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."

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.