Is Jon Stewart Alluding to Questioning 9/11 on the Daily Show?

On the July 20th episode of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the official 9/11 story appeared to come into question.

From 10:20 to 11:06, while on a ramble about Murdoch and News Corp, Jon has a segment about how absurd the Bush/Cheney conditions were to appear before the 9/11 Commission.

STEWART: "Do you remember when the 9/11 Commission had the audacity to ask pertinent questions to our then president and vice president?"...


Cheers, Mark


What was the purpose of having Dick Cheney and George Bush testify to begin with if it wasn't under oath, there was no transcript and there was no recording? Why testify at all?

Stewart.. a closet truther?

Exactly so.... if this was a true inquiry ... which it absolutely was NOT, and only militant Muslims were to blame, why on Earth did Cheney insist on holding the Commander in Chief's hand? Most probably to avoid the possibility of Bush inadvertently letting something "damaging" out of the bag in an unguarded moment. Bush was not a great speaker and was prone to making foul-ups when deviating from the script, or when asked a question that slipped through the security/vetting screen.

To hazard a guess here: Jon Stewart is nobody's fool, and I am sure that he is a closet Truther... but being a mainstream star of the talk show scene with a financially rewarding career, how prepared is he to go the route that some brave people like Dr. Steven Jones, Jesse Ventura, and others have gone? Is he prepared to be fired for and branded a conspiracy theorist, for showing some common sense and patriotism?

Yes, that "closet" thing

I used the word "allude" because I don't think Stewart is publicly questioning the official story of 9/11. I think he is calling the Bush/Cheney conditions for testimony absurd - as absurd as the way he speaks of Murdoch and News Corp. There is also a good episode from July 11th. The show has repeatedly picked on the News Corp scandal since it started.

So this makes it something that happens on the show, but that it didn't say - maybe they have some rating result of it, do they do that? To check and see how people react to things they do on the show? I thought the 45-second bit was woven in somewhat seamlessly to the surrounding piece about News Corp.

It's a part of the Daily Show, which aired for I think an average of 30 million viewers. It was a 45 seconds worth enjoying.

The last time I recall anything about the Daily Show, it was the "9/11 Was an Outside Job" sign he showed, or the incident at his New York book signing with 9/11 activists. In either case, I would call his direct appearance on the story of 9/11 was in support of the official story. This is the first time I have seen the appearance go the other way.

Cheers, Mark

Closet truther?

Could be but I still don't trust the man. If he knows the truth about 9/11 he is morally obliged to tell the truth. Obviously he knows the truth. They all do. Cowards all!

Here's a belief I just had

What is funny? Well, I suppose it depends on what you think is funny.

Do you think OCTs are funny? Well, maybe that depends on what you think.

And then there is what everybody thinks. This sounds political to me. A percentage of the population will think that something is funny, and perhaps another percentage will think that it is not. This is the political reality.

No matter what any individual thinks, there is how funny it is. This is why I asked the question, "Do they use ratings or something to find out how people reacted to that bit of film?" Because if people think its funny, then we see a political expression. Or, if people think its serious, we see another political expression. Or somewhere in between.

Cheers, Mark


You know, you just have to consider... That 19 Arabs with box-cutters must have had.... Some help?

Any help?

I mean, any help at all? Like maybe an Israeli guy at a hot dog stand as a lookout?

(Turns out the 19 Arabs were "helpers" at best!)

Do people generally know that a 767 flying at 400+ knots makes the towers look like needles 2 seconds before reaching them? You cannot manually maneuver a 767 to hit a WTC tower at that speed. 9/11 Truth pilots have said this.

Do people generally know that the video of the collapse of WTC 7 is convincing evidence of demolition? Many don't seem to. They seem very stupid that way. Please also note that Rudy Giuliani said that he turned off the gas in the building that morning .

When you get to police/fire evacuating the area of WTC 7 in the seconds before its collapse, along with its countdown, this is beginning to seem very much like a controlled collapse. So there is this guy, and he's like, "three, two, one"... What is he talking about? I live at the other end of that street.

When Donald Rumsfeld says, "the plane that was shot down over PA", or when the lady from the BBC says "building 7 has collapsed", we simply iron our clothes and give them to our spouses to wear to work No one should have to iron their own clothes.

are you sure of that?

"Please also note that Rudy Giuliani said that he turned off the gas in the building that morning . "

I have seen in the NIST report that the alarms and sprinklers were turned of around 7: AM in BLDG 7

I'll look for it.

"This clip is from Fox News

"This clip is from Fox News on September 11, 2001, and is from a Press Conference given by Mayor Giuliani. In the clip, Mayor Giuliani states that he does not believe gas is responsible for the explosions being reported, and emphasizes that the gas has been turned off."

At 25 seconds in, "we turned off the gas as a precaution"

[NIST also said the diesel stores in the building didn't do it, and the damage from tower debris didn't do it, but the fires did]

Gas in the Twin Towers?

I recall reading an article on a different topic (some years back) that referred to building codes and fire regulations in NYC which disallowed gas lines in high rise buildings over a certain height, on account of the potential danger from 'towering infernos'. For example fire inspectors' regulations required that the kitchen for the Windows on the World restaurant was situated in the *basement* of the North Tower, rather than at the top of the building next to the restaurant, and prepared food was shuttled up the elevators to diners. The stoves/ovens in that kitchen used gas from gas generators , rather than via gas lines installed in the buildings. If this really is the case, then the 3 tallest structures in the WTC would surely have been disqualified from having gas lines.

It appears that the "gas" explanation for the explosions is running out of, uh, gas.

Show "The 20th Man" by Markgm

I don't mean to alarm anybody

In the bigger picture, what do you suppose the story of "the 20th man" is capable of?

Do you think that 9/11 Truthers can be labelled as "20th man" believers?

What I am saying is that I would dare anyone to try that.

The only thing that can happen here is that it can come out on Fox, or the Daily Show. If it comes out on one first, then it comes out on the other one second, in the reverse order. In either case, it is absurd on multiple levels, and it would blow up in its own face. You may need faith in truth to know this.

It is absurd to believe in it.
It is absurd (at this point) to say that people believe in it.

One guy says it, another guy uses it to make it go off like a bomb. Or vice versa. No way out. It's a joke, and it cannot be more. So don't give it that kind of credit. It has no basis for sustainability beyond something temporary.

In the meantime, a more profound message is being communicated. "The 20th Man" is an abstract placeholder for something that has to exist in reality. I think it would be more like a couple hundred people, or maybe more, but the truth-placeholder is burned into the memory, after the bomb has gone off and everybody realizes that "the 20th man" itself is wrong (and a joke). Faith in truth recognizes that such a degree of absurdity in a thing makes it something that when put forth falls back in on itself.

The fact that the 19 hijackers is not enough remains. I think that whatever air is pumped into "the 20th man" pumps air into this fact. Whatever the 20th man has to do, remains, so go ahead and pump him up. When the absurdity is gone, his functions are still needed. The story goes away. Every stated function remains. Like a theatrical production... There are themes shared by everyone in the audience that no one in the cast says.

I am the one who is publicly posting the idea, and I do not believe in it.

It doesn't resemble anything else I've ever heard.

I think you need cruise missiles for the distances involved.

Cheers, Mark

p.s. This reminds me of Judy Wood. She supplies a source of super energy. She has nothing to say about nanothermite. I've snapped the "Judy Wood" argument like a twig, in discussion, for that very reason. Anyone that doesn't have nanothermite in their argument is toast.

the other 19 were who?


Perspicacious Joe

Sorry. There doesn't need to be 19 hijackers. It could have just been one guy.

Yes but...

Markgm, you are wrong about one thing. You say:

"Do people generally know that a 767 flying at 400+ knots makes the towers look like needles 2 seconds before reaching them? You cannot manually maneuver a 767 to hit a WTC tower at that speed. 9/11 Truth pilots have said this. "

If this is correct a pilot on a normal approach to landing would see the runway as a needle, impossible to align with, about 5 seconds before touchdown. We all know this is false. It does not matter who you quote, it is false.

Please, let us stick to hard science when we make claims.

I'm glad this came up

Pilots say there is no way the planes could be manually flown into the towers at these speeds. Some 9/11 truth pilots have tried this in simulations and failed. I have also been told (talking to another fellow about flight sim) that at 500 MPH a 767 could drive a hole into a runway..

I think there are two feasible ways to do this. One is to program the computer on the plane to fly into a tower. From what I have read, this is not easy and there is not much time to do it in. The only easy things I saw were the ability to plug in airport codes.

The second way is to set up the computer on the plane to receive its programming from a ground control station, for which the equipment uses a ground control station protocol (to connect to a "ground control"). The technology is there for this.

Either way, it is not manually controlled at these speeds. It is programmed.

Cheers, Mark

Frank Legge

What do you have for speeds? Got links?

1 in 10 truthers seem to me like horrible miscreants.

I take solace in the simple fact that far more horrible miscreants can be found on the opposing side.

We all know this is false. It does not matter who you quote, it is false.

Please, let us stick to hard science when we make claims.

This is a man of bad character.,
and of no substance. ,
and of lies.

"It does not matter who you quote"

I'm quoting YOU!!!
You are not using critical skills to speak that way. It's arrogant. I do my share of Internet wars, and that type of behavior is dogmeat with me. So don't do it.


Yes I have links re speeds. Find them here:

You say:
"This is a man of bad character.,
and of no substance. ,
and of lies. "

Who are you referring too?

Wrong plane

Here we are talking about the planes hitting the towers, and you give me a link to a PDF on the plane that hit the Pentagon. OK, so that document says that flight was travelling around 500 knots when it hit.

Here are the speeds of the planes that hit the towers. Around 500 MPH. They were "crazy flyin" at those speeds a thousand feet off the ground.

(CBS) Researchers believe the second hijacked plane to hit the World Trade Center was traveling about 100 mph faster than the first, according to a published report.

Investigators are focusing on the speed of the two planes as they seek to explain what caused the south tower to collapse first, even though it was the second one hit, The New York Times reported Saturday.

Researchers have closely studied videos, sound recordings and radar to estimate how fast the two jetliners were moving. Studies show that both planes were traveling well over the federal limits for altitudes below 10,000 feet, The Times said.

The second plane was flying so fast that it was in danger of breaking up in the air as it approached the south tower, Boeing spokeswoman Liz Verdier told the Times.

"These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed," Verdier said. "It's off the chart."

Two studies have analyzed the speed of the planes, one by the Federal Aviation Administration in consultation with the National Transportation Safety Board and the other by Eduardo Kausel, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Both found that United Airlines Flight 175, which hit the south tower at 9:02 a.m., was traveling significantly faster than American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north tower at approximately 8:46 a.m.

The government's calculations put the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph. The MIT analysis determined the first plane was traveling 429 mph, and the second 537 mph, The Times said.

Frank, you ask me about who it is about. It is about you. I don't like the way you combine ignorance with authority, like when you pop into a discussion, where you are supposedly not trolling or wasting people's time, when in fact you opposed the truth itself on this and did so like you were right about a thing you knew nothing about.

There is no manually flying a plane at these speeds into targets on the ground.

Now, let us try this again... You wrote

Markgm, you are wrong about one thing. You say:

"Do people generally know that a 767 flying at 400+ knots makes the towers look like needles 2 seconds before reaching them? You cannot manually maneuver a 767 to hit a WTC tower at that speed. 9/11 Truth pilots have said this. "

If this is correct a pilot on a normal approach to landing would see the runway as a needle, impossible to align with, about 5 seconds before touchdown. We all know this is false. It does not matter who you quote, it is false.

Please, let us stick to hard science when we make claims.

Let's take a closer look. Frank, you applied creative thinking to your facts. "If this is correct"... your analysis. Where did you get your position on the topic? Was it creative thinking?

And did you stuff me? I think you surely did. You wrote, "It does not matter who you quote, it is false.". You rejected my claim - "Please, let us stick to hard science when we make claims"... On what basis? You are providing speeds as a matter of creative writing.

Landing approach speeds are much lower than 400 knots


I believe landing approach speeds are on the order of 175 knots from several miles out and the landing speeds of most commercial aircraft are in the 130 to 150 knot range.

Additionally, the air pressure on the aircraft is a function of velocity squared, which means that at 500 knots the air pressure is about 13 times greater than it is at 140 knots. This is probably the biggest problem with trying to hit a 207 foot wide target at 500 knots at sea level, as any little deviation from perfect control surface manipulation would have a major influence and very likely cause a miss.

Very interesting details... an O/T note, Tony

I got a reply from the editor at BDonline - Anna Winston. I wrote her an email about the loss of over 1000 comments after 3 weeks of failing to moderate. This is the reply she gave - seems like they have not seen this sort of thing before. You know, I still have over 900 of those comments on my hard drive - I could use them for an article (here) about discussing 9/11 on the 'Net.
Reduced to 5 comments (from over 1200):
Dear Mark,

Almost all of the more than 1000 comments that you can see on the story were reported to the moderator at some point and it became very difficult for us to manage. Many of the reports appeared to be a continuation of a war of words between people who were commenting. We have been constantly removing comments that were obviously breaking our Ts&Cs but we have a very small team here and no-one is able to moderate one story full time.

I have never had to suspend comments in mid flow before and it’s not something I would do lightly. I hope you understand.

Best wishes,

Anna Winston
Web editor



It is true that control surfaces become much more powerful at high speeds, as you say, but it is also true that a pilot allows for this. One has to remember that the pilot's bum is strapped into the seat and he feels the g-forces produced by deflections of the controls. He applies pressure on the controls, not to produce a particular deflection of the control surface, but to produce the desired sensation. This will inevitably produce smaller deflections at higher speeds.

I just stick to hard evidence. There is no hard evidence that the plane was controlled by other than a human. It could not have been controlled by a pre-programmed system on board the plane as the plane was not fitted with an operational GPS. Without GPS the accuracy of positioning could have been hundreds of feet out horizontally. It could have missed the Pentagon altogether. The perpetrators would not have allowed that.

In the FDR file we see a great deal of wild behaviour when the autopilot is switched off that looks as though an inexperienced pilot has taken over. As the Pentagon is approached the fluctuations diminish, which suggests the pilot is getting the feel of the controls. The claims we have seen that the final maneuver was highly skilled are contradicted by the FDR data, if it is to be believed, and I have found no reason to doubt it.

The question of how the plane was controlled is certainly up for discussion.

Yeah why doubt anything about the FDR data or the whole

damn OCT for that matter. I guess Hani was just a quick study.


I look forward to your technical publication about the FDR. Did you study Frank's paper? Please outline any flaws you found, so we can examine the validity and relevance of your Pentagon commentary. Do the control yoke movements suggest remote control? If so why? If not, why not? By what quantifiable method did you arrive at this conclusion? What direct technical evidence do you have that the FDR is fake other than incredulity?

Why not just go to Pilots for 911 Truth

and watch the video that shows the incredibly dubious nature of the flight 77 FDR. The data provided by NTSB doesn't work as they see it.


is not an answer.

I know their work. They know me. Answer the question as posed, if you volunteer to speak before your turn. Directly, promptly, and exhaustively. (You would have to read Frank's paper first)

If there is something in you guys exchange

I don't mean to get in the middle of it.

I will say this. I have not read Frank's paper as of yet. But if his behavior here, such as to suggest that the planes slowed down to hit the towers, or to allude to landing speeds as making the hits possible, and to then have the audacity to hold that up with words like "hard science"...

There is no hard science in that. We have documented speeds for the planes. We don't just "make it up".

I find that to be very arrogant and unscientific, and I may use it in the matter of judging the character of Frank Legge.

Perhaps Frank NEEDS the planes to be flown manually - all of them, because he has invested so much of himself in them having to be flown manually (all the way). If that were the case, I think we would call that "wishful thinking". Of course, I have no idea what Frank needs.

Have a great day,

The question

of whether somebody *needs* something to be true is fair, because it revolves around confirmation bias.

Let's examine this question further, specifically involving CIT:

Frank's paper is a response to most of P4T's errors (and dishonesty). It should be read before either the paper or its author is critiqued.

There's more here:

That does answer one question I had

Which was whether or not Frank's paper refutes P4T's claims.

I m not familiar with the meaning of CIT or PFT. Are these beliefs about what happened that day?

"Confirmation bias". That's a good one. He imagined a speed and put in a post here. He refuted my claim without evidence and on the matter of the speed of the planes that hit the towers. I think "bias" is absolutely right. More importantly, though, I think the facts are being manipulated to fit the hypothesis.

You know, he didn't even google it, which I did in 3 seconds - to supply a link for the actual speeds. He stuffed the claim of 400+ knots. That is where the word "arrogance" comes into play here. I don't treat people that way. I find arrogance to be wrongful, unnecessary and even destructive. This guy actually refuted my claim without providing any link or evidence in his post. That is so publicly disrespectful!

I'll say this very simply. The behavior is just not needed. I deal with this in OCT's all the time - I don't want that when I'm on vacation. You know, OCT's - "the people who know". OCT's eventually become truthers, or people who would like to know. OK, so Frank has a paper with a... Hypothesis? A theory, perhaps? Does he know what happened at the Pentagon, or does he hypothesize it?

The statement Frank made here was that he saw no reason to doubt the FDR data. P4T mentioned accelerometer variability and at the end of the flight "a likelyhood of an INS crash". With all of the variables going on, and with the distance that the INS is off in the FDR data, we at least know that we're talking about real-world variability. In other words, my starting position includes wondering how anyone can get past theory on this and call their position fact. Does this paper say fact, or theory?

p.s. I will get to the au link you gave as soon as it works for me. (its timing out on me)


I believe you have some catching up to do. CIT = Citizen Investigation Team, PFT/P4T = Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge is co-author of the nano-thermite paper, a chemist, a former pilot and a prominent 9/11 researcher. CIT and P4T have an association with each other; it seems that Rob Balsamo, the head of P4T, supports their claim that a Boeing 757 actually flew over the Pentagon instead of into it.

Many of us have a long history of acrimony with both CIT and P4T and so I'm probably not the one to give you an objective introduction to either CIT or P4T: I find their tactics and research extremely reprehensible and dishonest, as well as scientifically incompetent and fraudulent. The link to Frank's site works for me.

There was a time when I doubted a plane flew into the Pentagon. I've changed that position, now I never understood why I doubted it in the first place. Most of the discussion that goes on now is about the minutiae. To evaluate claims, evidence, documentation and arguments requires significant training in the journalistic, historiographical and scientific method, epistemology, logical fallacies, cognitive biases, logic and skeptical philosophy, as well as various technical disciplines related to the attack and its aftermath, such as aviation, physics, structural engineering, chemistry, photo analysis, witness testimony and its various pitfalls, and much, much more.

Without such knowledge, it's understandable how one could come to believe no plane hit the Pentagon. It's especially likely that one would come to such a conclusion if one studiously ignores the massive body of evidence that indicates otherwise, usually justified with claims that widen the conspiracy to include adversarial witnesses or inconvenient physical evidence. Usually the first and most nefarious pitfall is 'intuitive physics': this is related to the Dunning-Kruger effect: the notion that a layman will convince him or herself that he/she is qualified on the basis of 'intuition' what the site of a plane crash should look like and what the effects of high velocity collisions (collision dynamics) ought to be.

I never joined 9/11 Truth to at all times favor a narrative that conflicts with the official one; just to dig up and find the real truth, regardless of what that is. In the case of the Pentagon, it's not that a plane did not crash there: it crashed there. The question is why.

Meanwhile, the proponents of Pentagon no plane/no plane crash theories delay and obstruct efforts to answer this question, because as long as you ask the wrong questions, those who may have something to answer for needn't worry about the answers.

I have studied the Pentagon attack extensively; yet I guess what is lacking is a coherent, extensive, elaborate essay that covers all the bases and explains why those of us who have come to terms with the Pentagon attack believe a plane crashed there. I can't convey all that to you here; and so we are doomed to have these discussions over and over again, often resulting in entrenched camps bitterly fighting personal vendettas ad infinitum. Nevertheless, the truth is the truth, and it must be told, regardless of what version of events, colored by predisposition (E.g. "everything about 9/11 is a lie"), has come to be preferred within our own ranks.

I will show you one picture:


Ask yourself if you are prepared to believe that this tail imprint, claimed by many to be non-existent, was faked. It's one piece of evidence: there's so much more.

Snowcrash said: There was a

Snowcrash said:

There was a time when I doubted a plane flew into the Pentagon

And I can say the same thing. Thanks again Snowcrash for the good debate back whenever it was - the facts won me over.

I have no evidence that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Just as I have no evidence that Osama was not killed recently.

If I was to argue that Osama was not killed then, or is still alive - I could join the "elvis and tupac are alive groupies." But I don't, and I won't.

So I have no reason to say that a plane did not hit the pentagon.

On the subject of planes flying low at high speeds, I just was watching this video. Mostly fighter jets, however there is a shot of a larger plane flying very low at good speed (w/o landing gear). If you feel you must, here is the link:

(bad music in the video, yikes)

The Pentagon and me

I think I should just go ahead and say, I have not formed an opinion about what hit the Pentagon, actually. I haven't been looking at it in any real depth. I find what you have to say interesting; you have clearly been spending a lot of time looking at this.

Many of us have a long history of acrimony with both CIT and P4T and so I'm probably not the one to give you an objective introduction to either CIT or P4T: I find their tactics and research extremely reprehensible and dishonest, as well as scientifically incompetent and fraudulent. The link to Frank's site works for me.

I will surely bear that in mind. Everything you are saying sounds like a big war topic. I have tended to avoid the Pentagon topic because I have really enjoyed focusing on the more-so smoking gun aspects, such as at the WTC, and many other delights.

I've got the page up now. The most I can tell you now is that what I am reading is professional-looking. As you pointed out earlier, I am into a sub-thread I didn't want to be in, as of the injection of the P4T video in response to your post. I am not more interested in what Frank has to say about the Pentagon than I am about the Pentagon, which I talked about above. Frankly, I hope its great. I hope its all great.

I think 4s will work intuitively well in these 911 acronyms (as opposed to Fs).

Interesting picture. It was only in the last year that I came to discover that - now let me ask you this... Have many people been dealing with the wrong pictures of the Pentagon site, such as to make it look like the lawn is untouched and there is no wreckage? Because if that is so, what is that? Is that propaganda/lies/nonsense, and a premeditated act of propaganda distribution?

I want to add one other thing about my points with Frank, here. As we speak, men, women and children are being murdered. When it comes to Internet wars, I am often smacked by the person next next to me, not the other side. I think it is OK to smack one another a bit, with the simple understanding of why that is - to make a better army. I am going to reflect on thinking of myself as perhaps a hard-ass. I can wage heavy wars without casting a single opinion about anything. I can conduct ad hominem attacks without a single word of my opinion. (Quote the person) What occurs to me now is wondering how hard it may be for (not Frank) but many truthers to live life without a personal opinion. I worked at that (in esoteric fashion) for 21 years. I would like to reflect on my attitude and behavior in this regard. . I have been using "standard battle behavior". As I think of it, very generic stuff (and a million hours of it). Perhaps Frank has been using "standard battle behavior" of some kind, in the same sort of way. Like maybe if he thought I was one of those people or group that you have trouble with, on the matter of the Pentagon.


There are several issues related to the lawn. First, there is the fact that although some witnesses reported seeing the plane "cartwheel" into the lawn and then into the Pentagon, the official story as well as FDR analysis doesn't show the plane impacting the ground, or coming really close to it before reaching the concrete pavement in front of the façade, where the left engine, judging from the photographic evidence, punctured a concrete foundation, leaving a round hole. So, there aren't any skid marks in the grass.

Second, perspective issues as well as optical zoom in some of the photographs distort the distances and position of objects such as the generator, the generator fence and the cable spools so that it may seem that they either should have been struck or couldn't have been struck. However, closer analysis reveals there are several plausible explanations for perceived anomalies that do not include quixotic realtime damage fakery. Also, firefighters touched and moved objects in between several photographs that were taken, causing further confusion. The tail imprint seen above was covered up by fire retardant foam shortly after.

Third, perspective and photo resolution issues are also responsible for the perception that the lawn was immaculate and clean shortly after the crash; in reality the lawn was littered with plane confetti as well as some larger debris. The crash, in its physical nature, caused both atomization of debris and human remains as well as severing, crumpling and leaving some larger, more recognizable pieces of debris behind. The shape of the hull is cylindrical and long, so it has more opportunity to penetrate deeply into the Pentagon than the wings did. Unlike the WTC impacts the Pentagon impact was preceded by the plane colliding with many obstacles that were in the way while approaching the Pentagon.

Many experienced Pentagon researchers - the pioneers, if you will - at one time asked if the absurd contradictions in the evidence released by the government were coincidental or actually designed to provoke more confusion and suspicion. This is speculation - nobody can prove the authorities, whether they be ASCE, FBI, FEMA, the NTSB or others deliberately released contradictory data with suspicious anomalies. Fact is that such anomalies greatly accelerated and encouraged no plane/no plane crash theorizing. Few of us understand the secretive behavior often exhibited by government officials responsible for releasing or withholding critical data or videos, when it is clearly in the interest of the government to be transparent if a plane indeed crashed there.

Yes, some of us have wondered if the government encourages conspiratorial speculation because it distracts from the real issues. Obama's duplicity surrounding his birth certificate seems like another example: as long as Obama's political opponents keep focusing on the fake birth certificate hoax they don't stand a chance in the upcoming elections.

I'm not sure that officials deliberately confused researchers with inexplicable and contradictory data. It could be. But what could have happened didn't necessarily happen. Many people photographing around the Pentagon were just taking pictures, many of those pictures have been made available in their original form with EXIF data. To date, no credible evidence of photo fakery or modification has emerged.

What I am sure about, is that the people responsible for the 9/11 cover-up have a vested interest in us asking the wrong questions; the establishment's propaganda arms, such as Popular Mechanics enjoy putting the spotlight on the fringe of the fringe and play the guilt by association game.

The way Dan Rather was framed with the Killian Documents shows how a high profile critic can be silenced and discredited by setting up a disinformation trap.

So.. in closing, whether intentional or not..... Yes, the Pentagon crash could be described as a Honey Pot.

RE: Mark. Tail Damage

Regarding the tail damage to the Pentagon's facade, the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR) states,

"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."

Look at figure 6.1 on page 35 of the PBPR. It shows the angle at which the plane hit the Pentagon. For that mark to have been made by the tail, the plane would've been tilted more to the left than it was in that diagram. This would change the where the right wing and horizontal stabilizer hit the building. Also you can see the tail extended all the way up to the fourth floor of the Pentagon. The damage supposedly caused by the tail looks far more "cosmetic" than it does structural. I notice discoloration in many places across the facade. However, if that is damage caused by the tail then why doesn't it match one from a Boeing-757?


This might come as a surprise to you but the Pentagon Building Performance Report actually contains errors. One example of such an error is the description of figure 3.9 on page 17, where hanging floor slabs are mistakenly described as columns. I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but the notion that elements of the PBPR are false comes as no surprise to me. The authors of the PBPR are not infallible.

Moreover, you are falling prey, as described above, to 'intuitive physics' and falsification-speculation: (A) What gives you the idea that an imprint of a tail should extend the full height? (Hint: your idea is wrong) and (B) Just because you express your intuitive disbelief, that does not make it true and that also does not mean your favorite fantasy (realtime painting of fake tail imprint in a fraction of a second after the crash) is true instead, especially given you have no positive evidence whatsoever to support this assertion.

Positive evidence would include, for example, whistleblowers who were involved in spraying a fake tail cut-out onto the Pentagon façade fractions of a second after the crash without being seen, right above wall mounted bombs which cut out a plane shape, and where both quixotic and absurd fakery operations did not interfere with each other, or witnesses who observed this fakery occurring while observing the plane crash into the building (eliminating the need for such fakery altogether, unless it was merely for kicks)

Lastly, this raises the question: could the team who accomplished this incredible, absurdly difficult feat of instantaneous evidence fakery, somehow simultaneously be incompetent enough to not extend their fake imprint all the way to the top?

There really comes a point where you have to maintain dignity and end this theater of absurd subterfuge and admit the obvious.

P.S. The authors of the PBPR mistakenly assume the right wing impacted the façade while still intact and fully attached to the hull. Or did you expect the impact with the generator to do no damage to the plane?

RE: Surprise

I'm well aware of the fact that the Pentagon Building Performance Report contains errors just as it reaches many erroneous conclusions. This is due to the limited information available to the Building Performance Study(BPS) team as they investigated the incident. They make mention of this in their report, "The volume of information concerning the aircraft crash into the Pentagon on September 11 is rather limited...By the time the full Pentagon BPS team visited the site, all debris from the aircraft and structural collapse had been removed and shoring was in place wherever there was severe structural damage". So their report relied greatly on eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence.

Where in my previous comment did I say the imprint was painted on seconds after the impact? You are engaging in a standard "debunker" tactic. Ascribe to your opponent the most ridiculous position imaginable then set out to ridicule it in the most immature way possible.

I believe the damage to the facade is consistent with impact damage or a blast of some kind. My point about the "cosmetic" damage is that you can find similar markings across the facade of the Pentagon. There is discoloration across columns 14, 15 and 16. I would classify the damage done to the facade on the second-floor between columns 18 and 19 as structural damage.

Nevertheless, you still need to prove that this marking is tail damage from a Boeing-757. What positive evidence do you have to show this?

My position regarding the Pentagon attack is, "I don't know what happened, I would like to know." People shouldn't become dogmatic over an issue in which the evidence is inconclusive.

Snowcrash: "The authors of the PBPR mistakenly assume the right wing impacted the facade while still intact and fully attached to the hull."

Do they?

The PBPR reports:
"In any event, the evidence suggests that the tips of both wings did not make direct contact with the facade of the building and that portions of the wings might have been separated from the fuselage before the aircraft struck the building. This is consistent with eyewitness statements that the right wing struck a large generator before the aircraft struck the building...It is possible that these impacts, which occurred not more than 100 ft before the nose of the aircraft struck the building, may have damaged the wings and caused debris to strike the Pentagon facade and the heliport control building."

'"The size and position of the actual opening in the facade of the building (from column line 8 to column line 18) indicate that no portion of the outer two-thirds of the right wing and no portion of the outer one-third of the left wing actually entered the building."

Please keep in mind

that this entire sub-thread, while educational, is off topic here.

As long as it remains civil and productive, it should be fine.

Thanks, and good to have you back SC.


Thanks LW

I'll keep that in mind. Stick around, I have something, although not directly related to 9/11, that should probably be posted on the front page. Will edit a blog post now, unless somebody beats me to it.

jon stewart?

who gives a shi*t what he thinks about 9/11? we already know what he thinks about 9/11. he agrees with glen beck. lol. nuff said.
after 10 years of ignoring the facts, you should learn not to pay attention to neither stewart nor maher. or any other msm talking head.
when those people talk about 9/11, you know they're doing it for the sake of the agenda, not finding the truth. jon has proven himself
to be such a douchebag. forget about jon stewart. 9/11 truth first.

On Topic: Jon Stewart has severe conflicts of interest,

so I don't trust him.

Do you know what his big brother Larry does?

He RUNS the New York Stock exchange. You can verify it here:

Small world, isn't it?

And if you don't believe that the highest levels of Wall Street were deeply involved in 9/11, I've a bridge to sell you.

Such a small world.

That is very interesting.

You know, Aaron Russo was a friend of the Rockefellers. He went the other way, but I recall he described them trying to take him in. Of course, that just wasn't the kind of man he was. He went and made things like "Mad as Hell" and "Freedom to Fascism".

An Aaron Russo interview (with Alex Jones)

As far as the Daily Show goes, I was guessing they were maybe testing the water, but also setting up for a transition from OCT to the other side. I think that could be popularity-based. Clearly, the truther percentages are changing, such as in New York.

I could also imagine that recently, what we call Jon Stewart just found out about 9/11 for real. When we say Jon Stewart, I think it is a writing/production staff and Jon Stewart. If we go back to the NYC book-signing event, with Stewart, activists got into a physical confrontation with the executive producer and another guy from the show. So maybe the whole staff shares the same POV. Maybe they found out...? From the book-signing, I think they look like they might be a tight crew.


Odds are against Jon Stewart Officially Joining 911truth

that's just the way it is. Yeah he most probably is or will be a closet truther at some point. There are plenty of folks who know the Govt is lying now but essentially they realize there's not much new here and little to be done about it. The cover-up is pretty much right on schedule as time continues to marginalize the truth and the establishment continues to close ranks and strip human rights. In the end we are dispensible and this is history's lesson. Yes 911 did have some potential as a crack in the matrix, but a mass movement never materialized. Those who believe or promote that a highly credible truth movement with verified data etc will somehow conquer the world are either still dreaming or part of the cover-up.
But alas the situation could still change as a result of future events and cracks in the matrix. The current economic model is destined to fail the planet in the near future unless the model is changed or the population is significantly decreased. The current model is showing stress cracks everywhere as the masters demand their pound of flesh from us all. Interesting times indeed.

Courage and Bravery

Peaceful Warrior, thank you for the good dose of realism about our world. It's been 10 years. It was at about the time Mark Ruffalo spoke about it, and said that change will not come from leadership, it will have to come from the people. And another point - part of a huge cabal like this (don't recall the source) is like a rip-off of nazi Germany, where total control of the MSM is part-and-parcel of that. The US blackout has been a bit flooring. I think many have had to change world views several times in this period of time. I agree with Lewis Black - we've been so busy getting punched, we haven't had time to stop reeling and formulate a response. So I can view the 10 years differently, too. There have been big changes in world view for millions. Putting it into perspective, I think the 9/11 truth movement was really small in the beginning of 2005, for example. Most high profile truth movement leaders didn't appear until 2005,,6, 7. I believe Charlie Sheen being put up on national stage and fired upon on Entertainment Tonight was around that time.

Speaking of Charlie Sheen, did you notice how they didn't use any Ed Asner or Ed Begley or anybody else - they went with Charlie Sheen. It sure does seem like they wanted to drive his character into the ground, and they did. Listen to any talk show in the US today, and you can see that Charlie Sheen is used as a general target for slander and lies, and character assassination.

I would theorize that the Daily Show crew may have gone closet truther. You raise such a good point - "closet truther" will be a very good and useful term. I've read some local history about when the US was coming into being, and there were Tories and Whigs. In a time of war, the colonists had their own share of traitors, and even double-traitors, apparently based upon military presence in the area. In other words, they would even switch sides in some cases based upon who they thought had the upper hand. This is sounding a lot like the matter of courage to me.

Look at all of the big-time celebrities. How is it even statistically possible for all of those box-office big-time actors have nothing to say. I don't see anything from Harrison Ford or Bruce Willis or John Travolta or Kevin Costner or Meryl Streep, etc. I don't hear about 9/11 from Sean Peen, but he speaks strong words about the wars in the ME and the killing there.

I have been susceptible to this (and have gained perspective upon it since)... Can I look at Jon Stewart, see that speaking truth to power there is a more committed act, and then say that I accept the fact that he is in a different situation than me, and then there is a slippery slope. Accepting it would be a perspective upon it, but if we are elsewhere and looking at ourselves, who is going to be us? Each political party has to speak their own position, so we can live the real political foray. I can see the height of Stewart's position, but I have to represent myself. I need people who will speak out.

And where is ANY money from all these celebrities and fat cats who are or may be closet truthers? Good God, man, it has to be worse than just closet truthers. Are these people closet living? These people are not just afraid of reprisals and such, there have got to be some cloud 9 circles going on. I will tell you about my ex. She saw how much time I spent studying this matter and news and related things. She said that it didn't have anything to do with our lives. She said that we had our own family and lives to live, and none of this stuff was something we could do anything about, or be affected by, that we would just go on living our lives. It is like the kind of bullish attitude that goes with market crashes. It is oblivious. So I say this money thing because I saw $100,000 change the reality in NYC - the number of people who knew about building 7 went up with the 'building what?' campaign. Can we have a dozen of those $100,000 campaigns, please (God)? It seems like truthers just poor people.

Going back to where I began, I want to highlight how much of a change in world view has to occur, and also, how much detail that can involve. Perhaps my ex gives an example of what has to happen to one's world view. How much of a change do you see being needed? I see degrees of substantively relearning the world one live in. For example, there is the world view like this... "I found out 9/11 was an inside job, and so this will come to justice - have a nice day". Let us recall recent US history:
2006: The people flip congress. (That didn't work)
2008: The people flip the POTUS (That didn't work)
So you have to go back and perform additional modifications to your views. In response to what you have said, I would say that there are really thousands of informational details involved in establishing a person's world view to begin with. This is not just an inside job. It is part of something much larger. It is an event on the enemy's drawing board.

Which brings us to today. We have had to change so much. That is my recollection and retrospect on the matter. In 2006, I wanted to bring the thing to justice. Now its 2011, and I agree with Mark Ruffalo. The people have to do it or it aint getting done. I hope we continue to remember, as such cumulatively savvy folk. how naive a person is when they get started, and how much one has to go through to get their world view right. Each part of a new view has to stand on its own two feet.

I would hypothesize in the case of the Daily Show, that they will show us their bravery or lack of bravery with whatever they choose to do. That is one way to put a perspective on that crew. Perhaps we can get our minds more advanced - more forward, and see even more than we see now. Perhaps we can start talking about reprisals upon those who are not brave. That sounds like war-mode to me, and a far cry from some less evolved world view.

What a lot of talking! Well, I am a system's architect - I like to form a world view (really badly). I'll emphasize it. I will say that this is very important. I enjoy these developments in perspective. I enjoy this topic and to continue to evolve my sense of "the way it is", and I respect the motions one has to go through, to get to a point of view that is far removed. That being said - one last thing. How much do you want to bet that there will be a critical moment, or a pop? That suddenly, the cup will not only runneth over, but will get wild? It's that "bravery" thing again. The "pop" is when all the closet cases suddenly become active; those who have no bravery at all would suddenly show up.

Let's tout our heroes and trash our villains. Sure enough.

- Mark

Yeah thanks for the feedback, really I appreciate it

funny I was just thinking about Charlie Sheen, i noticed when he had his recent publicity barrage and set up to do appearance dates, etc. No mention of 911, he could have teamed up with Richard Gage and modified his show or something. Anything! I have come to the realization that the 911 scam is nothing new and the world is run by very bad elite orientated pigs and always has been. I thought the 911 mistakes were so in our faces that it was only a matter of time before the right people rallied the rest of us and brought us past the goal line. I no longer think that. I have come to understand that it doesn't matter what the people or any of us want, these bastards will do as they please. Look at Libya for god's sake. Yes there was a chance for a mass movement but in recent years the people I speak with about it now say they don't even doubt what I am saying but the emotional outrage has disappeared. Time has dissipated the situatuion just like older events incl gulf of tonkin, JFK, MLK, WMD's etc. The truth becomes irrelevant to the average Joe etc

I am not an average Joe!

"The truth becomes irrelevant to the average Joe"

Absolutely agree

you're anything but an average Joe. Always enjoy your posts and comments teach.

'the emotional outrage has disappeared'

What is revealed by this dissipation of outrage is the extent to which that outrage was mis-focused on individual persons, like Bush and Cheney, rather than on a system that has become dependent on perpetual war and fear. People see that the fundamental characteristics of the post-9/11 US have continued, but that wasn't really what got them riled up all along anyway, they were happy to just make some superficial changes, and even when people aren't all that happy with Obama, all that's wrong with the post-9/11 world is somehow more acceptable with him than it was under Bush and Cheney. A mature republic depends on people understanding that it is supposed to be based on laws and not on individual personalities. That they get it so completely wrong is an indication of how infantilized they are.

I think it's critical to keep certain distinctions in mind when drawing parallels between 9/11 and earlier outrages that were successfully misportrayed to the public. Such as this: the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin wasn't revealed until years after the pseudo-event, after the escalation in the Vietnam War had gone on for several years. And in the case of the JFK assassination, there was no internet then. People who didn't trust the Warren Report could wait around to read alternative views as these came to be published, but the information circulated more slowly, less widely. It took much longer for the relevant information to become avaiable and to circulate among a wider public. By contrast, in the case of 9/11, as people emerged from the inital trauma, there was already information exposing the many holes in the official story. What I'm getting at is this: much more than in the case of JFK, the persistence of the OCT and its nefarious effects on this country has depended on the people's unwillingness to consider alternative sources of information; or put another way, it has depended much more on their willingess to be ostriches, always looking the other way. Much of the problem we've been discussing--not all of it, but much of it, and moreso than was the case with past controversies--has come down to a matter of public will, or the lack thereof. And that's something I and I think others are having a hard time wrestling with right now.

Yes I agree

the fact that we refuse to see the current president as presiding over a brutal regime committing civilian attrocities, torture, and denial of human rights as well as significant wars of agression for resources shows how far the MSM has evolved in hiding the truth since the days of JFK. I agree that the internet has changed the game and given the masses a chance they never had, however after a decade time is running out I am sorry to say.