the plane before it overflew them in the amount of time they had between hearing and observing. Some describe the plane engines revving up to maximize impact speed. Others explain feeling stunned and terrified, describe having an 'auditory' blackout, as they focus on the large 100 ton aluminum bullet threatening their lives. This is not something no planers (people who actually believe there was no plane at the Pentagon at all, a step lower on the ladder than the flyover theorists) understand.

In addition

(1) Given the fact that the sound could have traveled from a lot further before arriving, depending on noise decay, one might hear something earlier. But the fact remains that you'd have more time between hearing the plane and plane arrival if the plane were moving slower, as the calculations show.

(2) If the Navy Annex stands between you and the plane, obstructing the 'line of sight' between the point source of the sound and you, the sound will be attenuated, another reason to notice the sound of the plane later rather than sooner. The Pentagon resides in the bottom of a 'bowl', landscape-wise.

(3) If you're close to the Pentagon, you won't hear the plane for long before it disappears into the Pentagon a few seconds later, (Or less) after which you'll hear the impact, depending on to what degree your senses are overwhelmed by what's happening.

Sean Boger described hearing the sound of metal crumpling as the plane burrowed through the Pentagon. Fake?