Support 911Blogger


Dr Frank Legge on Visibility 9-11: Mounting Evidence Shows Boeing 757-200 Impact with Pentagon Probable

In this podcast, Dr Frank Legge discusses his new paper which was co-authored with Warren Stutt and has been published at the The Journal of 9/11 Studies, titled Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

Dr Frank Legge

Listen here: http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1899

In this lengthy and detailed discussion Dr Legge is careful to lay out clearly his way of thinking on the Pentagon issue and why it is so important to the 9/11 Truth Movement not to make unsupported claims about the events there. Legge looks at this issue from a purely scientific perspective and is only interested in what he can prove to be true based on hard evidence. It is clear to Legge and to the vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue that while the Pentagon is a mystery to a degree, it is most likely that AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200 did hit the building based on the physical evidence available.

We now have the correctly decoded digital flight data from Flight 77 and it’s time for more people to get behind the call to reason on the Pentagon issue leading up to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks! There is nothing wrong with supporting the parts of the “official story” of 9/11 that are most likely true. The team at Visibility 9-11 believe, as does Dr legge that it actually helps the interested public and especially the scientific community to see us as reasoned and balanced truth advocates when we do exactly that.
Lets stop being what we are labeled as “conspiracy theorist’s” and become “conspiracy factulist’s”!

For other instructive reading on the Pentagon please see related items below-

What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on
the Credibility of 9/11 Truth

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows

Music by Root1, also known as Three Shoes Posse.

Listening now

at 8:38. Thanks John, Frank, and Visibility 9-11 staff.

Show "I'm afraid I cannot see how" by blubonnet
Show "Yes blubonnet" by 9-11 Joe

There are most certainly photos

And they are very graphic.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution...
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution...
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution...
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution...

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

This is why comments like yours will be taken as offensive by most American's. Trying to claim theories about no planes or no bodies without any proof is something you will benefit from not doing Joe. These types of theories discredit the 9/11 Truth activists everywhere. Please do more research and when discussing the subject, stick to the facts. Elaborate theorizing may impress you, but putting it in public forums is extremely irresponsible if ones goal is to expose the truth about 9/11/2001.

That's excellent news for our credibility!

Thank you Richard and to all that helped bring this about!

We didn't give up and we have won a major victory against misinformation :-)

A drink is in order!!

Kind regards John

thanks 911blogger

you changed my mind on the pentagon
now many more can be put out of their pentagony

The Point System Must Go!

I can't believe I got 6 down votes for my post. OK smart guys, what really did hit the Pentagon? Come on we have a bunch of 9/11truth geniuses here...... Yes the point system must go. It's an infringement on free speech. It also causes hard feelings and quite a few people won't post what they really think and feel for fear of getting voted down...... After all these years of research I still don't know what hit the Pentagon. I still can't see it being a 757. Too many unanswered questions. At least I am not afraid to admit that I don't know.

I'm sorry you got voted down

It's unpleasant. Yes, I do think the voting system increases acrimony, but at same time, many posts which got voted down deserved it, including some of my own.

When you see this, what are your thoughts? It's all fake? You see that's not something the majority of the people here on 911blogger tend to accept anymore.

Perhaps it would be different if the banned CIT supporters were still here. Perhaps the flyover movement is growing. All the more reason to combat it, because it's complete bunk... And I'm embarrassed I ever argued partially in favor for NoC, although I don't believe I ever accepted flyover.

And if you haven't progressed to that discussion yet, and are still stuck in the Thierry Meyssan days, well... then you're behind on the times.

"NoC"?

What is that?

What I also don't understand is how they managed to get away with several different explanations, none of them satisfactory, for a non-intercepted flight into THE PENTAGON over AN HOUR after the alleged hijackings had started.

Are you familar

With CIT, Vesa?

NoC = North of Citgo.

And yes, AA 77 should have been intercepted and the Pentagon should have been largely evacuated when it was incoming.

Show "Behind on the times?" by 9-11 Joe

Fake?

"As far as the pictures of the dead bodies, I have never seen those before. They could be fake."

Bullshit!!

Show "Bullshit yourself Snow Crab" by 9-11 Joe

A bridge too far

Saying the dead bodies at the Pentagon could be 'fake' is a bridge too far, way too far, on par with Phil Jayhan and his 'robotic mannequins' tossed out of the WTC to fake jumpers.

Too often, an open mind is code for "big tent" and results in hair-raising nonsense being promoted under the banner of tolerance and open-mindedness.

This how it should be and I will quote Carl Sagan:

"It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas … If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you … On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful ideas from the worthless ones. "

— Carl Sagan, "The Burden of Skepticism" (1987)

Yes, the fact that a plane crashed into the Pentagon is beyond dispute. Flyover is a worthless idea, to be clearly distinguished from the useful ones.

I never got into 9/11 Truth to march in goose step and jump on the bandwagon of any and all 'exciting' nonsense that purports to prove an 'inside job'.

You can't prove an 'inside job' with lies. Besides, I prefer the phrase 'outsourced job' anyway, when I think of Operation Cyclone and the subsequent ugly history of intelligence intermingling with terrorists (or freedom fighters, depending on what's in vogue)

Fake dead people at the Pentagon? I'm sorry for not going there.

Wow Snow Crash, it seems

your thoughtful responses have these "skeptics" cracking at the seams. Awesome how 9-11 joe felt the need to mention how most of us here are critical of Icke and Tarpley's speculative, divisive and often offensive conspiracy theory antics . Fortunately for the truth, the CIT and 'no plane at pentagon' folks are desperately trying to pull out the incredibly thick nails which continue to be hammered into the already buried CIT casket by some of the most thoughtful minds to ever associate with 9/11 truth. The 'no plane skeptics' increasingly frustrated and ad-hominem 'non-responses' with no alternative evidence presented only add power of the facts which all you great researchers keep focused on.

The facts shall set you free!

Show "Another one hits the dust." by peacefulwarrior

I have been very polite with you but

your sneering comments don't make it easy. I will just ask you one question. You are in the Pentagon near the C-ring in Wedge 1. You have heard that two planes have hit the Twin Towers and have seen one on TV, hitting the South Tower. You noticed that parts of the plane went right through the tower and came out at high velocity.

Now you hear that another plane is headed for Wedge 1 of the Pentagon. Can you honestly say that you will stay near the C-ring or will you find some way to put some distance between you and the path of the approaching plane?

While you are thinking about that, note that none of us trusts the govt data.

"Now you hear that another

"Now you hear that another plane is headed for Wedge 1 of the Pentagon. Can you honestly say that you will stay near the C-ring or will you find some way to put some distance between you and the path of the approaching plane?"[QUOTE]

Except no one knew the Pentagon was the target much less wedge 1 or C ring. It's well established that it was believed that the White House was the target. Even it they had known the Pentagon was the target,they had no way of knowing where it would strike the Pentagon. It could just have easily smashed down through the roof of any wedge or ring! Had you been inside the Pentagon & known a plane was going to crash into it but NOT WHERE all you would know is to get the hell out of that building! You could not say,"get away from this ring or that ring". The information simply wasn't available. In fact, if anyone did know what area of the Pentagon to stay away from,I'd view that as evidence of foreknowledge/inside job in & of itself.

Yeah

How about answering Frank's question directly instead of beating around the bush?

"Now you hear that another

"Now you hear that another plane is headed for Wedge 1 of the Pentagon. Can you honestly say that you will stay near the C-ring or will you find some way to put some distance between you and the path of the approaching plane?"[QUOTE]
Is this Frank's question you are referring to? I understand the question,but I don't understand why he ask it or see how it's relevant. He's basically asking would you dodge a bullet if you knew when & where it was coming. Well,yes,I would. I don't understand what this has to do with the question at hand. Is Frank implying there weren't more causualties because people knew exactly where the object would strike? According to the OCT that isn't possible because they at believed the WH was the target & when it first approached the Pentagon it was far too high (7-8,000' if memory serves) which it why it had to make that spirling,descending turn.

rapid wall breaching kit?

I can't prove that debris caused the C-ring hole, and I don't know for sure that it did. But the 'AAL 77 didn't hit' folks can't prove it didn't, or that something else caused it.

However, it may have been a rapid wall breaching kit - photos and video of what these kits do show remarkable similarities:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070529231149/pentagonresearch.com/091.html

This is one of those things that will probably have to be settled by a full investigation - and making claims based on one's speculation/belief/conviction isn't likely to get us there.

Well there you go...we used an artillery piece for such in the..

..infantry. I had hear of such things for quarden and search purposes, but your rapid wall breaching kit makes a great idea for escaping also or creating the impression of a missile?

Curiouser and curiouser..lol..

Regards John

Breaching kit

That is an interesting thought Loose Nuke. However I don't think it is right, based on the earliest photo we have of the hole. It is clear that an avalanche of debris poured out through this hole. Had the hole been made later by an explosive device the material would have been blown back, away from the hole, not through it. I think it is easier to believe that the avalanche itself caused the hole. It would have contained some heavy parts.

The pictures of the hole usually shown were taken after much clean-up had occurred. The early photo gives a different impression. I don't know how to load pictures here, so I will link to a page which shows it:
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon

Perhaps someone will tell me how to load an image.

Show "No I am the one who has been patient with YOU" by peacefulwarrior

Honest patriots

Right.

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=44236&postcount=63

Give me a break with the sanctimoniousness. You've been wrong about the Pentagon all along. I suggest you apologize for being wrong, and helping to spread misinformation. Or, alternatively, you can feast us on more annoying arrogant haughty diatribes, from a person who was wrong about the Pentagon.

"go back to wasting time arguring about the precious pentagon"

So why are you arguing, peacefulwarrior?

Some of us here are having a discussion about evidence.

Have you thoroughly reviewed the material at the dozens of links provided in the many articles and threads devoted to the 'what hit' question? Many articles posted at 911blogger over the years have promoted the unwarranted conclusion that AAL 77 didn't hit the Pentagon; should these claims not be examined and critiqued, as we critique the official 9/11 story?

Seems like you have a really cavalier attitude about the relevance of facts, evidence, reality, history and truth in a movement for truth. How can the truth movement "get a real investigation of the events" if it's unconcerned with these things and uninterested in correcting/rejecting claims based on misinfo (potentially disinfo)? Seems to me truth activists should be concerned, and should also be concerned by the way these 'didn't hit' claims have been used to divide, disrupt and discredit the movement.

Show "My reply has nothing to do with discussions about " by peacefulwarrior

"My reply has nothing to do with discussions about evidence"

"My reply has nothing to do with discussions about evidence. It has to do with people's divisive attitude about "the movement"."

What's wrong with building a mass movement that is careful about only making claims that are based on facts, and that rejects misinformation and speculation?

After all, this is a truth movement, right? And we're seeking justice, which needs to be based on truth, evidence, facts and proof, right?

If the reality of 'what hit' the Pentagon was in the same category as color, religious or sexual preference, what you're saying would be fine. But, it isn't; again, this is about the REALITY of what happened, not people's opinions, wishes, beliefs, faith, preference, taste, etc.

Claims based on misinfo (or disinfo) and speculation have been used against the truth movement from 9/11 to this day, to disrupt and discredit it.

Show "What's wrong?" by peacefulwarrior

We're tired of you repeating yourself too

The fact that you cite "a very credible person" who claims that within ten years we will be able to prove that reptilian shapeshifters are ruling this planet says all I need to know about your qualifications for lecturing the rest of us on movement strategy.

Tired of repeating yourself? Then do us all a favor and stop.

Wow missed that one.

Yuck. Come on peaceful. Your advocacy of embracing the absurd , in order to form some kind of mass movement (to what end I don't see for you are advocating letting people represent the movement in wide spread public forums who continue to push bad,crazy sounding information). Letting your open mind trump logic is closing your mind. Movements fail because people spread junk and bad info. Advocating people pushing crazy ideas and junk is hardly a "peaceful" approach. There is no need to embrace as pseudo-reps of the truth who are discredited, cooky, embarrassing, or divisive characters.

Show "Provide me with an example please:" by peacefulwarrior

Memory lapses

"The jesus [sic] claim is unfounded"

— peacefulwarrior

I've set you straight on this once before.

Do you have memory lapses, peacefulwarrior?

Would Sir like

a wafer thin comment ?

Show "Whether you believe it or not" by peacefulwarrior

I only vote down trolls or very stupid comments

---

Show "But you avoid the real questions!" by peacefulwarrior

Attacking YT's contributions to creating a movement? Audacious.

YT has done a staggering amount for the momentum of 9/11 truth. His campaign created a momentum still running strong today. Your un-peaceful ignorance here is becoming dreadfully apparent. I've apologized to you before when I got a little out of line, but you are re-kindling old flames here. You love to go off about how critical thinkers here are discouraging a mass movement and attacking patriots. Have you ever taken part in a truth action street action (http://www.truthaction.org)? Have you every been to 9/11 truth news? (http://www.911truthnews.com) The fact that you are attacking one of the strongest activists to involve himself with 9/11 truth is a very ugly statement of your lack of awareness. I'm disgusted. You are way off base peacefulwarrior.

Show "Get off your high horse Kdub" by peacefulwarrior
Show "Loose Nuke" by peacefulwarrior

This is not about messengers

That implies you carry with you useful information.

This about horses, and leading them to water.

Show "Nice try Crash." by peacefulwarrior

Frank

You reference a picture by constructing a XHTML or HTML tag, e.g.

<img src="http://www.scienceof911.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Exit-hole_early.jpg" />

Which results in:

Pentagon exit hole with debris

To comply with the standard, one is supposed to add an "alt" attribute, that describes the picture in text, although this is not technically mandatory:

<img src="http://www.scienceof911.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Exit-hole_early.jpg" alt="Pentagon exit hole with debris" />

This "alt" attribute may help Google images find your picture, because it contains semantic information for Google to scan. I also added a "title" attribute that causes this description to appear when you hover over the picture. The attribute "width" can be used to set the width, e.g. in pixels, the image should have, if it turns out too large for the width of the comment, for example:

<img src="http://www.scienceof911.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Exit-hole_early.jpg" alt="Pentagon exit hole with debris" width="400px" />

Where 400px means 400 pixels. In this case, this was not necessary, as your picture was small enough on its own.

Cheers, Michiel

P.S.

When I explain tags, such as <img src="http://www.scienceof911.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Exit-hole_early.jpg" /> ... I actually use &lt; for the < and &gt; for the > (I won't explain how I explained the explanation, it gets too difficult ;-)

These are called "HTML entities" and you can use them when discussing the subject matter without triggering the tag to actually cause a picture to be shown.

Thanks for this

your posts always look the best.

Thanks

and thanks for keeping it rational.

You bet!

I try and definitely fail to do so sometimes, so it is nice to hear that it comes off that way :)

I copied this

into a Word doc and it looks quite nice. I think I will frame it.

reply to Dr. Legge re C-ring hole cause

"It is clear that an avalanche of debris poured out through this hole. Had the hole been made later by an explosive device the material would have been blown back, away from the hole, not through it. I think it is easier to believe that the avalanche itself caused the hole. It would have contained some heavy parts."

Yes, the debris poured thru the hole; it seems the only way a breaching kit could have been the cause, is it it was used shortly before the attack - but this seems unlikely, as I doubt the path of the plane could have been known precisely, and this hole is right at the end of the damage path. But, afaik, the only really heavy part near this hole was the nose wheel assembly, and it was on the inside; it would have had to hit and bounce back, if it caused the hole. Is it possible a flood of debris could punch a largely clean round hole like that? I don't know, but perhaps a full investigation could uncover the truth. Meanwhile, those who claim to know for sure it was a warhead/something other than the debris have no actual evidence. Incredulity is not evidence.

Show "You have no "actual evidence"" by peacefulwarrior

Of course it is not proof!

It was quite possibly spread by an army of social workers bringing in many wheel barrow loads of debris from the tip.

LOL!

sounds like the Dr. from down under might be ready to endorse jimd3100stein's 9/12 flyunder scenario!

How about scrolling up

Ray Charles.

frank

i facebook messaged you my lazy way of pasting images into comments

PS

LOVE what happens when you leave the cursor on this image

Me too

;-)

Show "Offensive conspiracy theory antics?" by 9-11 Joe

Icke believes that lizard

Icke believes that lizard people rule the earth

You haven't read about the Kennebunkport fiasco?

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search/label/Kennebunkport%20Warning

Someone who has a large following and gets attention, who also claims he is jesus, and claims that the people responsible for 911 are shapeshifting alien lizards is a direct problem for the truth of 9/11 getting out. It discredits questioning important topics. Tarpley's radio show was a huge outlet for many conspiratorial antics like....pods attached to plains, tv fakery, holograms, nuclear weapons and on and on. These men you mentioned are not 'truthers' like we are. They have failed to spread the truth. They have failed to stick with the facts. Their differences with those who want the truth about 9/11 are hardly petty. These men define the phrase 'offensive conspiracy theory antics.' Listen with an open-mind 9/11 joe and you will open yours.

Didn't you already leave this site once before

because people wouldn't go along with you in supporting Icke and Tarpley?

maddog, no?

Show "So what if someone did?" by peacefulwarrior

Uh huh

"We should be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains fall out." - Richard Dawkins, The Enemies of Reason

I'm sorry dude but its time

I'm sorry dude but its time to grow up. Don't ever defend the idea that you should have an open mind about whether lizard people rule the earth, because if you say that then people are going to lose all respect for your powers of intellectual discernment. I actually think your idea of what this movement should be like is offensive and an insult to all of the people trying hard to take this seriously.

Show "I didn't say I believed it." by peacefulwarrior

Globalists or rescue crews?

"They could be fake. As I said before the only ones who really know are the Globalists."

They could be real, and the ones who really know are not the globalists, but rather the rescue crews who went in and cleaned up the mess.

"Could be we have non-believers posting here."

Maybe you want to be part of a weird cult. I'm not interested.

Oy vey, at least you wrote back, but didn't check those photos

I posted them just for you ya know! Crying out censorship and no free speech. Joe everyone can read your comment if they want to. The voting system is a way of tallying the bloggers here, but you know this right? You see you aren't censored and your rights to post whatever unanswered questions are still there. If they get down voted don't get up set. How about reading the responses and responding to them instead of repeating what you wrote the first time.

9-11 Joe wrote:
". It also causes hard feelings and quite a few people won't post what they really think and feel for fear of getting voted down.."

This statement doesn't hold up to what we see here at blogger. Regardless of the voting system, people still post random rantings and theories all the time. Many who are voted down in the majority of their comments continue to post whatever they. I actually wish the voting system scared more people into checking their info before posting theories and opinions.

"OK smart guys, what really did hit the Pentagon?"

See you trying to frame it as though John or Dr. Legge claim to know exactly what hit. They have maintained a healthy factually based opinion on what MOST LIKELY happened based on the evidence. So they are willing to admit what they don't know just like you. The problem comes, when people like 9-11 Joe begin decreeing their theories (can't see it being a 757) with no proof of them. See Frank and John provide proof. They haven't just thrown out theoretical ideas without reviewing the available evidence.

" After all these years of research I still don't know what hit the Pentagon"

Keep researching. See the links that Snow Crash and I and Frank and John and Jim keep referencing. It won't take you any more "years" to understand the conclusions which these researchers have reached collectively.

Will you reply to this with 'well it really doesn't matter anyway and we should just focus on WTC7' instead of speaking to the evidence sighted?

I voted you up for your honesty....but....

...the point is if we don't know what happened the most powerful position to take is the reasonable one of supporting the official account until proven otherwise? This is now my view, because it disarms our critic's by demonstrating we are both rational and reasonable advocates of "solid" research.

Time to become "conspiracy factualist’s" leading up to the tenth anniversary....your view Joe?

Kind regards John

Show "it's one thing to acknowledge that. . . " by dennis55

the official account is

that Hani flew the plane. I don't think so.

Your not to bright are you if you think this is dis-empowering?

Point completely missed :-(

Being a legend "hard core" truther and conspiracy theorist is NOT where the action is at this stage of our campaign....no, no, no!

We must break this mould that we are paranoid folks that believe in nothing and think the world is completely controlled and manipulated by some sort of "illuminati" etc etc etc...because until we normalize this movement we will continue to be the "third rail"! You know the one with 75,000 volts that no one will touch :-(

The big tent days are finished, if you don't like it go chemtrailing or some other so called "hard core" truther campaign, that is high speculation and low on science...if the shoe fits put it on :-)

I'm doing my best to get us into the scientific and political worlds, you are the one dis-empowering in my view!

Regards John

Show "deferring to the official view is empowering?. . . " by dennis55

Why I "Support" the Official Story

Why I "Support" the Official Story
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-09/why-i-support-official-story

Conspiracy theories? No
Truth and accountability? Yes

BTW- The anthrax attacks are part of 9-11 as well. A lone nut scientist named Ivins made the anthrax by himself and then mailed it from a box 3 1/2 hours from his work/home? The problem with that is there is no evidence he made it, nor is there evidence he mailed it. There is lots of evidence that the highest levels of the Gov used it as an excuse to expand the "War on Terror".
Saying "The anthrax was fake" probably not a good idea either.

Livermore Lab

says that the weaponized anthrax could not have been an accident or a misinterpretation, thus they are lying about Ivins

Yep dennis, that's what he said, and he is right

See John wants to find out the TRUTH about 9/11. There are of course aspects of the official account that are true. This is not "the gov't lies about everything movement" for that is "the conspiracy theorist movement," which is an easily discredited movement, because if you say silly blanket illogical statements like 'the govt lies about everything' you appear as an ignorant uncritical child or kook. John dosen't want 9/11 truth looking like that. I don't want 9/11 truth looking like that. The victims family members who want the TRUTH about 9/11 don't want that. The world is not black and white Dennis. I know it's annoying cause you will have to do more research, but the truth about 9/11 is not as simple as 'the gov't lied about everything.' I'm sure you will agree.

Show "defaulting to an acceptance of positions taken by . . ." by dennis55

I do not "accept" any Government explanation...this is skewing..

...the argument here which is disingenuous, rather I differ to their position as the explanation until I discover otherwise and develop a hypothisis that suits the facts at hand.

I see where I possibly made an error with what I said that you keep quoting, by saying I "support" the governments account. Maybe this is why you do not get my point? "Differ" would of been a better word.

This focussing on a few words and attempting to make me look like a government man is rather ridiculous and some may find it evidence of a nefarious campaign to destroy support for taking a reasonable position on the Pentagon issue and helping paranoid folks list me on their agents list?

If you see what I have done and the many tens of thousands of dollars I have spent fighting this campaign awakening millions in my neck of the woods, this assertion is simply absurd!

http://visibility911.com/johnbursill/about-john-bursill/

Dennis could I have your full name and details of your work for this cause, because if you wish to indirectly slander me further I wish to know who you are, as you do me :-)

Regards John

if there's no credible evidence

that something other than what the govt says happened, I don't see the point in claiming otherwise. Belief, opinion, speculation, etc. are not evidence.

And there is no credible evidence that AAL 77 did not hit the Pentagon, while there is evidence independent of the govt that a large commercial airliner did hit the Pentagon; more than several dozen eyewitnesses who went on record at the time, some corroborated years later, including many CIT-interviewed witnesses (Jeff Hill aka shure has also interviewed many). Many witnesses said it was an AA 757.
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

"many walls"

Whatever gave you the idea that the plane went through "many walls" blubonnet? Please prove your assertion.

Rumsfeld's "slip of the tongue" is no match for the large body of evidence suggesting a plane crashed at the Pentagon, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't go by Rumsfeld's peculiar slip-ups alone.

Stubblebine, unfortunately, is a crackpot. To quote Reprehensor: (I hope you still know who he is?)

That dude will say anything. You really need to see him in Jon Ronson's "The men who stare at goats" to get a feel for where he's coming from.

Not recommended as a primary, secondary, or tertiary source, IMO. Keep him on the bench.

You also say:

I wonder if Dr. Legge is getting phone calls from someone that changed his "mind".

I suggest you improve your 9/11 research skills instead of making wild assertions about Frank Legge... You could start by reading the Pentagon Building Performance Report.

3 rings

To be fair, the idea that AA77 had to pass through 3 strong walls, has been passed around a lot, and is also immediately 'intuitive', given how the structure of pPentagon's rings look from the outside.
However at ground floor there was one large room from the outer wall to the inner circle with the exit hole.
Hoffman has material on this.
Here is a link to an illustration, that sort of shows this, but read some more at Hoffman to get further confirmation:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/debrislocation.html

Also the idea that the planes - except for the engines - where wholly made of aluminum is also quite popular. However substantial parts of the 'keel' of the body is made of steel, so the bottom of the airplane-body has some capacity to act as a strong ram.

Yeah

I know this; it was a rhetorical question, because I've posted this image several times:

This is also from Hoffman's site (click on the picture), but the illustration is a colored in version of the one on page 8 of the Pentagon Building Performance Report.

The misconception is actually that AA 77 had to punch through six walls... (3 x 2)

many walls?

I started to comment on this before I read it had been dealt with very well by others. The correct answer is of course 1.

Paul is great example of a

Paul is great example of a reasonable person that understands the way forward...to assess, reassess and to be flexible with his thinking.

I as so many souls on this path have had to make changes to our beliefs and our opinions regarding 9/11 because even though we are intelligent and in some cases qualified to comment on issues like aircraft accidents, we simply had no other historical examples for comparison. But more importantly we had to over come misunderstanding and the seeds of misinformation planted in our heads from very early on, like the following;

- A crash that was not consistent with our experience, not realizing that it involved kinetic energy of up to 8 times the norm for a normal passenger plane crash
- A belief that there were many rings of masonry walls at the ground floor due to sloppy research
- A belief that no wreckage was present due to an extremely fast clean up and poor research in early video docs
- A litany of retired egotistical qualified but uninformed opinion from somewhat flaky ex-military pilot types about their beliefs on what we should see that they had not witnessed first hand
- A belief that it was impossible for the 757 to make the manoeuvre based on misinformation and a belief it had to be done manually
- A misreading of FDR Data file
- Errors around G Force and and possible airspeed pushed by Rob Balsamo and others at Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Just to mention a few...

It takes someone with courage to change their opinion and to face the fact they DO NOT KNOW or understand the subject to have such a strong opinion. Alas so few can do such because they have a belief that they are now somehow experts because they saw a doco or simply know because they figured out 9/11 was a lie; which of course means they are smarter than the sheeple etc

Kind regards John

Hmmm

Well said.

"A litany of retired egotistical qualified but uninformed opinion from somewhat flaky ex-military pilot types about their beliefs on what we should see that they had not witnessed first hand"

Show "Rebuttal" by 911truther

Have you a week to read it?? I did attempt it but fell asleep...

This was the way Jim Fetzer went when he was uncovered as trouble maker and exposed for supporting exotic and unsupported theories....they write these massive pieces that no one has the time to read while never actually tackling the hard issues that simply must be addressed.

Where is Ranke's paper for peer review?
Where is Ranke's admission that the wreckage at the Pentagon is consistent with a 757?
Where is Ranke's admission his witnesses are compromised because they all saw or think the plane hit the building?

CIT where taken very seriously by most here and to think we have not heard every argument Ranke et al have made is demonstrating the lack of consideration he once again has made by this long winded and energy wasting attempt at defending his failed theory.

When he says the words "the fly over is not proven" people may just open their ears again to his ravings.

When I see such waffle, I hear the screams of the crew of the SS CIT as it sinks into the sea of time wasters.

Regards John

Show "Time is of the essence" by 911truther

How about 13 video taped impact witnesses?

OK 911truther, you don't like 100 snippets. How do you respond to these witnesses? According to Craig if you video record a witness they become infallible.
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebutting-cit

Show ""There are good reasons to" by 911truther

How can it go either way?

Surely the traumatic event will be remembered clearly - they all said the plane hit the Pentagon. CIT has obviously misrepresented the witnesses, yet they claim to be unbiased reporters. Clearly this is false. If the plane hit the Pentagon it did not fly over. Did you even read the discussion of the way 13 video recorded witnesses reported that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon?

Re PFT, I don't think it is a lot of research they have invested, it is a lot of ego, and Balsamo thinks it will look bad to correct his calculations. It might look bad to his sycophants but not to logical seekers of the truth. I have some hope that Pilots may one day accept they have made calculation errors, correct their website, and apologize to the public for the confusion they have caused. I hold out no such hope for CIT. Without their ridiculous north path theory they have nothing.

if you send me your email address I will send you an Excel file which sets out the g-force calculation and you can check it yourself.

Glad to hear you are supportive of controlled demolition at the WTC.

Show ""Surely the traumatic event" by 911truther

No comment required

I let the convoluted wanderings here stand as they condemn themselves.

9/11 conspiracy theorist

""" "Surely the traumatic event will be remembered clearly - they all said the plane hit the Pentagon." "There are good reasons to believe the reported northerly path resulted from poor recollection of an unimportant detail which preceded a traumatic observation"

You said both of these things. How can both be true."""

what i think Frank means is that when something traumatic happens then it gets remembered - like as in we all remember where we were when we saw 9/11 on TV or JFK for the older ones here

also what i think Frank means is that something comparatively much less shocking and memorable immediately preceeding that traumatic event is overshadowed in the witnesses mind

Now the reason why I understand Frank's words is that I, of course, am a genius.

Brainless canards

"They either have nothing or the keys to the kingdom."

They have nothing.

"If their witnesses are right then that proves AA77 did not hit the pentagon."

The False Dilemma Fallacy

"I find it hard to believe that both PFT and CIT (working independently and separately) come to the same conclusion."

Working independently? Hardly. There is a constant cross-pollination of misinformation going on between these two.

"How EXACTLY do you account for so many witnesses saying the flight path was north of citgo?"

So many? No. 13 are featured in NSA, the rest are more often than not deduced from CIT's vivid imagination.

From Scott Ranke's photobucket account:

However, Terry Morin is a SoC witness, and so is Roosevelt Roberts. Whoops!

"Please, don't say they experienced a traumatic event or they were somehow tricked."

Please don't say they were somehow all 'tricked' into believing a plane hit the Pentagon.

But for the record, yes, absolutely, yes, reconstructed flight paths from witnesses are fundamentally flawed. Deeply, catastrophically flawed.

You are welcome to cite the scientific literature expounding the 'unparalleled accuracy' of witness testimony, corroborated or not, even with regard to seeing something to the left or right of you.

You bought into cultist mantras, such as 'independently verified and confirmed', 'they were fooled in a military deception by a fireball', 'can't trust evidence coming from the suspect', and other such brainless canards.

Awwww Snowy,

...Dontcha know Rummy mumbled something about a missile

i've seen enough Columbo to know the baddies always give the game away

so i know there wasn't a 757 crash ;o)

oh.... um.....unless 9/11 was a psy op and....perhaps the missile mention was ......a false lead....?

DOH!

stand down all rummy missile mumble huggers!!!!!!!!!!!

Show ""They have" by 911truther

you give yourself away

911truther. The idea that the perpetrators would deliberately conceal evidence about what hit the Pentagon in order to keep good people arguing has been covered many times. Your failure to acknowlege this work, but merely assert that evidence would be ALL OVER the news shows you have not done your homework. You could start here:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug...

911truther, you wrote:

"I don't know why you are so diametrically opposed to AA7 having not hit the Pentagon."

i suspect that the reason is that Frank has used data from the FDR as opposed to a youtube video made by 2 kids in on a computer in a bedroom

wakey wakey !!!!!!

He was wrong

about NSA also; but I don't always have the inclination or desire to engage each and every discussion.

100% sure.. go figure.

Great work guys

Just started getting into this interview and it's already so on point. Cheers and thank you so much Dr. Legge and John for devoting so much time and efforts to present this material in a clear, unbias, and understandable. Your willingness to remain agnostic when appropriate and stick with the facts shows clearly how open you are to critique. You all also are doing a great job of taking the time to allow for this show to be heard by people who only have a very limited knowledge of 9/11 truth in general which makes for PERFECT outreach tools. Thank you guys for being so thoughtful in that particular regard. We are lucky to have bright people like you, willing to speak to those who seem to behave in the most juvinile and divisive ways around. Thank you for continuing even with all the baseless flack I know you are getting from sad people being forced into reality from their "theories."

I will admit

that I don't know as much about the Pentagon as I do the WTC and controlled demolitions. However, in all my years of researching 9/11 and researching certain aspects of the Pentagon crash, I just can't fathom how a 757 crashed there.

There most certainly was a plane as there are some plane parts, and all of the witnesses saw a plane. Could it have been a smaller plane made to look like an American Airlines jet? Of all the images I've seen, there's no where near enough wreckage that could prove that a 757 crashed there.

Further, none of the serial numbered plane parts have been positively identified to have come from FL.77, nor from a 757.

I don't get negative marks for my posts here at 9/11 Blogger, but it seems by others' posts that I may this time when it comes to this subject.

I'm not saying it's not possible that a 757 crashed there, I just don't see the amount of wreckage and parts one would expect to see with that large of plane crashing anywhere.

Well admit your wrong?

There is much clear and solid evidence of a Boeing 757-200 at the crash scene, that is a fact period. As soon as you say otherwise considering the quality info availiable on this issue you cease to be part of the discussion...in my opinion any way.

Why do you not see, get or understand this?

Do what needs to be done and discuss the facts and you will be in this discussion? Otherewise BoneZ you apparently will be burried ;-)

Regards John

P2OG.In the houses of shadow everybody Lies.

actually John. I wouldn't want to call it. Evidence and presentation strong on both sides. Very clear each way I look. Can agree with both Either, could be, is and/or both. DICHOTOMY.
Some thing in the middle nobody's dug the bone up of yet. ??
The E4B would tell it. SOMEBODY was on board that plane., and somebody knows what it saw.

But given the overall scope of this nightmare, the 'don't know' keeps me in trim for the rest of this shit storm that I don't know going on out there . Daily.

The towers are easy. A fool can see them exploding right infront of their eyes. Can watch lucky Larry ingratiatingly pull himself, can hear Barry Jennings over and over and over tell us of explosions in the buildings, or watch Gross pretend he had never heard of molten steel in the pile. The stupidest hump on earth can understand FBI phone transcripts saying Barbara Olsen made a ZERO second phone call meant she didn't have time to spell out the whole commission report - or that shear-studs breaking on a beam didn't happen and even if they DID don't bring a 47 storied, 81vertically columned behemoth DOWN into its own hoof-print in 6.5seconds flat., 2.25seconds of that at FREE FALL..
And that agent Frields actually DID know what was happening; was only following orders when stating 'It Never Happened', that the 'Conversation never took place".

Free fall of number seven is the final nod to our deepest fears, and that is where we should go.
The Nanothermite paper produces the evidence. The lack of Justice in the courts proves the conspiracy. Hellerstein. Sunstein. Cheney. Bush. Chertoff. Rumsfield. Pearle. Armitage. the names are endless.

But Pentagon. Goddamned pentagon.

In the meantime I want to give solidarity to the call both Craig ranke and Frank Legge make toward concentrating on Number 7WTC and Buildingwhat?

Stupid Humps

"The stupidest hump on earth can understand FBI phone transcripts saying Barbara Olsen made a ZERO second phone call meant she didn't have time to spell out the whole commission report"

I suppose is a reference to this....

This is not exactly a phone transcript, but probably what is referred to-from the Zacarias Moussaoui trial:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/calls/Flight77/BarbaraO...

But why ignore this from the same trial? ....
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/Rwz-Ib8-fCI/AAAAAAAAAr8/n-30ErtLxA...

I would guess this would be a reason why:

"Event: Department of Justice briefing on cell and phone calls from AA Flight 77"

"Date: May 20, 2004"

"This work was conducted in support of the U.S. Justice Department's criminal case against Zacarias Moussaoui."

"While there was no direct evidence with respect to the "unknown calls," interviews with recipients (especially Lori Keyton who was answering the phone in Ted Olson's office on 9/11), plus interviews of family members of other Flight 77 passengers, has lead to the conclusion that all of these unknown calls were from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office." page 2/2
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18886083/T7-B12-Flight-93-Calls-General-Fdr-52...

Probably best to ignore this as well:

"Keyton was working in Ted Olson's Office this morning. She
is regularly called there to cover the telephones. At approximately
9:00am, she received a series of approximately six (6) to eight (8)
collect telephone calls. Each of the calls was an automated collect
call. There was a recording advising of the collect call and
requesting she hold for an operator. A short time later another
recording stated that all operators were busy, please hang up and try
your call later.

Keyton then received a collect call from a live operator.
The operator advised that there was an emergency collect call from
Barbara Olsen for Ted Olsen. Keyton advised that she would accept the
call. Barbara Olsen was put through and sounded hysterical. Barbara
Olsen said, "Can you tell Ted .. " Keyton cut her off and said, "I'll
put him on the line."
There was a second telephone call a few to five (5) minutes
later. This time Barbara Olsen was on the line when she answered. She
called direct. It was not a collect call. Barbara Olsen said, "It's
Barbara." Keyton said, "he's on the phone with the command center,
I'll put you through."
Keyton advised that there is no caller identification feature
on the phone she was using. Keyton didn't know if Barbara Olson was
calling from the phone on the plane or from her cell phone."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-14-FBI-FD302-lori-lynn-keyton.pdf

Was an operator really trying to put Barbara Olson through? Yes, an operator really was and the FBI talked to them, there were two Teresa Gonzalez and Mercy Lorenzo they work for AT&T.

IMO those who say the witnesses are "fooled", when they see a passenger jet hit the pentagon, or family members were "fooled" when they got phone calls from the plane are actually the ones who got "fooled."

Thanks to Frank Legge and John Bursill for this much needed interview. Planes did indeed fly into buildings on 9-11. I'll be "controversial" and even say they were passenger jets. After 10 years I would think that would be one aspect that would have been figured out.

Barbara Olsen call(s) ...

Why could only be confirmed one phone call of Barbara Olsen, which lasted 0 seconds. Why could the rest of her calls, which lasted much longer, not be confirmed, and were labelled as "unknown numbers"?

It is not clear to me, when a call was "unknown" and when it was possible, to identify the caller.

"There's one terrible Pilot" - Bush

"Why could the rest of her calls, which lasted much longer, not be confirmed, and were labeled as "unknown numbers"?"

She called the operator.

DATE: 09/11/2001
"Mercy Lorenzo, operator for AT&T Services AT&T, telephonically contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI to report an emergency phone call received by her while on duty at AT&T."

"A female passenger called from the telephone located on the back of the airplane seat. Passenger requested to be connected with her husband, a sergeant who resides in Washington, D.C."

"The passenger advised the plane was currently being hijacked. The hi-jackers, armed with guns and knives, were ordering the passengers to move to the back of the plane.
The passenger wanted to know how to let the pilots know what was happening. It did not appear as if they were aware of the situation." page 17/52
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24392516/T7-B19-Key-302s-Fdr-Entire-Contents-F...

"Passenger requested to be connected with her husband, a sergeant who resides in Washington, D.C."

Not every single word is going to be 100% correct especially early on. But it's called gathering evidence and using common sense and logic. Ted Olson was not a "sergeant who resides in Washington D.C." He was Solicitor General, who resides in Washington D.C. Also there are other documents which name the number she transferred the call to and it was the number for Ted Olson's office. So my guess would be the records indicate the use of the air phones, but "unknown" to who the call that was made to by the air phone, since the person using the air phone didn't make the call to a known person, but instead the operator, who is the one that transferred the call. Which is why they say......

"While there was no direct evidence with respect to the "unknown calls," interviews with recipients (especially Lori Keyton who was answering the phone in Ted Olson's office on 9/11), plus interviews of family members of other Flight 77 passengers, has lead to the conclusion that all of these unknown calls were from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office." page 2/2
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18886083/T7-B12-Flight-93-Calls-General-Fdr-52...

Ted Olson was not on trial so presenting all this evidence in the Moussaoui trial would have been a waste of the courts time and a pointless endeavor. But they did investigate it and came to conclusions.

Also some people read the following as meaning the pilots were in the back of the plane with B Olson and the rest of the passengers, which they find hard to believe that she would be asking what should she tell the pilots to do? Sure, if someone wants to interpret the following that way I guess they can but IMO they are interpreting it wrong......

"The passenger wanted to know how to let the pilots know what was happening. It did not appear as if they were aware of the situation." page 17/52
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24392516/T7-B19-Key-302s-Fdr-Entire-Contents-F...

IMO what she is saying is, obviously the plane is being hijacked and the passengers were told to go to the back of the plane(to keep away from the hijackers/cockpit).....and B Olson is wanting to know how to contact the pilots who might not be aware of what is happening, since she assumes they are in the cockpit flying the plane. Obviously if the pilots were with her they would be "aware of the situation". The "idea" that the pilots were back with B Olson and the rest of the passengers is not supported by this but just a bad interpretation of the records. The pilots were most likely lying dead on the cockpit floor with their throats slit. She of course wouldn't know that. There is no evidence the call is "fake" or Olson lied about anything.

We could be using these phone calls for more constructive and less offensive reasons but I guess no one else wants to do that.......the first calls were almost a half hour before any plane hit any building warning of hijackings. Over 1 hour later Bush-Rumsfeld-Rice-and Cheney all act like they still don't know planes were being hijacked. WHY?

"I'm the Operations Specialist on duty at the time and
I would say at approximately 8:20, one of our
employees received a phone call from, from a flight
attendant on one of our flights.... The flight attendant's
name was BETTY ONG and she was relaying to us what
was happening on the aircraft."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-betty-ong-tape.pdf

8:28 a.m.: The FAA's Boston Center calls FAA Command Center in Herndon, Virginia, and reports that American 11 has been hijacked.

8:37 a.m.: Boston Center informs NORAD of American 11's hijacking. It is the first notice the military receives of the unfolding events.

When Rice called the President before he stepped into the classroom, about 40 minutes after the first calls and after the FAA and military had been notified of hijackings, they both knew that the plane was a commercial airliner that crashed into the WTC, but they thought it was a "strange accident." WHY?

The 9-11 commission also noticed that and found it odd....from the released notes.......

"Called POTUS after first hit; said at first it's a twin engine and then a few minutes later said no, it's a commercial plane (so POTUS knew when he hung up it was a commercial plane??)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16571575/T3-B11-EOP-Produced-Documents-Vol-III...

"I said, Mr. President, a plane crashed into the World Trade Center. And he said, that's a strange accident.....
Tony said, they think it was a commercial plane. And I said, they think it was a commercial plane. And that's all I knew." - C. Rice page 2-26
http://www.911myths.com/images/8/8a/Team3_Box11_EOPProducedDocsVolIII-Bo...

Even though they thought it was a strange accident (why?) Bush, according to Doug Cochrane evidently immediately phoned Cheney, who was with Rice.......

"On the morning of Sept. 11, Cochrane received a call from the White House situation room informing him that an airplane had hit the World Trade Center. American Airlines Flight 11 struck the World Trade Center's north tower at 8:45 a.m."

"He ran to the situation room to verify the information, but by then it was already appearing on CNN. Cochrane went to the vice president's office in the White House's West Wing to alert him of the situation.
By the time he reached the office, Cheney was meeting with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. The office phone rang and Cochrane heard Cheney say "Yes, Mr. President." He closed the door and returned to the situation room."
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/091003/nep_13482431.shtml

That phone call Cochrane just described never happened according to "The official story". It is admitted that Bush called Cheney at 9:15 (after the second hijacked plane hit the WTC at 9:03)....it's now almost an hour after the first calls from the first plane and they still don't know it was hijacked???? Really?? WHY?

"At nine-fifteen AM, President Bush called Cheney. The vice president, sitting at his desk, turned away from the crowd gathered in his office." page 332
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060723467/centerforcoop-20/#read...

Are they going to discuss shoot down orders and how many other planes are hijacked? No, they are not. They are going to discuss the wording of his statement Bush is going to give the nation at 9:30......

"Bush and Cheney assessed the situation and discussed what the President would say in his public statement. Better to be cautious, they agreed, and decided that Bush would speak of "an apparent" act of terrorism." page 332
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060723467/centerforcoop-20/#read...

"Bush spoke to the nation at nine-thirty." page 332

The plane hit the pentagon at 9:38 which is what got Rumsfeld out of his office, so now it is over an hour after the FAA and military both were notified of hijackings, but Rice, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney were never aware of what was causing these "strange accidents". WHY?

Or.....we could try and help them out with this and just say the calls are all fake even though there is no evidence for saying that, and we can offend the families all at the same time.

why "unknown"?

" (...) but "unknown" to who the call that was made to by the air phone, since the person using the air phone didn't make the call to a known person, but instead the operator, who is the one that transferred the call. Which is why they say......"

... the "unknown"-calls of Barbara Olsen are labelled "unknown" by the FBI, because she phoned operators like AT&T Services AT&T. But why these calls are "unknown", when it went to a known number - the AT&T Services?

Why not?

Perhaps you should contact the FBI and tell them that when they were showing their slides for the number of calls from the plane and what number the calls were connected to, instead of saying "Unknown" they should have said, "call connected to an operator evidently, but no direct documented record of what number the call was connected to, although through interviews we conclude this and that etc" They might even tell you that they didn't put that slide together it was the Federal Prosecutors that did that and then they in turn could be contacted. It all sounds like a waste of time to me but if you really think that this is good evidence for ..."fill in theory here____________". It's up to you. I think this is all a waste of time, but that's just my opinion. I've shown why,

i am just curious.

thank you for your work. please one more question:
Has the FBI no evidence (besides of the interviews), that "unknown numbers" went to an operator? I just do not understand, why the FBI does not say that, the "unknown numbers are calls to an operator".

"unknown"

I would guess that the air phones have records of what numbers are called on them. A direct call would not be "unknown". A call to the operator would be "unknown" as there is no direct call made from the air phone and therefor no air phone record of what number the person using the phone was wanting to connect to. They do have records because they know how long the calls were connected.
Maybe a FOIA would show what the FBI got when they checked the Air phone records. But the interviews pretty much seal the deal, unless the operators are lying along with Olson's secretaries. But they are confirming each other and there is no evidence they even knew each other. Also a reason for not saying the call was to an operator would be because if a call lasted 120 seconds and they say it was to an operator, it would not be accurate as that would lead one to conclude they talked to an operator for 120 seconds when in fact it is "unknown" according to the air phone records who they were talking to during that 120 seconds, but through interviews and investigation they can figure out who it was to and it looks to me that is what they did.

thanks for explaining me

"Maybe a FOIA would show what the FBI got when they checked the Air phone records. But the interviews pretty much seal the deal, unless the operators are lying along with Olson's secretaries. But they are confirming each other and there is no evidence they even knew each other. "

okay - i agree, that it the most probably szenario.

Just to be clear Jim-

You actually believe that the wife of a Bush inside/insider was on one of the planes "that fateful day" ??
You know what the odds of that are ?

The Olsons are victims of the 9-11 attacks-get used to it

And of the "9-11 truth movement" as well.

"You actually believe that the wife of a Bush inside/insider was on one of the planes "that fateful day" ?"

Yup. But it gets even worse, I also think Barbara Olson is dead. And it gets even worse....Ted Olson, and the family of Barbara Olson have my sincere condolences on the sad passing of his wife.

Now you go pick and choose what victims of the 9-11 attacks you want to "fight for" and which ones you want to slander. Have fun but don't expect me to assist you.

Ted Olson

Sad to say... is responsible for the death of his own wife, because he helped Bush to grab the White House illegally.

He has a loooonggg history as a mafia lawyer for the covert action network and its goons. He got himself a new wife months after 9/11.

I have little sympathy for him. I choose not to fight for him and to slander him. Sorry ;-)

(Doesn't mean I think Barbara wasn't on the plane or that her call was 'voice morphed' or whatever)

If you'd do the typical thing you do, Jim, wrt the Saudis, the insider trading, the NCA going AWOL, etc. etc., and point your crosshairs at Ted Olson, you'd be amazed what you'd find and what history the guy has...

It's sad Barbara Olson died... but her husband is to blame for it indirectly... without him helping to make Bush' coup a success in the courts.. Richard Clarke would've never been demoted...9/11 would have never happened. Cruel but true.

Olson

Olson was a lawyer. He wasn't the only lawyer working for Bush. Gore had lawyers too. Lawyers defend people and represent their clients. That doesn't mean he is a mass murderer or "in on it". In fact you don't want anyone "in on it" unless absolutely necessary. 9-11 was mostly outsourced anyway. His wife was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Lots of Lawyers are slime balls, this is nothing exceptional, and I've never claimed to be a fan of his politics.
It was the supreme court that put Bush in the white house. Not Olson.
And he got married 5 years after 9-11 as if that means anything.

Reply

See here.

Hope you can see it from my POV as well.

What is rational?

It is my opinion that your hatred of Ted Olson is not relevant to the events of 9-11. I presume you would disagree based on the fact that he helped Bush get into the White House. But he was hired. He is a lawyer. And the fact is it was the Supreme Court that put Bush in the White House. Olson was hired to do a job. You can make the argument that he is a slime ball lawyer. But again IMO this is irrelevant to the attacks of 9-11. Victim number 1896 might have a husband who is an absolute monster. It is irrelevant to the attacks of 9-11. There is no evidence that Ted Olson and certainly no evidence that Barbara Olson were involved in any way in carrying out the attacks of 9-11. Barbara Olson is dead. She was not "in on it" in any way. There is no evidence that Ted Olson was "in on it" in any way. He was hired to do jobs, some you think are despicable. Again, I find this to be irrelevant to the actual attacks of 9-11. He started dating his future wife 8 months after 9-11. I find this to be irrelevant. His wife was murdered on 9-11. That I find to be relevant in that he lost a loved one on 9-11. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. As far as the attacks of 9-11 go, I find nothing suspicious about Ted Olson, in fact I find the opposite to be true based on the fact he had to bury his wife because of it.

FTR

Somebody voted you down, I didn't...Voted you up.

If you read my reply, you'll see that one of the things Olson was involved in was making sure the meeting notes of Cheney's energy policy meetings never saw the light of day.

Cheney's energy policy meetings are a key motive for 9/11 and the 9/11 wars. That makes Olson 'in on it'. I'm saying what he did went beyond doing services for clients. That's why I call him a 'mafia lawyer'. I feel Olson shares blame for his own wife's death, and for the deaths of 2977 others, not to mention the carnage in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The butterfly effect. More than that, actually. It's an understatement. Olson's actions have had a significant effect in both causing, and covering up 9/11.

Sure, I believe the Supreme Court, notably Scalia, are scum too.

I'm not, however, going to argue that Ted Olson is 'in on it' because of 'voice morphing' or the like.

Evidence

"If you read my reply, you'll see that one of the things Olson was involved in was making sure the meeting notes of Cheney's energy policy meetings never saw the light of day."

I did read your reply. And the reason he did that was because he is an attorney that does stuff like that because his client hires him to do it, he is a Republican and has his beliefs, he might even believe that Cheney was right to want to keep his meetings secret.
That doesn't equate to evidence he knew about 9-11 and had his wife killed.

"Cheney's energy policy meetings are a key motive for 9/11 and the 9/11 wars. That makes Olson 'in on it'."

No, it makes him an attorney. He is not "in on it" His wife is dead. He is "in on" doing his job as a slime ball lawyer. Not the attacks of 9-11.

Are you suggesting that he knew of the coming attacks and made sure his wife would be killed in them to start dating later? This is a giant leap and frankly I find it to be illogical. No one is going to be "in on it" unless it is absolutely necessary. There is no evidence that he had to be "in on it". His dead wife is evidence he wasn't.

BTW--This hatred of Olson IMO is used to manipulate people into believing the "fake phone calls nonsense". The calls were not fake.

Okay

I don't support 'voice morphing', 'cell phone fakery', so far this line of inquiry has failed the evidence test.

Sure, I dislike Olson; Iran-Contra, Pollard, blocking intervention on EPA political interference, Plamegate, torture, rendition, indefinite detention, secrecy, wiretapping, covering up Cheney's Energy Police meeting notes, the coup of 2000, involvement in the Reynolds case, Harman & AIPAC corruption... The man is way past 'innocent bystander'.

Yes, I dislike the man. I don't think he's 'just a lawyer', he was a mafia lawyer and a solicitor general, helping the Bush gang to commit crimes. I don't feel sorry for him. I feel the same way about John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, Lewis Libby, etc. etc.

We'll have to disagree to agree.. or the other way around.

We disagree - Okay

I think there were many slime balls in the Bush admin and current admin too. But as for being involved in the attacks of 9-11 almost none were. There is no reason for Alberto Gonzales to be involved in the attacks
but he is still a walking turd in my book. No one is going to be "in on it" unless it is absolutely vital that they be. Barbara Olson being dead is extremely powerful evidence Ted Olson was not involved. Bandar, Rumsfeld, Cheney,
Bin Laden, Prince Turki al faisel, Bush, elements of Saudi Intelligence, ISI and CIA also. But not Olson. You'd have to have a reason that he was vital for the operation. There is none. You'd have to show he hated his wife with a passion
in order to want her dead. There is no evidence for that but much against it. It's not helpful IMO to associate Olson with being involved with the 9-11 attacks.

Show "Ok if you're an attorney you have a license to be a slime eh?" by peacefulwarrior

Ghandi

was a lawyer of a very different stripe to the Blairs and Clintons and the lapdog lawyers on the 9/11 omission

why no "unknown numbers" on flight 93?

According to the 911/blogger "tit2", on flight 93 there were no "unknown numbers". "Unlike Flight 77, the FBI does not mention the existence of unknown caller for flight 93."
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-10/critique-david-ray-griffin-s-911-f...

There are two calls (with known number) on fligh 93, which contradict your explanation (why the "unknown numbers" were the calls from Barbara Olsen to the operator).

Flight 93:
Edward Felt spoke with 911 dispatcher John Shaw.
Todd Beamer spoke with GTE-Verizon supervisor Lisa Jefferson.
http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/07/shockingly-calm-phone-calls-fr...

Why were the numbers of these calls known?

Show "Did American 77 Have Onboard" by tit2
Show "Don't expect anything but down votes from this crowd" by peacefulwarrior

Warrior. I think that your

Warrior. I think that your criticism of 911 blogger is harmful to the promotion of 911 truth. We are still as unified as ever! Our unity consists in a shared desire to bring forward the truth about 911 to a wider audience, and to adhere to the most accurate methods of fact finding and argumentation. We should strive to be as rational, critical and honest with each other as possible. isn't it a good thing that we can express our feelings about the things our peers are saying by being able to vote on it? It's a way of showing how your peers feel about the things you are saying, and it is a way of identifying ideas that are outside of the consensus of your peers. I would just tell you that in my humble opinion a good friendship is not one in which people agree about everything for the sake of unity, it is when the people respect each other enough to tell them when they approve or disprove of what they are saying and doing. it's just a little tough love, and people are critical for the cause because they care, not to score points, or votes.

Peaceful,

I ecpect DRG to man up and rebut and or take onboard Erik's critique
DRG's a grown up - he can look after himself
It may not be immediate
I for one hope that the Cognitive Infitration book he wrote will be well received by many more people
May be it needs Erik's input to get to version 2 then republish
It would be cool if after the dust settles that DRG had a mega best seller with CI after help from the 9/11 Blogger purists !
Peace and unity
The best families argue- the communication resolves issues as long as we express what we feel

Old Truth Mole

Old Truth Mole
Was a very dumb mole
And a scary dumb mole was he,

He called for his hype
And he called for his trolls
To pontificate on baseless theory

So it seems the trolls here won't respond to or read any of the links people provide to help them answer their questions. Their other tactic: claim there was no plane, then say they really don't care and then say John and Frank should just stop talking about the pentagon and focus on WTC7.

Frank is

very polite towards the people whose research he contradicts.
This is the best way forward.
I think a 757 probably did hit the pentagon.
I also think the people who have researched flyover are well-meaning people and in the long term will be an asset to the TM.
I strongly advise everyone to gen up on the pentagon lest it be used to discredit us.

There are bad people

"I also think the people who have researched flyover are well-meaning people and in the long term will be an asset to the TM."

I think it's been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the opposite is true, as far as the ones behind the making of and doing the promoting of it.

Meaning

in the politest way possible that they will be an asset long term once they get into the new peer-reviewed scientific research and get onside with the 757 pentagon crash

short term- problematic (i agree with you)
long term- they should switch as i did and become a strong asset to the TM

my stance is welcoming- im welcoming them to change their minds to pro 757 pentagon crash and i believe they're misled as i was, and they will be of great help to the TM (post eureka!)

i agree with you on research points for the 757 pentagon crash

my approach to the disagreement between us and those who are 757 pentagon crash skeptics is to be gentle to those who will be beneficial once they get the facts straight

Witnesses

There is nothing in Frank's paper about the lack of plane material observed inside the building by witnesses. Frank is indeed polite but the same cannot be said for some of those writing here. Science should be inclusive and the attitude of those attacking anyone who contradicts the dogma that a plane did make impact is treated poorly in this blog. Further, the negative votes will turn people away who might contribute to different groups doing research and to the First Responders. Better to can those juvenile votes.

This is getting funny

marzi if you took the same amount of time you did getting upset about down votes looking at the links which people are most certainly taking time to reference for you skeptics, you would be singing a different tune. How are the votes juvenile. Frank has spoken to the photographic evidence and plane materials many times. I posted a link that has great references as to where your materials are. Posting detailed links, which have already been posted on this site many many times is hardly attacking. This claim that somehow down votes at the website 9/11 blogger will deter people or whole groups from doing research or helping the first responders is baseless and a little illogical. Go ahead and keep saying you are being attacked by people who are posting links to help clear up your questions. You not being censored, just voted down due to your lack of reading.

And speaking of witnesses marzi, what do you then say to ALL of the witnesses who saw the 757?
Scroll down in this post just a bit and read the stacks of witness's who saw the 757. What proof is there for anything else?

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-27/911bloggercom-accused-leading-911-...

Jesse

Of course I'm not upset, kDub and if you can't understand that, you are juvenile. I merely point out that there are points of view that are never considered here including Jesse's interview with April. I think you're a bunch of irrational pseudo-intellectuals and yes, I also can see both points of view about the plane.

That's quite pretentious

for somebody who brings nothing to the table.

You know why April Gallop saw nothing inside the Pentagon? Because you couldn't see a hand in front of your face inside the Pentagon. Ask Alan Wallace. Why didn't Jesse Ventura do an interview with him? And why not with these people?

"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)

Or T. Carter?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7727057620927221858

There are no two points of view about it, sorry. You are floundering. Best to admit you were wrong, instead of making empty qualifications.

Plane material witnesses

Hi marzi. The paper was not about debris but about the FDR. If you have any doubts about debris inside the Pentagon you might like to read this. Here is an email I received from Jeff Maynor. He is one of the many people who were involved in the cleanup on the day after 9/11. He sent this email after reading my initial version of “What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effects on Credibility of 9/11 Truth”. Note that my paper does not promote the “planted plane parts theory”. It simply states that there are others who do.
_________________________________________
Hi, I read your paper. I think the only thing I disagree with is the planted plane parts theory, mostly because I was there pulling out plane parts and finding bodies. I was in the army at the time, part of the 3rd US INF (The old guard). So I lived at Fort Myers on the other side of Arlington cemetery from the pentagon. My window shook from the impact. A day later when they got the fire under control more, they called us in to do a search and rescue. I remember making paths though all the wreckage - twisted metal everywhere. We were more just looking for bodies because there were no survivors at that point. It was very dark and thoughts of it not being a plane never crossed my mind. I remember the floor boards very well - picking up these floor boards that looked like the center path of the plane walkway. I also remember carrying an engine out, or a huge piece of metal that was taller than me, that took about 8 very strong guys to carry to the breezeway between the columns. I also remember that hole between the columns and also that it struck me as wow it punched though, but I think it might have just been the firefighters that put it there.
Anyways I guess I'm kind of rambling on. But there are questions that people never seem to ask when saying that something other than the 757 hit. Firstly, if the 757 didn't hit it, where is that plane now and where are the people that were on it? Secondly, it is ridiculous to think that for such an elaborate plan they would use a missile or explosive in plain daylight and with god knows how many witnesses that might have cameras. That just seems like a risk our government would not take. I can say with certainty that nothing exploded. The roof collapsed and I was in office rooms that were cut in two on the top floor - some of the windows didn't even break. In fact I was in a room that was full of computers and it wasn't touched right next to where the plane hit. All I can say is that if anyone was in that room they were the most lucky people there.
Every time we found a body the FBI would have us leave so they could do whatever and we did sort through the plane parts. We had a section in the parking lot just for what appeared to be the plane parts. But anyways I'm not sure why they didn’t just show the video or someone subpoena it. Who makes these decisions not to show it? It’s ridiculous. I would say the same thing about the Oklahoma city bombing. Lots of footage never shown, never released but why? It’s not exactly sensitive material. Footage would not show the inside of the building or anything.
I guess I'm trying to find answers too. I included a pic as proof. Next time you watch the discovery channel and see that episode about the Pentagon you won’t see us and they don't even mention us. It’s like we were never there.

Show "upon review of the above: I wonder about these " by peacefulwarrior

Great interview

It's soothing to listen to Frank's calm manner, patiently explaining what makes sense, and what doesn't.

Thanks for the hard work, Frank.

Frank's response to Rob Balsamo's criticisms
Frank's response to Robin Hordon's criticisms

The Pentagon and 9/11 Truth

I would say that most people within the 9/11 Truth community today "believe" that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, not necessarily because the evidence is stronger than it was in say 2006, but merely to move discussions away from more speculative topics and towards more rigorous ones. Also to enhance our credibility to those outside the movement. The collapse of WTC1,2 and 7 are the sine qua non of the Truth Movement. Our reputation will ultimately stand or fall on that topic.

Nevertheless, I can't help but feel that the "hostility" shown to those still questioning the events at the Pentagon is based solely on the desire to shut down debate by pretending the matter is already settled. This is the same tactic used by debunkers, "move along, nothing to see here." It is more difficult to say exactly and specifically where something is wrong.

What caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon?
Why didn't the tail of the plane damage the Pentagon's facade?

Regarding the lack of damage to the facade, "The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."
ASCE The Pentagon Building Performance Report.

Of course, to attempt to answer such questions I would have to speculate. Regardless, the matter is from far settled.

I think the tail section of a 757 might have hit

the pentagon around columns 12 and 13 (shattered window between those 2 columns)
the lower part of the tail fin would probably make contact first due to the triangular shape which could impact back up to lessen the effect/impact of the upper part
i dont see a way in which the upper part of the tail fin would have had a fair whack at the facade yet this least impacting part of the plane is oft quoted by 757 crash skeptics as because it was 4 stories high it should have left a cross-sectional plane print for us to recognize
(humour)(uk for humor)

The unexpected location of this damage is possibly<br />
due to a slight roll to the left caused by the fuselage's passage through the<br />
building

The unexpected location of this damage is possibly due to a slight roll to the left caused by the fuselage's passage through the building, so that by the time the rear portion of the plane struck the building, the tailfin was angled leftward above the second floor.

this is from
http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html

Where's the damage?

According the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR), the plane impacted at column line 14. At the moment of impact the plane was tilted to the left between 7 to 9 degrees. Where is the damage created by the tail of the plane? Supposedly, the plane is moving at 780 ft/s when it impacts. To say that the vertical stabilizer would have missed the facade is saying quite a bit.

Nevertheless, negative evidence is not sufficient if you are making a positive claim(i.e. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon). One can say anything hit the Pentagon and reason backwards to explain the lack of damage. What positive physical evidence can you point to make the claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

Huh?!

"Nevertheless, negative evidence is not sufficient if you are making a positive claim(i.e. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon)."

That's rich tanabear! You are looking at so many witnesses... so much physical evidence, in fact, much more than at the WTC, DNA evidence, FDR data, radar data, first responders, the C-130 pilot, the air traffic controllers, stuff hit on the way to the Pentagon, directional damage, a plane shaped imprint.....

And you say this is 'negative evidence'? No, what is negative evidence (i.e.falsification) here, is people saying: "I do not accept this evidence as conclusive", and because they don't accept this evidence as conclusive, they look for an alternative explanation, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

So you've got it backwards. here is plenty of evidence for you, and here is some more, or what about this?

Seen this?

Or this?

Or this?

pentagon,cit,citizen investigation team,flight aa 77,9/11,pentagon generator

Or this?

9/11,pentagon,cit,citizen investigation team,flight aa 77

Or this?

9/11,pentagon,flight aa 77,citizen investigation team,cit

Have you browsed through this?

Seen this?

What do you mean 'no positive evidence'? I don't understand.

Nice compilation

Never saw the video with John Judge. Very informative!

I think the tail section of a 757 might have hit

the pentagon around columns 12 and 13

i think that its possible bits and pieces of the plane were flying out in all directions at the same time as other damage happening

in fact i think some impacted parts were exploding outwards -

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/montf4.jpg

i think that the damage occuring to the plane forward of the stabiliser affected the stabiliser before the stabiliser got to the facade

US peeps insert z instead of s where necessary

perhaps it might help those who want an analogy- if one was to comb the hair of ones 757 with a reinforced concrete cross beam , could that scrape along the top of the fuselage and if it happened with enough force could the mashed up debris push as yet undamaged areas back , creating asymetric damage?

remember the plane hit at an angle and had just clipped a large generator so perhaps it is the case that various factors led to asmetric results

perhaps that would lead to lack of tidy planeprint

ASCE The Pentagon Building Performance Report

"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

Here's what else the same report says.......

"As the plane entered the building, he recalled
seeing the tail of the plane. The fireball that erupted upon the
plane’s impact rose above the structure." page 13
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

"Additionally, there was facade damage on both sides of the impact area,
including damage as high as the fourth floor. However, in the
area of the impact of the fuselage and the tail, severe impact
damage did not extend above the third-floor slab."
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

"The removal of the second-floor exterior column on column
line 14, probably by the fuselage tail, suggests that the second-
floor slab in this area was also severely damaged even
before the building collapsed." page 24
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

BTW - If anyone thinks using this report as proof a plane didn't hit the pentagon is a good idea, I really don't know what to say. The tail section is not very strong, a piece of it fell off before it even entered the building ask Ms. Eglas.

I'm not saying...

I'm not saying a plane didn't impact the Pentagon. I'm saying that there are legitimate issues that still need to be addressed and adequate answers have not been forthcoming. Are both of these eyewitnesses valid?

I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane.” Allyn Kilsheimer

"As the plane entered the building, he recalled seeing the tail of the plane. The fireball that erupted upon the plane’s impact rose above the structure"
Don Mason quoted in the PBPR

If the tail of the plane broke off and did not impact the Pentagon are there any pictures of it lying around somewhere? If the tail did impact the facade how are you certain that it was from Flight 77 as opposed to a different sized plane?

Still, where is the positive evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

A different plane

"If the tail did impact the facade how are you certain that it was from Flight 77 as opposed to a different sized plane?"

I will consider the notion that it was a "different sized plane" only after you provide physical evidence that it was. Have any? The plane parts recovered were from a Boeing passenger jet.

"Still, where is the positive evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?"

I will consider the notion that it was not flight 77 but instead another American Airlines passenger jet, as soon as you give me a logical reason why I should do that, and provide an explanation as to what happened to flight 77. I say it went into the pentagon based on eyewitness accounts and physical evidence. You say it went.............? based on,,,?

Evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon

here.

Frank Legge:

"Furthermore Warren has now decoded some more columns of data and has found a column which contains the plane ID."

http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal

DNA map:

Stewardess T. Carter:

There. Evidence flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Or could you be asking for known directions again?

Turf....

And while everyone bickers and squabbles in the latest playground turf war, the perpetrators sit back and laugh at our disunity.

Well they might, but

Ì'm sure they're a bit worried as well.
Still a bit confused myself about what hit the P'gon, but looking at what Legge, Hoffman, and a few here have shown, it seems pretty clear that a big plane actually crashed there.
What I'm still wondering is why the lawn was apparently untouched, and very soon after covered with truckloads of sand (after all the debris was immediately picked up by Pentagon personel, somewhat peculiar I would think). If the plane flew so low that it hit at the first floor, how did the engines not hit the lawn. or how come there wasn't any trace of them? And why weren't people (or cars?) on the street blown away by the enormous jetwash of a big commerecial jet flying by at high speed at a few dozen feet? Or maybe it doesn't work that way? What do the witnesses say about this?

"it seems pretty clear that a big plane actually crashed there."

i agree. And, imho, your questions are reasonable. The problem has been those who are convinced it didn't hit, who are uninterested in the evidence and the answers to their questions, and who accuse anyone who doesn't believe it didn't hit of being a disinfo shill.

Even if the plane was AAL 77 (as I think it was, but can't conclusively prove, and neither can anyone else except the govt, and they haven't), there may have been bombs or special equipment on board that the perps would want to recover and cover up, hence the immediate scraping of the lawn. Sand may have been part of the cover up, or to provide a stable surface for heavy equipment.

There are photos of engine parts, and a damaged concrete barrier in the left engine path is evidence the engine was just barely clearing the ground at the Pentagon. I've seen vids of cars getting blown away by a standing jet on a runway; do you have vids of cars getting blown away by a jet coming in for a landing? Witnesses felt like the plane was right on top of them, it was extremely loud, some noticed the landing gear wasn't down.

More answers to questions and more info on the above can be found here:
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html

What witnesses described broken down into categories:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

Thanks Erik

And no I don't have any photo's or vids of cars getting blown away by an incoming commercial jetliner for landing, nor of people getting blown away by that. Of course this plane did not come in for landing, but was apparently going full throttle at very low altitude. I've just read a few hundred statements from the arabesque page, all I could find was that sometimes it was reported that a car was shaking, nothing more. It's not really a big deal, but something I was wondering about nonetheless. But it appears that one cannot wonder about these things without getting voted down, presumably all these questions can already be answered by doing thorough research, which I should've been doing before asking questions about it.
And btw, the story of the bodies being identified at Dover AFB by the AFIM is also something to scratch your head about. Since there have been so many identifiable omissions, lies and distortions everywhere in this whole matter, it's only sensible to doubt everything about the OCT and keep (almost) every option on the table until evidence is provided that proves otherwise.
Of course, this also applies to every alternative theory that is brought up.

Of course, all this to be able to make a case in a future court of law. Who's gonna pick the judge? Will he allow the relevant witnesses and evidence? Will all the suspects be interrogated? When will we see this?

how many downvoters were fooled at one time?

Probably most/all of you, so please show some humility and patience with those who've got questions and demonstrate an interest in considering evidence.

Sandberg, I don't know how much you hang around here, but you're getting downvoted cuz links and answers have been provided on every one of these Pentagon debate threads for the past few years. I would recommend spending some time reading thru the material.

FTR, i voted your comment up, cuz I don't see that you're making unsupported absolute claims or being disruptive.

AFIM said they ID'd all but five bodies recovered; they've never released the reports, but doesn't mean they don't have them. I finally FOIA'd them about a month ago, no response yet.

I think we're gonna need a truth and reconciliation commission - and mis/disinfo about the Pentagon attack has been a huge waste of the movement's time, energy and credibility, and it has made the cause of getting to truth and justice more difficult - which is why many people here have run out of patience.

Show "That seems right to me," by peacefulwarrior

Why is this damned idea that

Why is this damned idea that a plane did not hit the pentagon still around? In order for something other than a plane to have hit the pentagon we would have to be assuming that the perpetrators are not rational, that they wanted to unnecessarily complicate their plot so that they could have the appearance of AA77 hitting the pentagon but wanted to use some other object to create the illusion. Why create an illusion if you can have the real thing? You can't say it is because there was uncertainty as to whether the plane would reach it's target, because given the controlled demolition of WTC there had to have been a system in place to ensure that the planes would hit their intended targets. What about the grim task of disposing with the "real" plane and its passengers? Do you really think somebody was given that task? It's totally laughable, and people are just making themselves look stupid by insisting on it. That's before we even get to the physical evidence. Planted bodies? Faked photos? Planted light poles? It's like, how far will you go to preserve this absurd position? It isn't supported by the evidence! You know who believes things even when there is no evidence, or counter evidence, to support it? CRAZY PEOPLE! Hmmm, whose interest is it in for many people in the 911 truth movement to look crazy? I think it's in the interest of the criminals who brought us the attacks. Look, your whole life could be an illusion, perhaps you are actually a brain in a vat and your whole life is an elaborate deception being controlled by an evil scientist. You can't prove otherwise, after all any evidence you cite to try and disprove this claim could just be another part of the scientists ruse. Does that mean that there is no reason to think you are sitting at a computer right now reading this? NO!! So people should stop applying the standards appropriate to skepticism about the external world to the standards we bring to evaluating physical evidence collected at a crime scene. I am frustrated by the reply to the available evidence that "it could be fake", this just means you can't be convinced, because all of our evidence claims might be part of this sophisticated deception that some people seem to think is so reasonable. At a certain point you have to draw a line and ask yourself, how much skepticism is rational? Healthy skepticism is good, but if you start getting to the point where you doubt everything then you are on a slippery slope to being in the "TV fakery" camp. I think it is safe to say that the serious people in the movement don't want anything to do with that bullshit.

Someone ask why they should

Someone ask why they should consider if it was an aircraft other flight 77. I've got the answer. Because aircraft don't go missing off primary radar everyday but flight 77 did ! There was a reason for that. I don't if it was a switch (like mentioned in Northwoods) or merely to get people speculating to divide us like they have. I just know it was done for a reason and that it wasn't mere coincidence that it did.

Show "Does anyone have any" by waitew

Preconditions

"Does anyone have any photographs of debris outside the Pentagon larger than could be carried by two men?"

There is no logical, evidentiary, physical, scientific or reasonable basis for this precondition. You invented a challenge you hope cannot met for the Pentagon. This is similar to the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. The combined mass of obliterated plane debris (perhaps combined with building debris) was enough to fill six 40-yard dumpsters.

"Does anyone have any photographs of debris from inside the Pentagon that were not provided by the US Government?"

You pretend the government is a monolithic entity, and that somehow, we don't have a basis for trusting photos if they aren't supplied 'independently'. You are mindlessly parroting a CIT cult mantra: "independently corroborated". Photographs were made by people. The building was cleaned up by people. People crawled out of that building.

You are rejecting counterevidence for a retarded no plane crash theory on the basis of the fact that 'the suspect' supplies it. This is a circular argument. Imagine presenting such an argument in court. Turns out, in this case, the 'suspect' isn't really the suspect, the no plane crash theorists are the suspects. I don't trust your evidence. Show me the chain of custody. For much of their flyover theory, CIT relies on the same photos you complain about. Especially when they venture into the territory of physical evidence, and fail catastrophically, each and every time.

The size of the debris

The size of the debris outside the Pentagon is relevant because we know the Secret Service was active & present outside the pentagon near the point of impact on the morning of 911 BEFORE the building was struck (supposedly because Bush was supposed to fly into the heliport later that afternoon). Then there's the 'chalk' line marking the flight path of the object that struck that could have been used as a guide for the proper placement of 'debris'. I find it somewhat suspect that the pieces with the identifiable 'logo' just happened to be lined up perfectly so that it could photographed,logo and all,with the smoking hole in the Pentagon in the background. It just seems too pat.
Now none of that really proves anything. it's just speculation and I wouldn't mention any of it when trying to 'sell' someone on 911 truth. However, such speculation doesn't deserve the hostility that it seems to garner here as long as the person doing the speculating admits that it's just speculation. I don't know what hit the Pentagon,But attacking people because they dare to question the official dogma of the truth movement is just wrong.

Debris size

You get down voted not because you ask a foolish question but because you ask a question that has been discussed many times before. It is actually a wonder that the debris outside the Pentagon was in such large fragments as observed. If you study the F4 experiment you will see that the plane was turned into tiny pieces. The only explanation for the difference that I can think of is that the F4 ran into a block of concrete it could not destroy while the Pentagon wall gave way. Thus the parts of the plane which could not pass through the wall encountered a range of impacts as the wall moved, hence a range of sizes were produced.

If you are having trouble finding enough evidence to conclude that plane impact was likely, have a look at this gentle site:
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon

Show "Foolish Questions?" by peacefulwarrior

You don't read, PFW

Frank said it was not a foolish question, but one frequently asked. And answered.

People here get something akin to service desk fatigue.

As for your comment about my comment, so what?

The cleaning up of the Pentagon was subject to restrictions, but there are people who have already spoken up about what they've seen in there. I have mentioned and quoted such people many times. Nurses, pentagon police officers, civilian DoD employees, firemen, doctors, these people have been interviewed specifically by the government in order to record their experience for the historical record. That's a completely different picture from the one you're sketching, isn't it?

You haven't taken the time and you don't have the discipline to read through the large body of witness, survivor, cleaner / first responder testimonies. You show a tremendous disrespect to 9/11 researchers, by not doing so, and then by stark contrast, start lecturing people about what has and has not been proven, what is and isn't likely, even coquetting about the quantity and quality of 'evidence' you imply you have considered.

It's evident to me you've considered few primary sources, instead you rush to defend the litter and misinformation that has been passed off as Pentagon research and has confused, misled and bedazzled millions. Your comments betray an embarrassing one-sidedness, and a lack of originality and proficiency in Pentagon research. The constant rigmarole about which people can and cannot be trusted is tiresome in particular; you would (and probably have) enthusiastically quote people whose quotemined or cherrypicked comments fit your bias; but if we point out the larger witness and physical evidence consensus, you turn around and attempt to dictate which sources are 'allowed'.

By Imhotep... you have no business issuing marching orders on the Pentagon, and certainly not with respect to which sources should be trusted according to your personal preference. Your position on that (echoed by others, especially CIT supporters), is inconsistent, hypocritical, and reeks of cultist brainwashing: isolate, then indoctrinate.

Show "You have your favorite souces and testimonies" by peacefulwarrior

the faster the crash

the more the pieces
the smaller the pieces
you can watch vid linked below
similar speeds different barrier different plane but,,, similar speeds - see the potential for the plane to be smashed up into pieces
in the vid they exaggerate, saying the plane vapourised but thats not exactly correct - its as if the plane vanished
the bottom half of 77 ramrodded into the pentagon and the top half- more smashable
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-05/dr-frank-legge-visibility-9-11-mou...

Kinetic Energy at the Pentagon is massive!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

It's all about the speed....

The Pentagon crash is 6-8 times the energy of a normal plane crash!

Kind regards John

Ted Olson

I didn't mean to say Olson got married a couple of months after 9/11, this got lost in translation. What I mean to say was he got a new girlfriend months after 9/11.

I don't think Olson was just any lawyer, he was a mafia lawyer, tied to the criminal clan he protected, and he got rewarded for it with a job in the Bush administration. As you know, that's how the Bush clan rolls, favor for a favor... like the mafia. I didn't claim he's in on it, I said he shares blame for 9/11...

Some highlights from Olson's long and illustrious career:

"A federal appeals court rules 2-1 in favor of Theodore Olson, the former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, who has refused to comply with a subpoena issued as part of an independent counsel’s investigation into political interference at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."

January 1988: Appeals Court Rules Independent Counsel Law Violates ‘Doctrine of a Unitary Executive’

District Court Judge John Bates rules against the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, in its attempt to force Vice President Cheney to disclose some of his Energy Task Force documents (see January 29, 2001 and May 16, 2001).

(...)

"Hardball in Federal Court - Usually the case will be handled by lawyers from the Justice Department’s Civil Division. But this case is much more important to the White House to be left to the usual group of attorneys. Instead, this lawsuit is one of the very few to be handled by a special unit operating under the direct supervision of Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement and Clement’s boss, Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Olson, the lawyer who spearheaded the team that successfully argued the December 2000 Bush v. Gore case that awarded George W. Bush the presidency. Dean later learns that this special team was created specifically to find and handle cases that they can take to the Supreme Court in order to rewrite existing law, mostly laws that restrict the power of the presidency (see January 21, 2001). Many career attorneys at the Justice Department will become so offended by the existence and the agenda of this special legal team that they will resign their positions. The administration sent a strong signal to Judge Bates when it sent Olson, who has argued many times before the Supreme Court, to argue the government’s case in his court. Dean will write that Bates, a recent Bush appointee and a veteran of the Whitewater investigation, “got the message.” He knows this case is slated to go to the Supreme Court if it doesn’t go the way the White House wants."

December 9, 2002: Judge Rules against Disclosing Energy Task Force Documents

"Solicitor General Theodore Olson submits a response to the request that the Supreme Court reopen the 1953 state secrets case US v Reynolds (see February 26, 2003). Olson argues that once a decision has been made, it should be respected—“the law favors finality,” he writes. "

(...)

"The lawyer for the plaintiffs in the petition, Wilson Brown, is both angered and impressed by what he calls Olson’s “remarkable obfuscation."

May 30, 2003: Bush Administration Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss Petition to Rehear ‘Reynolds’ Case

"The Supreme Court convenes to hear arguments in Vice President Cheney’s appeal of a judicial order to reveal information about his secret energy task force (see December 15, 2003). Justice Antonin Scalia has recently returned from a duck hunting trip with Cheney; though critics demand he recuse himself to avoid charges of conflict of interest, Scalia refuses. The plaintiffs, conservative watchdog organization Judicial Watch and progressive environmental group Sierra Club, are heavily represented in the courtroom, and friends and supporters jam the courthouse steps. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, arguing for the government, posits that the White House enjoys a “constitutional immunity” that protects the executive branch from all requests for information unless the president himself is under criminal investigation."

April 17, 2004: White House Argues for Near-Complete Immunity from Oversight

"The Supreme Court hears oral arguments for and against the release of records pertaining to Vice President Cheney’s energy task force (the National Energy Policy Development Group—see May 16, 2001). The case is Cheney v. US District Court for the District of Columbia (03-0475) (see December 15, 2003). Two public interest groups, the environmentalist Sierra Club and the conservative government watchdog organization Judicial Watch, have joined to argue for the release of the records, saying that because the task force deliberations included energy industry executives and lobbyists, the task force is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires disclosure of the work of advisory groups that include non-federal employees. Bush administration lawyers, spearheaded by Solicitor General Theodore Olson, argue that releasing those records would violate the concept of “separation of powers.” The administration also argues that releasing the records, most pertinently the meetings between Cheney, his aides, and officials from energy corporations and lobbying firms, would damage the White House’s ability to receive candid advice. “This case is about the separation of powers and the president’s discretion to receive the opinions of subordinates,” Olson tells the court; Olson has resisted submitting task force documents even to the Court, saying that even that so-called “discovery” process would violate the Constitutional separation of powers."

(...)

"Cheney 'Beyond the Reach of the Law?' - In a legal analysis of the case, former Nixon White House counsel John Dean calls the case “extraordinary,” and notes that Cheney “contends that he is, in essence, beyond the reach of the law. It began as a set of rather pedestrian discovery matters in two consolidated civil lawsuits. Now, however, because of Cheney’s stance, it could be a landmark Constitutional decision.” Dean sees the case as an opportunity for Cheney, with the assistance of Olson and Scalia, “to expand executive powers.”

April 27, 2004: Supreme Court Hears Arguments for and against Keeping Cheney Energy Task Force Records Sealed

"The Wall Street Journal prints an editorial by former Bush Solicitor General Theodore Olson lambasting the Plame Wilson identity leak investigation and the indictment of former White House aide Lewis Libby, and criticizing the use of the Independent Counsel Law to investigate the Plame Wilson identity leak. The Journal does not inform its readers of Olson’s participation in using the Independent Counsel Law to bring articles of impeachment against former President Clinton. Olson calls the investigation a “spectacle,” questions special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s impartiality, and says the entire Plame Wilson-Libby investigation is another example of “special prosecutor syndrome,” a politically motivated investigation run amok. Olson writes that he does not believe Libby is guilty of perjury because “I know him to be an honest, conscientious man who has given a large part of his life to public service.”. Any misstatements Libby may have made to investigators must have been inadvertent failures of memory and not deliberate lies. Moreover, Olson asserts, Libby had nothing to do with exposing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA official"

October 31, 2005: Former Solicitor General Says Libby Did Not Lie, Did Not Out Plame Wilson

"Slate editor John Dickerson, who played a small role in the Valerie Plame Wilson identity leak, writes about the recently launched Lewis Libby defense fund’s Web site created to help raise money for Libby’s defense. Far from looking like the Web site of an indicted criminal, Dickerson writes, the site’s design makes it seem as if Libby is running for elected office. He is shown with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, while “[o]ther snapshots portray him in soft focus and at oblique angles, the kinds of images candidates use to make themselves look more huggable. Fortunately, Libby’s Web designers didn’t stoop to showing him with dogs and children.”

(...)

"Libby just forgot about his knowledge of Plame Wilson’s CIA status, the site emphasizes, because he was too busy serving his country (see January 31, 2006). Former Bush Legislative Affairs Director Nick Calio is quoted as saying: “There are a lot of things that I don’t remember. I go through notes sometimes now and say I don’t even remember being in the meeting, let alone, you know, having said what I said.” Former Bush Solicitor General Theodore Olson adds, “From personal experience as a former public official who has been investigated by a special prosecutor, I know how easy it is not to be able to remember details of seemingly insignificant conversations.”

February 27, 2006: Reporter and Leak Recipient Analyzes Effect of Libby Defense Fund Web Site

"After an investigation into whether an Israeli lobbying organization improperly tried to influence House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) into naming Jane Harman (D-CA) as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (see Summer 2005 and October 2005) becomes public knowledge, Harman calls the allegations “irresponsible, laughable, and scurrilous.” Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a Republican just hired by Harman to represent her in the matter, tells Time reporter Timothy Burger: “Congresswoman Harman has asked me to follow up on calls you’ve had. She is not aware of any such investigation, does not believe that it is occurring, and wanted to make sure that you and your editors knew that as far as she knows, that’s not true.… No one from the Justice Department has contacted her.”

October 20, 2006: Harman, AIPAC Deny Involvement in Scheme to Influence House Assignment

What is a mafia lawyer? A mafia lawyer sets up front companies, or handles cash flows for criminals. Uses his office to facilitate 'meetings' between mob bosses and their consiglieres, to discuss business, or who to whack, but most of all, provides constant legal cover for a covert criminal network. A mafia lawyer becomes so enmeshed in the criminal activities of the organization he 'defends', he becomes indistinguishable from it, takes part in these activities, and helps cover them up.

Ted Olson was/is a little errand boy for this malodorous network of intelligence, business, lobbyists, spies, fascists, corrupt politicians and other scum. An errand boy with a law degree. His history goes back further:

"Olson represented convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard while he was in private practice."

"While serving in the Reagan administration, Olson defended President Reagan during the Iran-Contra affair."

Wikipedia: Theodore Olson

Do you see a pattern here? I do.

By the way, Ted Olson himself acknowledges it's difficult to make cellphone calls from a plane in flight:

"However, in another interview on the same day, Ted Olson will say his wife uses a cell phone and her call may be cut off “because the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”

And I agree with him, but the point is moot, because Barbara called from an airfone.

The media make it no secret he loved his wife and he grieved over her:

"Of course, he was badly shaken by his wife's death," says longtime friend Laurence Silberman, senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who will preside over Olson's wedding next month. "Ted threw himself into his work as an antidote. But that is certainly not to suggest that he didn't bear heavy scars for a while."

But it's not just him helping Bush grab power that led to the death his wife, it killed many other people on 9/11 as well. This is not just about Olson and his wife. This is about 2977 victims and millions abroad.

"On Sept. 11 this year, Ted Olson celebrates his 66th birthday and will attend a memorial ceremony for Barbara at the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C., where she once worked. His daily life often brings reminders of the past, he acknowledges, but he adds, "Mostly, I am looking forward."

"What Olson is looking forward to most right now is his wedding on Oct. 21 to the new love of his life, Lady Booth -- Lady is her name, not a title -- at a Napa Valley, Calif., resort."

"Olson speaks happily but gingerly about his fiancee at first, not wanting to burden her with being mentioned in a story that dwells on Barbara. But once it is clear the interview is about Olson's post-9/11 life, he opens up, just a bit. Booth is a Georgetown University-educated lawyer, he says, with a master's degree in law from New York University. She once launched a successful home health care business and does not currently practice law. And, Olson says, she is a daughter of Kentucky for whom attending the Kentucky Derby is a "religious experience." One of their first dates, he says, was at the derby in May 2002."

"But Olson does not want to say much more. Asked how he and Booth met, he goes no further than "We were introduced by mutual friends."

Former SG Olson Looks Back on 9/11 -- and Moves Forward

Although marrying only in 2006, he started dating again months after 9/11. That's his prerogative. Gotta move on. You have to wonder though, when did he and Lady Booth meet exactly?

Bush isn't the only one who claims he saw the first plane hit the first tower, so did Ted:

OLSON: I had heard a few moments before -- a few minutes before -- of the disaster occurring at the World Trade Center. There is a television set in the back of my office. I turned it on and watched with horror the film being replayed of the airplanes crashing in to the World Trade Center.

KING: Both crashes?

OLSON: Both. The second one had just occurred, I think, when I had turned it on, but they occurred in such a fashion they had film of it, which as this station -- I think I was watching CNN.

...But I'm more than willing to consider this an innocent mistake by Olson. Just strange, that both he and Bush make this claim in similar ways. And that Bush's claim is problematic in many ways more than one.

CNN LARRY KING LIVE - America's New War: Recovering From Tragedy - Aired September 14, 2001 - 21:00 ET

So what was the straw that broke the camel's back for mafia lawyer Olson?

It wasn't the fact that he was involved in torture, indefinite detention, rendition, abuse and perversion of due process, and that he felt guilt and shame over his participation, it was the fact that the Bush administration, notably Cheney, didn't listen to Olson's advice on how to properly shield the government from legal scrutiny, by 'giving the appearance' of due process.

A Supreme Court Justice, during the oral arguments in the cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, asks how the Court can be certain that government interrogators are not abusing detainees. Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement answers that the court will have to “trust the executive to make the kind of quintessential military judgments that are involved in things like that.” The government’s legal strategy is so inflexible in part because of Vice President Cheney, who through his lawyer David Addington refuses to allow the Justice Department to budge from its intransigent position. For months, Solicitor General Theodore Olson and his deputy, Clement, have pled for modest shifts in policy that would bolster their arguments in court.

So, the mafia laywer quit his job:

"Olson says that Cheney’s position—the president has unlimited authority to order the indefinite detention of anyone suspected of terrorist activity without benefit of counsel or any judiciary intervention—would be easier to argue in court if he could “show them that you at least have some system of due process in place” to ensure against wrongful detention, according to a senior Justice Department official familiar with the issue. But Addington wins the argument, overriding Olson and the Justice Department by his arguments that any such retreat would restrict the freedom of future presidents and open the door to further lawsuits. The Supreme Court will find against Cheney in both the Hamdi (see June 28, 2004) and Rasul (see June 28, 2004) cases. Olson will resign as solicitor general 11 days later. "

April 28, 2004: US Official Says Court Must Trust US on Issue of Detainee Treatment

So, the gist of it is: no, I don't have any sympathy for Ted Olson.

Show "Not convinced and I know it's" by anditico
Show "clarify comment" by anditico

New Pentagon Theory

"Every single person who questions the events of those days, is on the correct side. And I don't care how foolish they make me look"

"A missile hypothesis is not equivalent to nuclear beams or something destroying the towers. I think a missile, substituted plane, etc. are all within plausibility"

Have you looked at the evidence for the possibility of a Fly Under? What are your thought on the Fly Under theory?

As you all know

Jim's 'fly under' theory has my strong endorsement, and I'm not at all about to retract it.

I also believe the hole in the Pentagon could have been smashed by Godzilla, but since that theory is less accepted in the movement, I don't mention it too often.

Yet I do believe that anybody who handwaves my Godzilla theory fails the '9/11 Truther Litmus Test'. After all, if you're not willing to be open minded and instead 'default' to the official story, you must be a 'fake truther' ... 'working for the other side'.

I know, I know, my Godzilla theory requires all witnesses to be 'agents', but let's not fall prey to that 911blogger 'groupthink'. Furthermore, if anybody tries to censor my Godzilla theory then that is obviously strong evidence for the plausibility of my theory. Why else would anybody want to stop me from promoting it? Cui bono?

just thinking about that godzilla theory....

....some people have already got a big tent on i bet !

Show "fly under" by anditico

This was meant as satire? Yes?

It is absolutely hilarious...so who is dis guy "anditico"?

Regards John

Since you didn't

...even get the model of the plane right (757-223) that hit the Pentagon, could you please keep your uninformed opinion to yourself, or at least not try to foist it upon anybody else?

Show "The elite speaks and demands silence" by peacefulwarrior

The truth IMHO

after considering the contents of this thread for a while is, that all this discussion back and forth, up- and downvoting of people, is not gonna bring us one inch closer to our goal. A lot of things have been covered up and/or destroyed and/or are being withheld, we can never know for certain what really happened at that fivesided Fistagon. If a plane crashed there, fine, if it was a 757-223, fine as well, if it was a missile and a smaller plane made to like like an AA-commercial jet, also fine, if it was Santa Claus riding Rudolph the red nosed reindeer, no problem, we still do not have any credible video evidence, if that exists at all, it could've existed but then it may have been destroyed, maybe it has, but maybe not. It could exist but then be withheld in order for people to do exactly the things we do here. Besides that, what difference is all this gonna make in the case against the suspects which ultimately have to be charged with all sorts of "bad things"? We cannot know what happened at the P'gon, because the govt. is not cooperating and has not been cooperating very much. This in itself indicates a potentially huge problem we're facing. All this factchecking, researching and constantly expanding and improving on what's fact, reliable, provable and documented and what's not, has indeed given us something to work with.

But in the end, it's all meant for those seemingly illusive days in court, which will decide ONLY if certain people will go to jail or not, and very probably not whether the whole rotten system will be terminated, flushed down the toilet, and replaced by something more promising and hopeful to look forward too. I think if we get real here, this Pentagon struggle in itself is better left alone. It's not worth getting into since we have enough stuff to investigate numerous people who have some serious questions to answer. If we cannot bring these people into a court of law first of all, despite everything we have already, then I wonder what will. Look at the way things have been going, look at the effort that has to be put in by all these wonderful people, all this action (although not always with the best results) that has taken place already, and also, look at the time it takes to collect a mere 250 bucks for a FOIA request, look at our disadvantage financialwise. The real perps, whoever they all are, must not be worried all that much, with all their unlimited financial resources, ability to just declare something secret or a matter of national security at will. The mere fact that that there are people outthere, in my world, this world we're all living in, or are forced to live in in a certain way, who have planned and also had carried out these frightening acts of violence, is what scares me the most. I'm not sure how others feel about this, but this fact, along with the long list of indications and proofs of a subsequent cover up, gives me a very very daunting feeling at times.

The only way to get rid of this feeling in my view is to tell others about my (what I think to be reasonably accurate) version of 911, not trying to scare them in any way, but hoping that in time, enough people will come to the realization that we cannot go on like this anymore. And then hopefully decide that we will not go on like this anymore, and then take the apropriate action to "make things right", which is by the way, something that still eludes me, what that action would be. I want to believe that absolute non-violent action is necessary for succes, but one has to wonder whether that is feasible, or even possible, considering the situating we're all in. This coming weekend we will see what happens in Egypt, where I read it appears that the Army will take sides with the present govt. of Mubarak, instead of the people, who it seemed that backed first. But at crunchtime, sadly enough, it was just the same all over again. Surely the support of all the armed forces is one of the more significant keys in our intended journey towards peace, justice and accountibility, that we need to get our hands on if the common goal that we all humans share, is to be achieved. I believe non-violence stands more of a change to achieve those goals, but still I wonder, can one use violence on life and death situations, where the other party is publicly wanting you dead? I don't want anybody, not a single person dead. But if someone cannot refrain himself from doing so, what then? Let him kill other people? No, he can be expected to everything will be done to prevent him from doing so I would think. Could we use violence one last time and then leave it alone, for good? Why not, one could ask?
In the end though, if we fail, then at least we can say that we tried to achieve those ideals, and tried to prevent the current mess in some way or another, and tried to make the world a better place for every inhabitant, and all the future generations. Is this even possible, one might think? Or are we as a human race just too plain stupid to realize what we can do? For now that appears to be the case. I think we as a human race need to rewire ourselves and change this perception that we or most of us appear to have of ourselves. As some American comedian remarked once: "That we are all one consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively, there's no such thing as death life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves". We can be anybody we want to be. Now all we have to do is choose.

North of Citgo Witnesses Question

Thanks for the thread. After reading the paper and most of this thread I have a question.

Has anyone determined if it is possible for the plane to fly North of Citgo and still take down the lightpoles and create the damage pattern in the Pentagon?

Personally I find the North of Citgo witnesses to be convincing and after reading Dr. Legge's paper my question was not answered. I might have missed it so that is why I ask.

Regarding all the bickering remember some of us are more paranoid than others!. lol.

Damage impossible with NoC

Leo S, If you look at the first image on this site you will see that for the plane to pass from Hemphill's right shoulder, north of Citgo, then swing right to hit pole 1, then left to hit the other poles and the Pentagon is totally out of the question.
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/fdr-info

So if the plane was NoC, something else must have caused the damage to the poles. But then you are in trouble. With all these people watching the plane approach, some would have seen it fly over, if it did. None did. Si it didn't.

If the plane didn't fly over but hit from the north path you are still in trouble as the damage inside the Pentagon is in the wrong direction. If you assert the damage in the Pentagon was caused by explosives you then have to explain how the plane, travelling at 550 mph was able to stop in its own length and not go ploughing through the building in its NoC path.

Thank you for your reply!

I find it very difficult to discount the eyewitness reports of the plane traveling NoC. It seems to me it would be impossible for all of those witnesses to be mistaken about where they saw the plane. Especially given where they were standing. The fact that each witness independently corroborated the others story is a strong case for the NoC flight path.

However the "flyover" evidence is not as strong so I am perplexed. The flight path doesn't match the damage. So I am looking for alternate possibilities to fhe "flyover". I was wondering why so many researchers including Richard Gage had changed their minds regarding the NoC flight path?

Wish they would release the video!

Thank you for your work!

Interview methods

Leo,

All the north path witnesses who could see the Pentagon stated that the plane hit the Pentagon. Clearly their memory of the traumatic impact will be more reliable than their memory of the prior path of the plane, a detail that would seem unimportant at the time.

Perhaps it will help you to understand this apparent contradiction if you study how the witnesses were interviewed and how there exist many other witnesses who tell a different story, as set out here:
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebutting-cit

Show "This is clearly a theory that:" by peacefulwarrior

Well what's your theory peaceful?

Did the plane fly NoC with a great many people watching and noticing it was very low, then suddenly magically jump up and fly over the Pentagon with nobody noticing? And nobody in the many cars around the Pentagon noticing the plane going over the top?

Or did the plane fly NoC and hit the Pentagon, then magically turn left to follow the line of the south path damage through the Pentagon?

Or did the plane fly NoC and hit the Pentagon, penetrate the wall and then magically stop dead so as not to damage the support poles in the north path direction, while the support poles in the direction of the south path were knocked over by explosives?

Or other. Please specify.

To me it is not a question of feeling which witnesses are correct, but working it out.

Working it out? Is not entirely possible at this time.

You can suggest a probable explanation for all the data currently available. Your speculation above does not serve any purpose other than to try to ridicule me etc. Be that as it may, I have some ideas but it would still be speculation, I personally feel your work is fine but I think the Pentagon matter is too divisive and not our best tactic for a new investigation. Without a mass movement I feel the movement is destined to fail, historically the odds are not in the movement's favor and as I have pointed out many times, time is now and has been our enemy. I favor a bigger tent where: It doesn't matter who you are or what you have been associated with as long as you are honest in a desire for the truth of 911, you feel the OTC is a LIE, you want justice for all the victims of 911. Show up in the streets in DC etc and demand justice. When enough people gather together only then will the powers that be respond. Many scholars have proven lies with respect to JFK, RFK,MLK, Iran Contra, Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs, UFOs, etc. The Research/truth has not resulted in justice.

when enough

easily debunked people show up they can easily be debunked - easy point for the debunkers

Show "Sorry but I don't believe that." by peacefulwarrior

In the case of the Pentagon

We are dealing with hard evidence which some irredeemable fools have labeled 'fake' in order to advance an evidence-less theory riddled with flaws and intentional lies and misdirections.

This is not about speculation at all, this is about, among other things, fragments of people, AA 77's plane passengers, victims of 9/11, splattered all over the Pentagon in a path which aligns with a SoC approach, like all the other corroborating physical evidence and eyewitness testimony to impact, as expected. No conjecture whatsoever about 'fakery' has passed the evidence test. Nothing. Bringing up the DNA evidence usually results in a CIT parrot sputtering something about 'chain of custody', not even sure they know what the hell they're talking about, but adamant nonetheless.

Rest assured though: your usual fact-free non-response to Frank Legge has totally convinced me that my exciting new theory is correct, check it out:

When it comes to the Pentagon attack, you are not only incompetent, but you resist becoming competent, and when challenged you sashay into all sorts of pompous red herrings about strategy. The Big Tent is a madhouse, an insane asylum, the loony bin, bedlam, it's where all the blathering BS goes that makes no sense, makes us look nuts, is untruthful, inaccurate and embarrassing. It's where scruffy nutters with signs around their necks that say "The End Is Nigh" hang out.

And this... this is your preferred strategy. But nobody wants your strategy. This movement has plenty of thoughtful, intelligent, hard-working, wise people who want to move forward based on respecting certain qualitative norms when it comes to research.

You show no effort whatsoever to demonstrate to this forum and its users that you have any meaningful knowledge at all in any of the areas you lecture about. You shouldn't be lecturing, but learning, and you shouldn't be trying to lead, you should follow, until you set a proper example and convince us you have sufficient critical thinking skills to separate the wheat from the chaff. Walking around town in a black t-shirt yelling 'INSIDE JOB' ... 'INSIDE JOB' ... 'CHEMTRAILS' .... 'GLOBALISTS' .. 'DAVID ICKE' ...doesn't make you a 9/11 researcher... it's makes you a sloganeering rebel without a clue.

Do me a favor, next time somebody questions your Pentagon fantasies and asks you to elaborate, man up and formulate a proper response, with documented sources, evidence, exuding logical consistency, know-how, and scientific rigor. Remember, lecturing about movement strategy is a fact-free non-reply, an attempt to divert attention away from your glaring inability to defend your own denial of facts; a 'virtual confession' that your headstrong, uninformed opinion about 9/11 research is irrelevant and only serves to disrupt and annoy.

Show "You could have just said I believe" by Leo Strauss

Strauss how dare you? What a shilly comment!

"Snowcrash, no one has to make you "look nuts" I mean you do realize the vast majority of people think you' re nuts already. I don't mean that as a put down just a reality check."

Snowcrash is one of the most thoughtful articulate 9/11 researchers around. What 'vast majority' are you talking about? You do mean to put people down which is the most audacious part. And still being an apologist for CIT's divisive, offensive tactics in the same entry. This ad hominem junk doesn't fly here, but at least it speaks to your lack of substance and it's roots. I actually thought that Snowcrash was speaking to peacefulwarrior and his constant pontificating of appealing to consequence fallacy. I guess it spoke to you (strauss) as well. Well, I think you should re-read Snowcrash's comment, then re-read it again, then..........re-read it again.

Show "Come on Snowcrash" by peacefulwarrior

I beg your pardon

I emphatically wrote:

Do me a favor, next time somebody questions your Pentagon fantasies and asks you to elaborate, man up and formulate a proper response, with documented sources, evidence, exuding logical consistency, know-how, and scientific rigor. Remember, lecturing about movement strategy is a fact-free non-reply, an attempt to divert attention away from your glaring inability to defend your own denial of facts; a 'virtual confession' that your headstrong, uninformed opinion about 9/11 research is irrelevant and only serves to disrupt and annoy.

What part of this paragraph was unclear? I'm being curt with you for obvious reasons which anyone who was followed your postings here understands. I predict your next reply will be more of the same, and I will allow the readers of this exchange, based on that, to draw their conclusions. I believe 9/11 was an outsourced job. Anybody interested in what I believe can read my blog. In the multiple years you've been a member here, you've written how many blog posts exactly?

Show "I guess you missed my last response to Frank," by peacefulwarrior

9/11 and evolution

Peaceful,

I have written a piece on how strategies should change if ideas evolve. See it here:
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/evolution-of-ideas

I contend that ideas have evolved and that strategies should evolve to suit. Read it, then come back here and see if your ideas have evolved enough to allow you to focus your mind on the four options to consider which I listed in the comment above. You responded to the comment but did not respond to the four options listed. In other words you side-stepped the issue raised.

I am sure you want the best outcome for 9/11 truth, so it is distressing to see you side-step. Evolution has often been necessary for survival. I do not believe 9/11 truth is a special case that does not need to evolve.

Show "thanks again frank I appreciate your time" by peacefulwarrior

You are obviously thoughtful

Peaceful, but you still dodge the issue. You just keep repeating the case that a broad tent will be more effective because it contains more people.

Say you are talking to someone who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. You say you respect the work of CIT who claim overfly, and then say "explosives were used at the WTC". What will be their response?

Try it with someone who did not see the plane hit the Pentagon but heard about it from someone they trust who says they saw the impact. What will be the response?

Try it with someone who learned about the Pentagon in the usual way from official sources and the media. They have no reason to doubt the official story. What will be the response?

Who is left to talk to about explosives at the WTC?

Do you not see that broad tent has a terrible weakness? Do you not see that a unified approach overcomes this weakness?

Do you not see that it is important to look at the evidence and study it and work out the truth so that you can join the rest of us in a unified approach?

Here are the four options again. Do not side step with another of your long personal position reports. Study the four options and see which one you can accept as part of your personal position.

1. Did the plane fly NoC with a great many people watching and noticing it was very low, then suddenly magically jump up and fly over the Pentagon with nobody noticing? (Note, for this to happen the plane must have started its pull up long before it got close to the Pentagon. All those who spoke of hitting the poles, "tree top height" , "very low", "coming in for a landing" etc must be entirely discounted. If the plane is low in the vicinity of the poles and trees, pull up to overfly is clearly impossible.)

2. Did the plane fly NoC and hit the Pentagon, then magically turn left to follow the line of the south path damage through the Pentagon?

3. Did the plane fly NoC and hit the Pentagon, penetrate the wall and then magically stop dead so as not to damage the support poles in the north path direction, while the support poles in the direction of the south path were knocked over by explosives?

4. Other. Please specify.

There is much at stake here.

Show "Frank thanks again for the comments" by peacefulwarrior

Again you side-step

Peaceful, on the grounds that you would like to gather additional evidence. I have put all the evidence you need in front of you more than once. This time, instead of repeating the evidence I will go through it line by line. There are three possibilities regarding the path of the plane.

The plane was on the NoC path and at light pole height,
1. then suddenly pulled up and flew over the Pentagon. This is impossible as the pull up would rip the wings off.
2. hit the Pentagon, then turned left to follow the line of the South path approach. Imagine a high speed train at full speed, 250mph. Consider the sharpest turn that would be built into the rails. Compare this with the turn required at the Pentagon, 15 degrees in about 50 feet. This is impossible - the train would leave the rails. The plane was going twice this speed, four times the energy.
3. hit the Pentagon, then stopped dead to avoid knocking over support columns on the NoC direction. This is clearly impossible.

These three options are clearly impossible. There is no other option available from a NoC approach. Do agree with that?

So what does that leave?

Frank I am not side stepping really

I discount all the evidence presented at this stage because I am not sure any of it is reliable. I have outlined my reservations about the situation many times. You yourself have admitted that the FDR data cannot be entirely verified. While the majority of eye witness testimony is inline with your theory I still have reservations. If the FDR data and the eyewitness southside testimony is correct then your theory is correct. If any of that data is not correct then the story could very well be different. If the north of Citgo witness testimony or part of is right then your theory is not. If a witness came forth tommorow who claimed he saw the plane fly over the pentagon after an explosion and he was deemed reliable how would you adjust your theory? While I concur that it is important that we not expound on unsubstantiated assumptions I prefer to say that there is significant evidence that a 757 might very well have hit the pentagon. My remaining comments have to do with why anything hit the pentagon, mineta's testimony and Hani's flying skills. I do not and never have fully accepted the flyover or CIT's work. I have doubts about the witness testimony, the damage to the Cab, the damage to the C-ring, April Gallop missing the plane, the exact hit on the pentagon leaving little external debris. Why do you think more pilots have not accepted your conclusions at this point? Do they doubt the approach, the pilot, the FDR data? What do you think? How was the plane piloted? Do you have any doubts that it was a 757 or AA77? Thanks.

You stepped aside one time too many

Peaceful. I will respond no more.

My parting shots:

You ask how I think the plane was pilotted. Since there are only three possible paths of the plane that can be derived from a NoC approach, and all absolutely defy the laws of physics, what does it matter how the plane was pilotted? It could not have performed any of the these three paths. So what is the purpose of your question? Whatever I say you may find fault with it. So instead I find fault with your question. It shows you will not look at those three paths. It appears you are afraid that if you do, you will have to admit the South path is proved beyond all reasonable doubt and you don't like the feeling. I have gone to some trouble to discuss how ideas can evolve and strategies change, in the hope of showing that all is not lost if you have to admit you were attached to a false theory. Give that some more thought.

You ask: "Why do you think more pilots have not accepted your conclusions at this point?"

You have not done a respectable survey of pilots. What you appear to have done is note the opinions of a few bloggers at PFT. These demonstrate their allegiance to their leader Balsamo, rather than allegiance to science. They claim Balsamo's calculation of the g-force on final pull-up is correct and mine is wrong. They have been shown the correct calculation published by at least 4 people who are good at maths but they still believe Balsamo. They get full marks for loyalty but not for intelligence. Warren Stutt has now provided another proof that their calculation is wrong, using the angles shown in their diagram, so now there are 5 people, good at maths, who prove they are wrong. Still they do not budge. It is not science. It is faith.

You will find the answer to your last question in our paper.

Frank

How do you verify the height of the plane as it approached the pentagon? Witness statements and the FDR? What substantiates the FDR data as being genuine? Why do you think the lady in the construction trailer never noticed the sound of the plane? Do you think the hole in the C-ring was caused by the debris? You have claimed that all of the North witness testimony is wrong about the flight path which then supports your conclusions. Can you give me your assessment of the other anomalies. Also you claim it doesn't matter who flew the plane or how it was piloted. Why? If hani didn't have the skills to pilot via the approach you claim is right then it does matter? If a number of pilots claim that the approach was not possible as you have concluded. What does that mean? I think that it does matter if we are going to continue looking at the pentagon in pursuit of the truth. I have said that a 757 may very well have hit the pentagon and I do not support the idea that no plane hit the pentagon. Sorry that is not enough.

Show "Here's a research assignment for the blogger." by peacefulwarrior

general comment

Being new to the blogger, I am distressed to see the division this issue is causing in the collective 9/11 inquiry effort. As many posters have noted, including Dr. Legge, this is not the smoking gun of 9/11. It seems to me this site would be better served if the ability to reply was disabled. That way everyone could make their comments, all comments would stand (or be removed if truly inappropriate) as they are, and everyone can agree to have differing opinions on this issue. It also would force people to let the information someone is presenting sink in for a bit.

I would also comment that I don't believe this particular piece of research will gain 9/11 truth any more credibility or acceptance just because it accepts the official story on this one point. Acceptance and credibility is already occurring. Indeed, I think the division and public disputes this is causing (however unintentionally) work against that desired credibility.

quote from Dr. Legge: "There has been heated debate about what hit the Pentagon.... This is of little importance in the overall 9/11 analysis because there is ample physical evidence that explosives were used at the World Trade Centre in controlled demolitions. The demolition evidence is sufficient to prove that the official story is false and that the NIST report and the 9/11 Commission report are simply parts of a cleverly and expensively constructed cover-up. "
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug...

Trust me

being new to the blogger is distressing
give it a year plus
youll figure our who the mods are and youll figure out the personalities of the regulars
youll figure out who's bananas and whos hot headed though factually accurate
youll figure out whos a dedicated activist who avoids a certain field of study and argues about that

believe me these are all good people even some of the bananas ones !

and Welcome !

"being new to the blogger is

"being new to the blogger is distressing..." :D

Thanks.

It is good to see an essential point noted

Hi jnelson,

You are right to draw attention to the importance of controlled demolition in the campaign for 9/11 truth. Also important is the collection of information about improper actions, and improper lack of action, as we see in work by Jon Gold and others.

However I think you are missing a point about the division caused by the widely different positions held about the Pentagon. Initially the difference of opinion could be attributed to the way in which different people focussed on different evidence and came to different opinions about what the evidence meant. That was fair enough and reasonable at the time. It could then be argued that the discussion of the Pentagon would be never-ending and damaging and hence should be set aside, however people were intrigued and would not put it aside. Good hearted activists were spreading both sides of the argument to the public, causing loss of credibility.

It is different now. We are no longer arguing about what the evidence means. We are discussing the integrity of the suppliers of the evidence that the plane flew over the Pentagon. It is clear that their methods are far from scientific. They are in fact skillfuly crafted to deceive.

The hope is that widespread understanding and acceptance of the evidence that CIT is deliberately creating a concept they know to be flawed will put an end to the debate about the Pentagon. The debate continues to be damaging to the movement but it does not have to be never-ending. When people examine the evidence that CIT is using deception they move on and the debate ceases.

So what is the evidence that CIT deceives? Chris Sarns has done a great job collecting evidence that all the north-path people who were in a position to see the Pentagon reported that the plane hit the Pentagon. As they reported this during the initial interview CIT must have been aware of this contradiction of the over-fly theory right from the start. They chose to cherry-pick the witnesses words to present the north-path statement but exclude the impact statement. This is deception. As they were aware at the time of the contradiction the deception is clearly deliberate.

CIT argues that the people who reported seeing the plane hit the Pentagon were deceived. They say they didn't really see the plane hit but assumed it hit when they saw the explosion, which CIT asserts was caused by planted explosives. This explanation is false. Many people observed the plane approaching the Pentagon at a level which was too low to miss. They couldn't have been deceived by the explosion as it had not yet occurred.

Simple logic destroys the CIT overfly theory. The plane hit the Pentagon.

The sooner we all get on top of this the better, as it will put an end to good activists spreading false information. For more information on this see: http://www.scienceof911.com.au

Click on the Pentagon tag and explore the menu below. In particular view the page on CIT.

bad link?

I get this 403 error message whenever I click on your link.....

You don't have permission to access / on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/2.0.54 Server at www.scienceof911.com.au Port 80

403

It is not a bad link, it is something else. I cannot access the site myself though I can access other sites.

I would be grateful if anyone can provide an explanation or cure. It is a WordPress site.

Frank

It's Apache malconfigured. Maybe somebody meddled around with the filesystem...You should ask your webmaster...

Thanks SnowCrash

The web site came good again briefly, but now it has a different problem: it takes a very long time to load then gives a 404 error

404 | Page Not Found!
Sorry, but the page you were looking for is not here.

Having written that, another attempt at opening the site was successful. Then another attempt failed with a 404.

I then attempted to edit the site and found that access was extremely slow, and moving to the page to edit was also very slow. Eventually I made an edit and updated the page. My next attempt got a 403 error.

So it seems the operation is very erratic. What causes such problems? Can they be prevented?

Wow, an hour later I got a new error:
Warning: main(/nfs/c03/h04/mnt/47003/domains/scienceof911.com.au/html/wp-content/plugins/contact-form-7/includes/quiz.php) [function.main]: failed to open stream: Operation not permitted in /nfs/c03/h04/mnt/47003/domains/scienceof911.com.au/html/wp-content/plugins/contact-form-7/wp-contact-form-7.php on line 121

Do all these errors in combination permit a diagnosis?

Hmmm

Be careful what you post, btw, such info might be useful to 'hackers' wanting to target your site for some reason or other.

What I can derive from that path is that NFS is used, something I also use at home, among other filesystems.

"Failed to open stream" is a PHP error from the fopen() function.

The fact that it works intermittently suggests some kind of maintenance at the hoster... Difficult to ascertain the exact cause without administrative access. If you are the only one administering the site, and nobody else, I don't know... need more data, so to speak.

Site is now working

and opening fast. It remains a mystery.

Flyover is weak and not supported by evidence

I also agree that it is not a good idea to focus on the Pentagon or Shanksville because of the uncertainty and divisiveness.

However the actual NoC statements are strong evidence and I will not give up on them because it is difficult to find the answer. Science is the key and I hope the answers will be found.

The NoC witnesses apparently do not match the FDR data. That is not emotional or "disinformation" that is an inconsistency that needs to be resolved. It appears you are saying the witnesses are simply mistaken. I find that difficult to believe after viewing the video. I know that the witnesses also say the plane hit the building and I don't have a problem with that. That does not mean that the NoC flight path evidence is invalid.

Appying science is the key

Leo, I am glad to see you are still interested in applying science. I believe I have answered every point you have raised in the above comments. You still say the NoC statements are strong evidence, however. Given that the south path witnesses outnumber the north path witnesses by about 10 to 1, this does not seem a very scientific position.

My website is behaving badly at present but I am sure it will be fixed in good time. Make sure you carefully consider the page refuting CIT. I have mentioned it before but you gave no indication you had studied it. I have no desire to type it all out again here.

I also recommend you carefully read my response to jnelson above.

Show "Fly over is not impossible, just improbable" by peacefulwarrior

magician's trick

peacefulwarrior, now you are on to it at last. You just have to solve the magician's trick. See if you think this is a satisfactory solution:

The magician draws attention to something, let's say it is his right hand, while his left hand sets up the trick unnoticed.

CIT draws attention repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, to the question of north or south path. That is the right hand. While you are thinking about that at length, disputing the "evidence" for page after page after page, you do not think about the real question which is whether the plane flew high or low. That is the left hand.

Let us look at the left hand. If you sort the witnesses into high or low, what do you find? There are countless witnesses to "low" and no witnesses for "high" whatsoever! Not one said the plane was too high to hit the Pentagon. What a ratio! Many witnesses were following the plane as it approached - they said it was low. They couldn't have been deceived by the explosion because it hadn't happened yet.

So I think we have solved the problem without even touching on the fact that nobody reported seeing the plane fly over.

The overfly theory must be rejected because the eyewitness testimony overwhelmingly shows that the plane was too low to miss the Pentagon, and in fact did hit the Pentagon.

The impact-from-the-north-path theory must be rejected because the damage inside the Pentagon shows that no plane impacted on the north path.

If these theories are rejected the only one left is south-path impact.

Yes, catch the bastards who deceive and let us present a united front to go after the perpetrators.

Thanks Frank, I appreciate your taking the time with me.

Yes I agree that what you describe is most likely what happened. My point was that if the North side witnesses are not shams and do not have recollection problems then what? Your contention is that this is not possible. I understand completely however I use the word improbable because I still am not sure and want a new inquiry etc, The description that the Plane was observed so low is disturbing one because of the remarkable approach and probable impact leaving the impression to a layman of no crash (quite the magician's trick in itself) and obviously the difficulty in any last second "flyover" etc. How do you determine the actual explosion time of the event? Is there any margin for err?

Improbable or impossible

Once the plane has dropped to pole height, recovery to fly over the Pentagon in the remaining 1.3 seconds is impossible. No calculations are required to show that.

If you consider flyover to be possible you must discount the testimony of all the people who said the plane was low, tree top height, hit pole etc.

Magic?

I'm not sure how good the CIT magic trick really is.

I was mostly focussed on reading about physical evidence at the WTC and had not spent much time with the pentagon. The first "comprehensive" documentary I saw about the pentagon was Pentacon and it was that documentary itself that convinced me that it was credible that the plane crashed. At the time I was just puzzled at the claim of a "fly over" since the witnesses in the documentary seemed to provide so little support for that claim. So by watching the CIT documentary I came around from a "early Loose Change view" - that there was something strange about a plane crashing at the pentagon - to the idea that it was most likely that a plane that crashed there. I have CIT to thank for that! :)

I would think that if you are a facts-driven person it is enough to watch the Pentacon documentary to convince yourself that a plane crashed at the pentagon.

If that is the case,

Haze, why are there so many good activists supporting CIT? Of the long list of endorsements that CIT posts on their site, only two have withdrawn their support. It is to be hoped that more will but it is a slow process and in the maen time we have to put up with abuse from some.

Frank, I honestly don't know

I just know my own experience of watching the CIT documentary. I was not angry or frustrated with CIT, just puzzled. I remember taking away from the documentary that there was some issue with the flight path, but that was it. Also, perhaps this is important: I was watching the documentary while cooking so I was not paying 100% attention to the presentation.

But what would you say Frank. If all you had was that documentary and the eyewitness reports in there, would you conclude there was a flyover? It simply does not follow, does it.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the support is this: If it is not an ingrained habit (which you get from a proper scientific training) to repeatedly

1) question your own assumptions
2) reassess what constitutes sound evidence

then of course it is easier to get fooled. But if that process of questioning is continuously going on in the back of your mind how can you fail to see the lack of evidence for a fly over?

I don't think most people work that way, not even prominent intellectuals. Just look at the essays of e.g. Michael Albert and Chomsky regarding 911. They are devoid of relevant facts, vague, full of circular arguments, unstated assumptions and non-sequiturs. And why are so many people taken away by these factless vague arguments? How can we explain that? Especially, among my academic friends Chomsky's argumentation against 911 truth is regarded as solid and there is something wrong with you if you don't agree with Chomsky. How do you even start having a facts-based discussion here?

Frank

That was one diabolically intelligent comment. You came from relative obliviousness about the intricacies of CIT's misinformation, decided to take it on, considering the relevance to this movement's credibility, and now you're outpacing everyone, unraveling and deconstructing CIT's prestidigitation with unparalleled clarity and presence of mind. It's a blessing you got involved.

Snowcrash & Frank

I would appreciate very much to hear your thoughts on why there are so many good activists supporting CIT and if/why you disagree with what I wrote.

Good question

The Pentagon attack has been an enigma for years, mostly because there were no clear videos of impact, and the five frames, although they show no flyover of any kind, show little that Pentagon no crash theorists are satisfied with. I am satisfied with it though, because I understand why so little was visible: frame rate vs plane velocity, fish eye/wide angle lens, objects obstructing view, not the ideal position... There is no question the witnesses who were there overwhelmingly support impact by large commercial airliner. None saw the plane which crashed into the Pentagon, fly over it instead.

To understand why so many people believe no plane crashed at the Pentagon, requires a deep knowledge of various disciplines, ranging from sociology (group dynamics, peer pressure, siege mentality, conformity), to psychology (ego, self-promotion, pride, foolhardiness, ignorance, stature, loss of face) to physics, chemistry, epistemology, historiography, cognitive biases (confirmation bias, belief perseverance, logical fallacies), math, statistics, logic, the journalistic method, and so on.

I do not content CIT are 'disinfo', because I reject basing such accusations on the premise that CIT are disruptive and promote a flawed theory; there are competing explanations which are equally likely, some of which I hint at above.

The history of Pentagon research involves many deep flawed and easily debunked documentaries and books, such as "9/11 In Plane Site" and Thierry Meyssan's "Le Pentagate".

Many memes have proliferated over the years which, on the face of it, seem reasonable, until one realizes they are rooted in misunderstandings, ignorance of the evidence, erroneous judgment calls and 'intuitive physics'. David Chandler recently spoke about the perils of 'intuitive physics' on Visibility 9/11 with John Bursill, if I recall correctly. I agree with him and I've been saying it for quite a while as well. 'Intuitive physics' is the primary culprit for the WTC No Plane Theories.

The rise of the Truth Movement occurred in lockstep with the rise of the internet, and the ability of citizens to exchange thoughts about politics and countless other subjects without the geographical and practical impediments that used to exist. Good information can spread rapidly and bypass censorship, bypass the denunciations of authority figures and propaganda assets and blogs and alternative news sites are asserting their independence from the old media establishment.

But... this freedom comes with a price... we are now in the 'cult of the amateur', where everybody claims expertise in any discipline, and bad information can proliferate equally rapid and do lots of damage. The interactive nature of the internet allows people to consume only those news reports and opinion pieces they already agree with, creating a highly polarized society in which belief systems are consistently reinforced through interaction between like-minded individuals. The internet, in some ways, can be seen as a gigantic mesh of echo chambers, a pie divided into various competing 'factions' and interest groups.

So when good information is amplified by the echo chamber, who would be opposed to that? But when bad information passes through all these force multipliers... In the end, what matters is if information is factually correct and scientifically plausible.

I can't even begin to explain to you how complex the social dynamic has become, factoring in the idiosyncrasies of the anarchist internet. I like the internet just as anarchist as it is, but nobody can be forced to believe anything, activists will have to develop profound reasoning and investigative skills, and they will require, more than ever, the fundamental philosophical, logical, empirical, scientific, journalistic and historiographical principles governing historical research. From where I stand, the overwhelming majority lacks these foundations and is therefore extremely vulnerable to mis- and disinformation.... the internet is a breeding ground for memes.

Morally, I will always stand by what I believe is truthful. Strategically, activist movements cannot afford imbibing their followers with flawed data and information, because these memes will then be trumpeted loudly on the streets, serving to incubate horrible misconceptions, stereotypes and caricatures in the minds of the people we are trying to recruit to help bring justice to the victims of 9/11, the victims of the 9/11 wars, and counter this onslaught of totalitarian and Orwellian subversion of our civil liberties and freedoms.

For me, simply protecting the truth about 9/11 from ongoing revisionism, by whichever side, is plenty of motivation. From my study of 911, I know we have been lied to and I side with the 9/11 Truth Movement, the right side of history. Unless, of course, we allow lies to be perpetuated in our name, this is unacceptable.

If you have any specific questions about the Pentagon, please ask. I can tell you right now: CIT is trying to have you believe witness testimony about flight paths can be accurate, and that the 'corroboration' they claim to have gotten increases the accuracy of their theory. This is false, especially when they artificially exclude counter-evidence, from witnesses to physical evidence, to a flight data recorder, to DNA, to radar data, to photographs, while providing a fallacious rationale to do so. Ask CIT to provide scientific documentation and literature supporting their assertions about witness flight path accuracy, even when corroborated, even when judging the location of a plane to the left of right of you. You will not get it.

Do me this favor

Read these links:

Small collection of evidence supporting impact:
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-16/david-chandler-talks-about-his-new...

9/11 researcher jimd3100 obliterates CIT in direct forum debate (a must read!)
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=44236&postcount=63

Not too long ago, 911blogger was snitchjacketed by the "Rock Creek Free Press", an independent newspaper from the Washington DC area. In their attack piece, they promoted CIT and their 'flyover' theory. I wrote a long response:
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-27/911bloggercom-accused-leading-911-...

Please read it. CIT followers hate it when I refer people to this link, which means I must be doing something right, which is why I'm going to do so more often.

Jeff... I can't access your forum, and the phone calls with Pentagon witnesses... so I can't refer anybody there right now...E.g.

You do not have permission to access this topic.
Error Code: 4:9312

I highly doubt it's just me.. have you decided to close it off except to members? Kinda difficult to show people your work this way.... :S

Thanks,

I'm reading! :)

Thanks SnowCrash!

Let me repeat the question I put to Frank: If all you had was the Pentacon documentary and the eyewitness reports in there, would you conclude there was a flyover?

For me it was the CIT documentary itself that convinced me that a plane hit the pentagon. Put rhetorically: I have no idea how one can watch that documentary and come to agree with a fly over scenario. It does not follow from anything in the documentary.

Regarding NoC. Lagasse's testimony sounds rather convincing, *if* we take it at face value. What do you make of that?

One comment (which you agree with if I understand you correctly) regarding accusations of disinformation. There are good good reasons for why one should refrain from such accusations:

1) Although the hypothesis that CIT are paid disinfo agents would explain their behavior I would stress that before asserting that we need independent verification of the hypothesis. To date I do not think there is such an independent verification. Otherwise we are falling in the same trap of those who speculate about the pentagon and present it as prime evidence.
2) These disinfo accusations discredit and makes the truth movement look paranoid (even though the presence of agents is not unlikely).
3) These accusations are disruptive as wrongful accusations will no doubt occur.

Pentacon/NSA

"Let me repeat the question I put to Frank: If all you had was the Pentacon documentary and the eyewitness reports in there, would you conclude there was a flyover?"

No, initially my response was: we now have very intriguing contradictions between the witnesses CIT interviewed and the flight path as put forth by the official data. I recommended holding off from preliminary conclusions until these contradictions were resolved. I thought CIT was onto something, but I wasn't quite sure what. I was incorrect; CIT was onto nothing, but they sure took care of the "missile" theories, which were equally wrong. I wonder what all the missile theorists have to say for themselves now, after promoting this bunk for years on end.

"For me it was the CIT documentary itself that convinced me that a plane hit the pentagon. Put rhetorically: I have no idea how one can watch that documentary and come to agree with a fly over scenario. It does not follow from anything in the documentary."

Different strokes for different folks, I guess, because their documentary is crafted to convince people that a plane crash was elaborately faked using an actual commercial aircraft flying cover: a kooky assertion which is, in my opinion, ludicrous on its face. I don't understand why I ever considered it in the first place. I regret the backtalk I gave some of the people who were already on to the deceptive nature of CIT's research.

"Regarding NoC. Lagasse's testimony sounds rather convincing, *if* we take it at face value. What do you make of that?"

So much to say about that... You should probably read this for starters. I believe Lagasse was wrong from the start.. and contrary to what CIT would have their audience believe, this is nothing extraordinary. Witness confidence isn't a metric for witness accuracy... just an indicator how self-confident a certain individual is.

"One comment (which you agree with if I understand you correctly) regarding accusations of disinformation. There are good good reasons for why one should refrain from such accusations:"

I agree with your rationale.

Thanks,

for the reading! Good info indeed. Watching some of those eyewitnesses I also now understand better how bad a move it is NOT to actively speak out against the no-crash theories.

Regarding Zwicker & DRG. I like both characters and I believe they are good guys . Unfortunately it seems to me (and of course many others here at 911blogger) that they have fallen prey for misinfo.

Can I offer some humble advice? From my experience in physics I know it will hard, if not impossible, to force these people to change their minds. This is seldom the way which people admit they are wrong. 911blogger must NOT be confrontational here. Without exception 911blogger must open its critique of relevant proponents with a friendly invitation to discussion. The essay by Erik L. could have started like this: "I would like to invite DRG to a discussion and reappraisal of the evidence for the 911phone calls. Many of us here at 911blogger feel that the evidence for the claim that these were fake is not strong enough....And given that this issue is rather sensitive for many 911 family members I would urge ...."

It does not matter how many times you are disappointed from lack of response. You always start like this, always polite, always friendly. Unfortunately, Erik's essay contained passages what could easily be interpreted as accusations, e.g. stressing that DRG is a skilled rhetorician. (Erik, if you read this, I apologies for not saying it to you directly.)

And yes, that's very easy for me to say! I have not endured the frustration many of you here must have endured.

PS What also put me on the skeptic side with CIT was simply their name: citizen investigation team. This has a really nerdy and "highschoolish" ring to it. As if designed to invite condenscending remarks and skepticism. :)

Snowcrash,

I would just like to tell you that I'm very grateful for the time you took to help me quickly understand both the pentagon and phone calls issues a bit more. I'm very impressed with your patience and with your well-written replies. Much appreciated! Keep up the good work!

Thanks Snowcrash

I have now run out of ideas. I limit myself to arguments based on hard evidence. I enjoy your wide ranging logical discourse. It also carries weight, adding to the weight of hard evidence.

Website is now working again

Here is the page in question.
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebutting-cit

Try your luck.

It should not be necessary

It should not be necessary for citizens to develop evidence enough to call for a new (actully, 1st time ever) 9/11 investigation. the Constitution and rule of law
are intended to be sufficient to that end.

All we need to know is that the White House, Congress and the DOJ have blocked investigations and indictments of people who lied to Congress.
Chief Counsel to the 9/11 commission, John Farmer provided the basis for 9/11 as a government cover-up in his 2009 book "The ground Truth".

Regardless the mountains of evidence from AE911Truth and Niels Harrit/Steven Jones, the total abandonment of the rule of law on 9/11 is ITSELF a cover-up.

We need to stop wasting resources arguing the picky points of marginal evidence and start focusing on the fact that the rule of law in the US has been abandoned.

The real question needs to be answered as to why the Media and the Government are goose-stepping in unison on creating a taboo of the 9/11 topic?.

I personally feel that 9/11 was an incomplete attempt at a joint Oligarch & Mlitary takeover of the the US.
But it doesn't matter what I think when the rule of law has been so successfully undermined, that the 9/11 truth group is fatally distracted by niggling details of mini-evidence.

i prefer a confrontational approach

have a row now and make up tomorrow

if we dont communicate there is no relationship -we are not a group

the rows may seem painful but we get consensus of a kind

we get to see sometimes that some of us who argued are each right in our own ways and these fragments of the truth crystal that we each have must be united to save the day !