The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact by John D. Wyndham
In ongoing research into the Pentagon attack the following peer-reviewed paper has now been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
“The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact” by John D. Wyndham.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Wyndham1.pdf
As stated in the abstract, this paper shows that, of all the theories about what caused the damage and debris at the Pentagon on 9/11, a large plane impacting the Pentagon is in best accord with the majority eye witness testimony and main physical evidence, and is by far the most plausible theory. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory.
This work is supported by recent papers by Frank Legge and David Chandler:
http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Chandler_NOC_Refutation.html
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/12/27/addendum-to-the-paper-refuting-the-pentagon-flyover-hypothesis/
In these papers, Legge and Chandler show the path required for the flyover theory is impossible as the wing loading is excessive and the bank angle would be far steeper than anything reported by the many observers.
John D. Wyndham
January 8, 2012
- John D. Wyndham's blog
- Login to post comments
Feedback
Dr. Wyndham:
Thank you for your hard work. I'm still in the process of reading your entire paper. One thing that interests me is the following part in the paper,
"Large Plane Impact Theory: The low-flying large plane impacted the light poles causing the observed damage."
Some have doubted that a plane coming in at such a high speed, like +400 mph, could have simply tipped over the pole. A quick google search can show pictures of the poles' base. There appears to be no radial cut or anything that would suggest an explosive tipped over the pole and somewhat into the direction of the coming plane.
I guess calculating the the motion history of the pole after being hit with the plane isn't necessary but it is fascinating to imagine the dynamics of interacting objects, especially at high speeds. It's like a rigid rod being is fixed at the bottom and is hit at the top and its top acquires the tangential speed of ~400 mph. We know the moment of inertia of a rod and we can set it's initial condition of its angular speed as well and I guess it simplifies to a 2nd order ODE that can be solved via Runge-Kutta. But it's difficult to estimate the energy converted at the base during the deformation but hopefully the following reasoning helps in settling the matter.
From the pictures, it seems like some of the poles are slightly bent near the alleged aircraft-pole impact region. Bending the poles in those areas is tough for explosives to do. One could assume an elastic collision here but I think the greater factor is the pole rotating and its top hits the ground at a high speed which is countered by a strong frictional force from the pavement - which gives the appearance that it simply just tipped over.
All the best and keep up your excellent research Sir !
Yes
performing those calculations would be interesting but you would have to know that the bases of these poles are specifically designed to "break away", hence the bases of these poles are called "breakaway base".
Moreover, some pole pictures were taken long after they were uprooted, so the position they were in at the time they were photographed will likely not correspond with the position they were in just after they were struck.
transparency
I find the CIT pursuit to be highly directed to a particular outcome, which is a shame. Their interviews are convincing but a lot of it can be explained.
On the other hand, there is a large sentiment which says this sort of pursuit detracts, in some way, from the movement. That's ludicrous. It may be wrong but it's not wrong-hearted. I appreciate the whole-hearted attempt to reason out the probabilities of these sorts of things. I think it's crazy to fight each other though. I'm not going to convince anyone, obviously, though I know I'm right. Your ends are wrong.
Quite frankly, this type of intense analysis completely misses the point, which I don't have to repeat here because it's so obvious.
Personally, I'm not convinced a plane hit the Pentagon. I don't see the requisite damage. I see damage that can only be caused by a missile. Perhaps that's cognitive dissonance because we usually see such a complete and open investigation in these types of crashes. But, if that's the case, then I have a right to be unconvinced and it serves us well. It serves us well, because the real deficit here is information and transparency and if anyone tries to prove anything in spite of that fact, quite frankly, they're wasting their time and mine. The real outrage here is lack of transparency in a case that affects us all.
What Hit the Pentagon?
What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug... (PDF)
Read it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
Why read it? Because you said this:
...I have a right to be unconvinced and it serves us well. It serves us well, because the real deficit here is information ...
It will serve us better if you convince yourself of some truths and work with that. Information is actually quite abundant, you just sound OK not looking into it. You do have a right to be unconvinced, just like all the people you want to pay attention to you.
So, what path will you choose?
I will echo your comment on transparency, we need a lot more of that from our elected officials.
Who Flew the Plane?
Since we agree that there is no credible evidence for a flyover and considerable evidence for a large airliner crash, the question is not "What hit the Pentagon?" but "Who flew the Plane?"
The fact that the Pentagon was hit at all during a time of red alert smacks of official complicity, as does the non-release of surveillance videos. But the prospect that Hani Hanjour, an incompetent hack, was behind the wheel manually executing these maneuvers to come in low and level and strike the newly-renovated part of Wedge 1 where the budget analysts were located is the key. For me, at least.
Either it was coincidence that Hanjour could and did execute this flight path and more coincidence
that this section was hit -
Or FL 77 was under remote guidance, indicating an inside job false flag operation.
Important Question - "Who Flew the Plane?"
Good points!
Physical
Nobody saw a missile.
The notion of a missile is just outside of all evidentiary considerations.
Light poles
And of course the five light poles that were severed strongly support an object that has the width of a large airplane. I have a hard time imagining a zigzagging missile.
How about five missiles?
Not joking, five missiles would be more likely than a 757.
Absolutely nobody
saw one missile, let alone five missiles, there is no physical evidence for such an outlandish scenario, the potential for failure is very high, and the wingspan of a 757 matches the lateral pole distance, and witnesses such as Albert Hemphill saw the plane hit a pole, so why even bother?
No, I don't support
the five missile theory, I was joking.
I was not joking when I said the five missile theory is more likely than the 757 theory as preposterous as they both are. Don't you think there would be 2 huge holes where the engines hit if it was a 757? Airplanes are made of lightweight material so they can fly. The engines have to be made with stronger material so they can to hold together.
Commercial airplanes cannot fly that close to the ground at those speeds unless they are going straight down or at a very steep angle.
Now if a 757 did hit the Pentagon, it would have to be going a lot slower. However, you would expect to see large sections of plane outside the building and hundreds of clear photos of both engines part way in.
We don't use fire to demolish buildings.
We don't use airplanes to deeply penetrate multiple thick cement structures like buildings made to resist missiles and bombs.
Self contradictory
First you're joking, then you're not joking.
Then you say:
Reversing:
But according to you, the engines would have created "huge holes". The difference you allege in collision behavior between the long heavy hull and the engines is baseless. The airplane isn't composed of a disc, with two engines attached, it's a long cylinder which consists of plenty of material to gain passage after the front section opens up the façade for it. Some say at the WTC, the hole is too wide. Then at the Pentagon, some say the hole is too small. I don't think either of those commentators really know or understand collision dynamics.
The right engine crashed into the generator on the Pentagon lawn, cutting a flap track on the top, commensurate with a wing passing over the top.
This bolted the plane upward on its right flank, probably detaching the wing, and launching the right engine, which has lost kinetic energy due to the impact with the generator, towards the wall on its own.
(ETA: Something I forgot to mention: do you see that impression on the left side of the round imprint? That checks out with a projectile moving from right to left, like the engine from a plane crashing into the Pentagon from the southwest. Something I noticed because I stared at the Pentagon façade, trying to solve the puzzle, for weeks on end. I also measured the imprint diameter and low and behold: it fits the diameter of a 757 engine)
757s are most certainly capable of attaining those speeds low to the ground, but ultimately, if this type of flying exceeds the plane's structural limits, the plane will suffer structural damage. We see evidence of that just before impact:
The reason why the Pentagon behaved so well, and why the hole wasn't bigger than it was, was because the Pentagon is an incredibly resilient structure, and because the plane plowed through an obstacle course going in.
Here is an engine remnant:
And the engine remnant was identified as belonging to a 757. So, instead of reversing the burden of proof, why don't you go into elaborate detail how the observed damage and physical evidence on the scene was accomplished through fakery?
Also, witnesses on the scene watched the plane hit the building, or flying too low to avoid impact. They didn't just "not see a missile", they saw a plane impact the building. Do you acknowledge this fact?
Anditico you are right - lack of transparency is the outrage
It is a pity however that you allow yourself to be defeated by it. The authorities have made it hard to find information because they want us to keep arguing. As long as we argue, they win.
There is however enough evidence to enable us to achieve consensus. You say the damage could have been caused by a missile but not by a plane. I suggest you read the papers you a criticizing before you respond again. You will find reference to a video released by FOIA which shows the damage on the face of the Pentagon matches the shape of a 757. Then you had better ask yourself how your missile, spearing through the C-ring wall could stop itself in mid flight to avoid damaging the outer wall of the B-ring.
"you had better ask yourself
"you had better ask yourself how your missile, spearing through the C-ring wall could stop itself in mid flight to avoid damaging the outer wall of the B-ring."[Quote]
Easy,a missile can be designed so that it's explosive payload doesn't detonate until after it's penetrated 'x' number of feet into the building (look up bunker busters). It detonated upon striking C ring (destroying itself),making a nice circular hole & their wasn't anything left of it to damage the outer wall of B ring. This is exactly the sort of thing we would expect considering we know they were concerned about limiting damage to the Pentagon (Wedge 1 renovation) and considering the military leadership was also present at the Pentagon (though admittedly as far as possible from wedge 1). They wanted to take out the budgeting office & not endanger themselves. This would be exactly what we would expect.
Maybe you ask yourself how the leading edge of debris from an aircraft would have the energy punch a hole through C ring,yet not enough to even reach B ring?
John D. Wyndham and Frank
John D. Wyndham and Frank Legge probably are not explosives experts. See the following links:
1) Pentagon C Ring Exit Hole Mystery Article by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer, June 10, 2006:
http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_ExitHole.htm
2) Video : Mystery Of The Pentagon C Ring Hole:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7364619849681669102
3) historycommons.org: (9:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001: ‘Experienced Combat Arms Officers’ at Pentagon Think a Bomb Has Exploded There:
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a938combatofficers#a938combatofficers
Quote : “A group of Army officers at the Pentagon initially thinks that a bomb has gone off in their building when it is attacked. Army Major Craig Collier and his colleagues are in their office on the second floor of the Pentagon’s C Ring, about 200 feet from where the building is hit. Collier will later recall: “[T]he building jolted and we heard a muffled boom, then a rumble.… All of my peers in the area are experienced combat arms officers, and we quickly agreed that it sounded and felt like a bomb.” Numerous other Pentagon employees also initially think a bomb has gone off, and apparently only a few guess a plane has hit the place”
4) historycommons.org: (9:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Some inside Pentagon Think a Bomb Has Exploded There:
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=3500#a938thinkbomb
5) historycommons.org: Context of '(9:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Some Officers in Area Where Pentagon Is Hit Think Bombs Have Exploded':
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a938bombsexploded
@ Frank: "Consensus" Is No Substitute For Answers
FL: "The authorities have made it hard to find information because they want us to keep arguing.
Or perhaps "they" could be hiding incriminating information. Civil debate keeps the matter relevent.
FL: "As long as we argue, they win."
"They" win as long as people stop seeking answers that you yourself admit are not there.
Why do you and others try very hard of late to figuratively advise Pentagon event skeptics: "Move along, there is nothing to see here."?
It reminds one of those who also claim of late that the overwhelming WTC demolition evidence perhaps should not be a leading component of the "9/11 Truth" cause. Why do these views seem to mostly emanate from the "9/11 Truth News" website, for which you are an advisor?
FL: "There is however enough evidence to enable us to achieve consensus."
A consensus that virtually every aspect of the official story of AA 77 is true? That seems to be your opinion.
Most rightly dismiss 9/11 missiles, video fakery and directed energy weapons. But why do you and a small number of others almost seem to be advocating virtually every aspect of the official story for AA 77, even when by your own admission there is a general absence of important information?
I have just noticed this reference to 9/11 Truth News
I am intrigued by your reference to this site.
http://911truthnews.com/
I rarely look at the site and have not noticed a problem. I see good journalism. Perhaps I have missed something. Please let me know what articles you find destructive of the cause of 9/11 Truth and Justice.
I have just checked the site and find that it has given prominence to Jim Hofmann's article:
http://911truthnews.com/the-pentagon-attack-what-the-physical-evidence-shows/
I find this to be a lucid and logical exposition of the case. It is interesting that Jim was able to make such a thorough analysis long before the FDR file was fully decoded. Nothing in the FDR file contradicts his position.
I find it a little strange that you should attempt to denigrate my work by drawing attention to my association with the 9/11 Truth News website.
Then you say: "...why do you and a small number of others almost seem to be advocating virtually every aspect of the official story for AA 77, even when by your own admission there is a general absence of important information?"
That is a blatently false statement and you know it, as you are perfectly well aware of my website.
http://scienceof911.com.au/
Your statement is false on two counts: (1) My scientific friends and I only draw attention to one component of the official story and show it is not proved false, namely the impact of a 757 on the Pentagon, after hitting the light poles, and (2) obviously we do not admit there is a general absence of information: there is a vast amount of information that explosives were used at the WTC. We seek now to show that there is also very convincing proof that the NOC path is impossible and that there is overwhelming witness testimony, and other evidence, for impact via the south path.
I think an apology would be an excellent next move.
I notice that below you are making a case for your position by reference to evidence. That is appreciated. I have been happy with this discussion.
Source of this disinformation?
I'm not going to comment on this tripe, except to say that we seem to be periodically spoon fed a NEW theory explaining the the logic of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.
Since this is an absurd conclusion I am forced to ask, what is the real source of this disinformation? Who is behind it?
While we're at it, what will the NEXT theory be, sixth months from now, explaining how it was possible, indeed likely, that Hani Hanjour actually did fly that plane into the Pentagon, how it was not that difficult a maneuver and the difference between a Cessna (which he could barely fly) and a 757 isn't all that much after all!
"Spoon Fed Theories"
Actually,
The fact that a large airliner hit the Pentagon has been true since 9/11. The people who were there are sure, why aren't you?
You and I and countless others were "spoon fed a NEW theory" about the Pentagon that included missles, fly-overs, holograms, fake witnesses and a slew of other exotic theories.
It is on you to do the research and follow through with your reading. I presume however, that because you have had an account at 9/11 Blogger for 3 years and still dont know who Frank Legge is - you will continue to believe whatever you want, regardless of the information available.
I fell for the Pentagon BS for years, so I know where you are at. But it is on you to read and learn more, just as it was on me.
Start here:
What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf
then continue:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://911research.com/
why don't I?
Can I please see ONE goddamned video? Just one. No. Wonder why.
One **** video
Pentagon gate cam video augmented and cross-checked with 3D animation.
Something tells me you aren't satisfied with this video though... Unlike the WTC, the entire press corps wasn't there waiting and filming, unfortunately.
I love the word "billow"
used in this video to account for the smoke spirals; almost as if the plane were in slow motion chugging along at 15 miles per hour. If the plane was traveling at hundred of miles per hour, the smoke would spray out and be seen in a straing line. This video reeks of disinformation more than a National Geographic 9/11 hit-piece.
2 Major Accounts: AA 77 Hit Pentagon Via “North of Citgo" Path
If one believes these reported observations are mutually exclusive, please explain in scientific terms why. Why is an AA 77 impact via a “north of Citgo” path deemed impossible by some, even when much of the on scene accounts report such?
Before proceeding, there is virtually no evidence of a Pentagon fly-over by AA 77. And the missile and small plane claims are virtually without supporting evidence.
(Hopefully the issues raised here will be responded to scientifically and not by some trying to bury them with the site's voting functions.)
With all due respect however, this work does not definitively rebut the “north of Citgo” evidence, as it relies on a previous Legge/Chandler study containing calculation-based conclusions that seem to arbitrarily rely on the extreme 552 mph AA 77 speed alleged by official information that is totally unsupported by the on scene eyewitness accounts. Moreover, that study seems based on a pre-existing point of view that arbitrarily incorporates or disqualifies information on that basis.
The following quote from the Legge/Chandler study seems to be an unreliable basis for concluding an AA 77 aircraft speed 552mph:
“There is good reason to believe that the testimony by the same and other witnesses that the plane was accelerating is more reliable, since it was based on the sound of the motors revving up ... We will base our calculations on the official speed, 530 mi/hr, as a low estimate, and the FDR speed, averaged for the last four seconds, 552 mi/hr, as the more realistic estimate. ”
“Accelerating” and “revving up” does not necessarily equal a 552 mph ground speed.
Using AA 77 witness Morin’s (3,000 feet from impact point) average estimate of 12.8 seconds (averaged from his cited 13-18 seconds, minus the 2.7 seconds the sound of impact requires to reach his location) from sighting to sound-of-impact, a ground speed of 160 mph for AA 77 can be deduced (a problematically low estimate, but much closer to the very realistic 180 mph recommended approach-to-landing speed recommended for major commercial Boeing/Airbus jets, than the extreme 552 mph)
The alleged radar and suspect AA 77 FDR data (a simple electronic record) is accepted uncritically by the Legge/Chandler study as true and as evidence that the witness aircraft speed accounts are false. Why, on the other hand, aren’t the corroborating witness accounts not instead accepted as evidence that the suspect FDR and radar data is false? With all due respect, the Stutt FDR data decoding does not verify the FDR data authenticity, which is obviously very important. The FDR data file is just a simple data file.
Question: On what scientific basis does one favor the alleged speed of 500+ mph attributed to the FDR/radar data as opposed to two independent witnesses who report much lower speeds? (Reported engine sounds don’t seem to be a reliable scientific basis for estimating aircraft speed) The alleged official (and unobserved) groundspeed of 552 mph is critical to the Legge/Chandler and Wyndham study’s calculations. Because the 552 mph assertion seems suspect, the paper’s “north of Citgo” conclusions are quite arguably unreliable.
AA 77 being reported south of or directly over Columbia Pike by some while being between the Sheraton and Navy Annex, does not necessarily equal AA 77 being south of Citgo, when it reaches the vicinity of Citgo, if AA 77 was flying a less than 552 mph banked right turn, as described by nearly half a dozen witnesses.
The only realistic trajectory that seems to account for all on scene witness observations is depicted below.
Note: There do not seem to be any scientifically based arguments or explanations within the Legge/Chandler and Wyndham studies for why Citgo witnesses LaGasse, Brooks and Turcious are wrong about their nearly identical "north of Citgo" AA 77 accounts. These people are quite credible because they either worked at the Citgo station (Turcious) or were law enforcement professionals trained to observe and report who frequented it (Brooks and LaGasse). All three were familiar with the Citgo property.
Question: How does one scientifically reconcile multiple accounts of a right-banked AA 77 with the Legge/Chandler study position that AA 77 traveled a straight path?
The following witness Hemphill account utilized within an earlier draft of the Legge/Chandler study, strongly implies AA 77 was observed traveling directly over Citgo and not along the required official flight path. If not, upon what scientific basis would one disagree?
Hemphill (looking east from an east-facing Navy Annex window, toward the Pentgon): “then I hear a roar and look out the window at the plane … over my right shoulder … over the gas station.
From the Wyndham paper:
“The CIT evidence for a north-of-CITGO path, which infers that plane impact did not occur, lacks credibility for several other reasons: it is an inference from an imprecise observation; some witnesses appear to have been led in their descriptions of the flight path; there are only a small number (about 12) such witnesses.”
The “north of Citgo” path does not necessarily infer a fly-over. There is the possibility of an AA 77 impact with the Pentagon via the “north of Citgo” path.
The recorded CIT witnesses seem quite certain of their recollections. And their numbers (12) seem to be greater than the number (if any) of recorded witnesses definitively describing a “south of Citgo” AA 77 path.
In fact, the Wyndham paper witness citations trace back only to a blog containing unsourced quotes.
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html#_ednref306
From the Wyndham paper:
“Morin described a minor flash as the plane crossed the highway toward the Pentagon, indicating a collision with some object.”
Observed flashes don’t necessarily imply 757 wing collisions with the light posts. UA 175 (a 767) wing collisions with the WTC exterior didn’t cause flashes. Can one scientifically rule out small charges as the sources for the reported flashes, in order to cause these light posts to fall?
The answers are in the papers, but here's a start:
Aidan, really you have me puzzled. You agree that there is no credible evidence for a missile so you agree there was a plane. You agree that the plane did not fly over the Pentagon so you agree the plane hit the Pentagon. You appear to be asking for proof that the plane did not fly north of Citgo (NOC). I will work on that assumption.
If the plane flew NOC it could not have done the observed damage so this theory requires that all the directional evidence for a south path; the light poles, the fence, the generator, the direction of damage in the Pentagon, must have been faked. That is a tall order. Do you really believe it is credible?
Then you must also believe that the plane, after hitting the Pentagon, and going inside, managed to stop itself in its own length. If it did not it would cause damage in a more southerly direction. As there was no wall inside the Pentagon until you get to the C-ring outer wall, there was nothing but support columns to stop the plane, yet it caused no damage and left no debris in the required direction. Does that not defy the laws of physics? Where did the momentum go? Where did the debris go?
You say that the following quote from the Legge/Chandler study seems to be an unreliable basis for concluding an AA 77 aircraft speed 552mph:
“There is good reason to believe that the testimony by the same and other witnesses that the plane was accelerating is more reliable, since it was based on the sound of the motors revving up ... We will base our calculations on the official speed, 530 mi/hr, as a low estimate, and the FDR speed, averaged for the last four seconds, 552 mi/hr, as the more realistic estimate.”
Arabesque lists about 33 witnesses who use phrases like “extremely loud”, “spooling up”, “accelerating” and “full throttle”, to describe what they heard. This corresponds with the data in the flight data recorder (FDR) file where we see that the plane was at full throttle and accelerating for the last half minute of its flight. The same high speed and acceleration can be calculated from the increasing spacing of the radar position reports. There is not one single report that the plane reduced power or slowed down. The radar shows the plane accelerating to within 6 seconds of impact. Even if the plane had closed its throttles at this point It could not have slowed down significantly in those few seconds, especially as it was diving. On what scientific basis would you discard the radar data? Why would you ignore the many witnesses to "full throttle"? Can you find any witnesses to hearing the throttles pulled back or the pitch of the motors declining?
You quote Terry Morin as having heard the plane for an estimated 12.8 seconds and try to calculate a speed from that. Are you aware that Terry was one of the people who said the plane was at full throttle?
I invite you to draw a flight path that takes into account established evidence, goes NOC and turns back to hit the Pentagon at the damaged spot, then calculate the g-force required at various speeds. Start with the last radar position south of the Sheraton where we have a good witness in the 14th floor. Note that Ed Paik saw the plane pass by while he was inside his shop, looking out the window. Terry Morin said it was "essentially overhead" and flying parallel with the Naval Annex as it passed him so it must have been flying virtually straight from the last radar position. Then Stafford and Prather demonstrate with a model that the plane was flying wings level a little past the Naval Annex, so it was still flying straight.
Contrary to your assertions David and I do not rely on the FDR file for the speed of the plane. We rely on the data from 4 separate radar installations and the reports of very many witnesses to "full throttle". It happens that the FDR file agrees with the radar data, as we point out in the papers. The file of course also agrees with wings close to level and virtually straight flight.
You provide a diagram which you say is realistic. It isn't. It ignores the straight line radar data prior to the Sheraton which permits you to start the line going north early. You ignore the testimony of many witnesses who say the plane was going along Columbia Pike or Hwy 395. You ignore Morin who says the plane was travelling parallel with the Annex and that he followed it till it went behind trees, disappearing from the bottom up. This means it must have been flying wings level. Had the plane turned left after Morin, the plane would have been steeply banked left and would have disappeared left wing first behind the Annex. Morin makes no mention of bank. You ignore Albert Hemphill. To save you the trouble of reading the Addendum I will copy a piece of it here:
Albert Hemphill, at his window in the Naval Annex, was the witness to impact who was in the best position to see the alignment and straightness of the track. He was asked if the plane was turning or banking. He replied “Diving … right over the bridge.” There is only one bridge in the vicinity, the overpass of VA27 over Columbia Pike, which is on the direct line between the last radar position and the impact point. He asserted that the plane was always on his right and that “It didn’t pull up, it didn't turn right, it didn't turn left, it went right into the Pentagon”. When asked about the prior path of the plane he said it “seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike”. When asked whether the track could have been as far south as the VDOT antenna tower he said “That would be a little bit far.” He also mentioned “ground effect,” implying that he saw the plane descend very low and with wings level. He made no mention of significant bank.
Attempts have been made to cast doubt on Hemphill’s testimony using a remark he made in one interview, years later. When asked if the plane flew north of the Citgo service station he said “It’s hard to say”, then agreed that it might have passed over the station or a little north of it. As he was not standing at the same window when being interviewed it is not surprising that he was uncertain. In all his written statements and interviews however he contradicts the north path, stating that the plane was on his right and flew straight to the Pentagon, placing the path on the south. It is easy to see how he could have made this mistake as, shortly after the plane passes the service station, his view of it does in fact pass over its roof, but the plane does not. This can be seen in the following animation.
http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc402/gravity980/Hemphill-blue.gif
When we do the calculation based on all this credible information we find the plane had to be flying slower than stalling speed to make it round the curve if it deviates NOC. I will be interested to hear the result of your calculation.
You say: "There do not seem to be any scientifically based arguments or explanations within the Legge/Chandler and Wyndham studies for why Citgo witnesses LaGasse, Brooks and Turcious are wrong about their nearly identical "north of Citgo" AA 77 accounts. These people are quite credible because they either worked at the Citgo station (Turcious) or were law enforcement professionals trained to observe and report who frequented it (Brooks and LaGasse). All three were familiar with the Citgo property."
How about this: None of these witnesses mentions the plane was flying steeply banked. Surely a steep bank would be astonishing, memorable and frequently discussed. The fact that they do not mention a steep bank implies there was no steep bank. Stafford and Prather are very clear about this, with their display of wings level with the model. There is a very large number of witnesses to the approaching plane who found no need to mention bank angle or said it was slight. They greatly outnumber the Citgo witnesses. It is clear the Citgo witnesses were mistaken about something which would have seemed unimportant to remember at the time on this eventful day. And they were selected witnesses. A true journalist will present a random bunch of interviews and allow the reader to do the selection.
"Question: How does one scientifically reconcile multiple accounts of a right-banked AA 77 with the Legge/Chandler study position that AA 77 traveled a straight path?"
How many right bank witnesses were there? How steep was the bank they mentioned?
I think that will do for now. I await you calculations.
@ Frank: Answers To Your Quoted Questions
"If the plane flew NOC it could not have done the observed damage so this theory requires that all the directional evidence for a south path; the light poles, the fence, the generator, the direction of damage in the Pentagon, must have been faked. That is a tall order. Do you really believe it is credible?"
There seem to be few if any images of severe Pentagon interior damage along the official trajectory. Such damage claims only seem to come in the form of allegations within the Pentagon Building Performance Report supported by mere illustrations. As for the the object damage on the Pentagon property, if sabotage can cause 3 WTC skyscrapers to fall entirely to the ground, causing several light posts to fall over and structural damage to a trailer by means other than an aircraft collision doesn't seem extraordinary.
Note also that the E Ring collapse occurs along what would be generally a "north of Citgo" impact trajectory into the building (red line and collapse to the right of the exterior hole). A "south of Citgo" impact might be expected to induce structural failure to the left of the exterior hole (along yellow line), since that is the part of the building the plane allegedly penetrated.
But the most severe building damage occurs along a "north of Citgo" impact trajectory (red line).
"Arabesque lists about 33 witnesses who use phrases like “extremely loud”, “spooling up”, “accelerating” and “full throttle”, to describe what they heard. This corresponds with the data in the flight data recorder (FDR) file where we see that the plane was at full throttle and accelerating for the last half minute of its flight."
Again, how do these descriptions necessarily translate into a 552mph AA 77 ground speed? Are these alleged witnesses (no citations for them at Arabesque site) experts for Boeing GE engine performance sounds? Jet engines "spool up" while a plane is simply taxiing at low speed on an airport tarmac. As for the FDR, its simply a file of alleged data. The federal government have apparently lied about WTC 7's collapse causes, so one should be skeptical of uncorroborated data files from a FDR device not publicly assigned inventory control serial numbers.
The ground speed for AA 77 does not seem to be a settled matter, even for the Air Traffic Controllers who were tracking it just 15 miles prior to its reported Pentagon impact:
"The radar track is untagged, so he attaches a data box to it with the word “LOOK” in it. This will allow other controllers to quickly spot the aircraft. It also causes its ground speed to appear on the screen. According to author Lynn Spencer, the aircraft is shown to be flying at 290 miles per hour. [Spencer, 2008, pp. 146] But other accounts will claim it is flying at between 400 and 500 mph as it approaches Washington."
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a933reaganwarned#a933reaganwarned
The AA 77 290mph ATC estimate just happens to more generally coincide with Morrin's 400mph AA 77 ground speed estimate than the alleged official speed of 552mph. Morrin insists AA 77 was not traveling at 500 knots (575mph)
"You quote Terry Morin as having heard the plane for an estimated 12.8 seconds and try to calculate a speed from that. Are you aware that Terry was one of the people who said the plane was at full throttle?"
Again, Morrin estimates AA 77's ground speed to be approximately 350 knots and not 500 knots. One can infer what they wish from reported engine sounds but also must accept Morrin's on scene visual speed estimate.
"How about this: None of these witnesses mentions the plane was flying steeply banked. Surely a steep bank would be astonishing, memorable and frequently discussed."
Again, based on 2 separate accounts cited above of AA 77 traveling at between 290mph-400mph, there was no need for any extreme bank angles for AA 77.
In any event, even Air Traffic Control reported AA 77 banking and turning right as it approached the Pentagon, which totally contradicts the official straight trajectory account:
"Stephenson then looks out of the window and can see the plane, now less than a mile away, coming in fast. [Spencer, 2008, pp. 158] He sees it turning to the right and descending."
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a936towerwarned#a936towerwarned
This corroborates the recorded Arlington Cemetery worker interviews describing AA 77 banking and turning to the right.
"You ignore the testimony of many witnesses who say the plane was going along Columbia Pike or Hwy 395."
Can you present their accounts or links to them in a reply? It should not include Morrin, who insists AA 77 was over the Navy Annex and not over Columbia Pike,
As can be seen, at the very least AA 77's flight path direction and official ground speed are not settled.
Drawing works for me.
The image you included, that you say:
Note also that the E Ring collapse occurs along what would be generally a "north of Citgo" impact trajectory into the building (red line and collapse to the right of the exterior hole). A "south of Citgo" impact might be expected to induce structural failure to the left of the exterior hole (along yellow line), since that is the part of the building the plane allegedly penetrated.
But the most severe building damage occurs along a "north of Citgo" impact trajectory (red line).
This is obviously not true, by looking at your image. The explosion damage and debris on the roof go way left of even the Yellow Line. That graphic did nothing for you in my opinon.
Cherry picking again
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a932headeddc#a932headeddc
And Stephenson seeing it turning right and descending could easily be in reference to the tail end of the spiral dive before the final lap.
There is absolutely no evidence for a NoC trajectory inside the building. The only evidence for your argument in the picture you show is the line you drew yourself, with no physical evidence in the photo to back it up. Curiously, the exit hole which is actual contributing evidence for a SoC trajectory is cited as evidence to the contrary, which is strange.
With respect to Terry Morin and his flight path, could you help me with this?
Reply #2, Aidan
You say:
"Note also that the E Ring collapse occurs along what would be generally a "north of Citgo" impact trajectory into the building (red line and collapse to the right of the exterior hole). A "south of Citgo" impact might be expected to induce structural failure to the left of the exterior hole (along yellow line), since that is the part of the building the plane allegedly penetrated.
But the most severe building damage occurs along a "north of Citgo" impact trajectory (red line)."
This is not relevant. The line of collapse of the upper part of the building was obviously determined by the expansion joint. The damage at ground level, where the plane hit, is exactly in line with the approach path of the plane as determined by the light pole damage, the FDR file and the radar position reports from 4 separate radar installations, and supported by ample witnesses.
You quote me: "Arabesque lists about 33 witnesses who use phrases like “extremely loud”, “spooling up”, “accelerating” and “full throttle”, to describe what they heard. This corresponds with the data in the flight data recorder (FDR) file where we see that the plane was at full throttle and accelerating for the last half minute of its flight."
and then ask: "Again, how do these descriptions necessarily translate into a 552mph AA 77 ground speed? Are these alleged witnesses (no citations for them at Arabesque site) experts for Boeing GE engine performance sounds?"
I see no need to answer this until you provide a list of witnesses who say the plane was slowing down, reducing power, suddenly going quiet, throttling back, etc. You don't have to find a number substantially greater than 33, as would usually be required to dispute witnesses. I will come back if you can find just a few.
While I wait, I ask you to reflect on the fact that this question about the plane's speed has already been answered. I refer you to Fig. 8 in the Addendum. There you will see that 30 seconds before impact the plane was flying at 340 miles per hour. You will also see that about 6 seconds prior to impact it was travelling at about 520 miles per hour. This is an acceleration of 6.4 miles per hour per second. Now I put it to you, as an expert in airplane behaviour, that if 33 people say the plane is at full throttle and none say it is slowing, and it is clearly diving and getting the benefit of gravity, it is highly probable it will be doing substantially more than 520 miles per hour at impact.
You say: "Again, based on 2 separate accounts cited above of AA 77 traveling at between 290mph-400mph, there was no need for any extreme bank angles for AA 77."
I am still waiting for you to do your bit in this investigation as already suggested: calculate the bank angle required at a range of speeds. Try it at 290 mph, and 400 mph if you think these are useful numbers. Report back.
You quote me: "You ignore the testimony of many witnesses who say the plane was going along Columbia Pike or Hwy 395."
and ask: "Can you present their accounts or links to them in a reply? It should not include Morrin, who insists AA 77 was over the Navy Annex and not over Columbia Pike,"
It is a bit much that you should expect me to come here and spell all this material out in blogs when it has already been presented in papers. Read through pages 4 to 7 on the NOC refutatijon paper:
http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Chandler_NOC_Refutation.html
I will just make one comment. Why should the list not included Morin? How far is the south edge of the Naval Annex from Columbia Pike? He did say it was flying parallel to the Annex and that is the important point which all the CIT supporters ignore.
Now here is a question which gets to the heart of the matter. You agree that a large plane approached the building and did not fly over, but hit it, the impact area being shown in many photos. You seem to be wanting to prove that the plane followed the NOC path. Let us ignore for the moment that for this path to be true a great deal of evidence must be rejected. Let us just pretend that we don't have that evidence. What is the advantage to the Truth movement to claim that the plane followed the NOC path?
I could understand your wanting to support the NOC path if you were also asserting the plane flew over the Pentagon as that would be absolute proof of an inside job, but you do not. If the plane flew very slowly and managed to fly NOC and hit the Pentagon, and pull up the moment it entered, where does that leave us?
It seems to me it leaves us with a very strange question: If the perpetrators were really going to crash the plane why would they bring it in from NOC? Why would they not bring it in straight? By bringing it in crooked they have to simulate a straight in crash - very difficult and with great risk of discovery. The perpetrators were terrible people but they were not stupid. They would not take stupid risks.
It cannot be explained by assuming the inexperienced pilots flew crooked by accident, as, if they had done so, it could not have been predicted, so the faking of the straight damage would not have been done.
There appears to be no rational explanation for your campaign to prove a NOC path.
@ Frank: Answers To Your Quoted Questions (2)
FL: "This is not relevant. The line of collapse of the upper part of the building was obviously determined by the expansion joint."
Vertical structural support failure (certainly due to structural damage) to the right of the exposed expansion joint assemblies caused the observed E Ring collapse. Such damage is more consistent with an impact trajectory along the red line seen below (or a "north of Citgo" path).
Q: "Again, how do these descriptions necessarily translate into a 552mph AA 77 ground speed? Are these alleged witnesses (no citations for them at Arabesque site) experts for Boeing GE engine performance sounds?"
FL: "I see no need to answer this until you provide a list of witnesses who say the plane was slowing down, reducing power, suddenly going quiet, throttling back, etc."
On the contrary - how do 757 engines "spooling up" (your quote) necessarily mean AA 77 was traveling at 552mph (the main component upon which your calculations and hypothesis are based). Its your hypothesis and your burden of proof.
FL: "Why should the list not included Morin? ... He did say it was flying parallel to the Annex and that is the important point."
How could he observe alleged west-to-east flight parallel to the Navy Annex south edge while standing between 2 Annex wings that blocked such a view?
FL: "What is the advantage to the Truth movement to claim that the plane followed the NOC path?"
If evidence supports the "north of Citgo" path, the evdence should be pursued. Why do you and others try so mightily of late to convince readers that the official Pentagon story is true despite its many shortcomings and contradictions? Rebutting extraordinary or implausible claims lacking supporting evidence would be understandable, but the "north of Citgo" evidence seems quite credible and not adequately refuted.
FL: "If the perpetrators were really going to crash the plane why would they bring it in from NOC? Why would they not bring it in straight? By bringing it in crooked they have to simulate a straight in crash - very difficult and with great risk of discovery ...There appears to be no rational explanation for your campaign to prove a NOC path."
On the contrary, staging a "south of Citgo" damage path would allow for the introduction of a false Flight Data Recorder (primary "evidence" of accused hijacker flight piloting), which was discovered just inside the mysterious C Ring hole (yellow circle) and well away from the severe interior damage that seemed to exist along what would have been a "north of Citgo" interior damage path. (see red line below)
As for the C Ring hole, I have serious doubts that shredded aircraft aluminum, fiberglass and insulation created the remarkably refined hole 300 feet beyond the concrete E Ring exterior wall that would have pulverized the airframe.
This hole is remarkably consistent with those created by wall breaching kits:
And there is audible evidence consistent with an explosive wall breaching kit use at the Pentagon. Sound of a massive explosion was captured by live TV broadcasts:
As for the calculation requests, I will perform them ASAP. If you can perform them sooner, that would be fine.
Aidan Reply #3
FL: "This is not relevant. The line of collapse of the upper part of the building was obviously determined by the expansion joint."
AM: "Vertical structural support failure (certainly due to structural damage) to the right of the exposed expansion joint assemblies caused the observed E Ring collapse. Such damage is more consistent with an impact trajectory along the red line seen below (or a "north of Citgo" path)."
Is that so! Then how do you explain the greater evidence for fire at the D-ring to the left? Accident damage is chaotic. The lack of symmetry at the face of the building is overwhelmed by the trail of damage going to the C-ring exit hole. It was probably lucky the building did not collapse on the north side of the joint as well - note the wooden support structures that were inserted into the building on that side.
Q, AM: "Again, how do these descriptions necessarily translate into a 552mph AA 77 ground speed? Are these alleged witnesses (no citations for them at Arabesque site) experts for Boeing GE engine performance sounds?"
FL: "I see no need to answer this until you provide a list of witnesses who say the plane was slowing down, reducing power, suddenly going quiet, throttling back, etc."
AM: On the contrary - how do 757 engines "spooling up" (your quote) necessarily mean AA 77 was traveling at 552mph (the main component upon which your calculations and hypothesis are based). Its your hypothesis and your burden of proof.
This has been answered already above. It is based on the increasing spacing of the radar position reports. If you do not understand this, let me know and I will explain it. In the meantime I will assume you just missed the information already provided.
FL: "Why should the list not included Morin? ... He did say it was flying parallel to the Annex and that is the important point."
Q, AM; How could he observe alleged west-to-east flight parallel to the Navy Annex south edge while standing between 2 Annex wings that blocked such a view?
No. Morin said he stepped out from between the wings and followed the plane as it descended, going behind a line of trees. You can find a reference here.
http://remember911.albertarose.org/survivor_pentagonwitness.htm
That reference is to be found in the Addendum paper.
FL: "What is the advantage to the Truth movement to claim that the plane followed the NOC path?"
AM: If evidence supports the "north of Citgo" path, the evidence should be pursued. Why do you and others try so mightily of late to convince readers that the official Pentagon story is true despite its many shortcomings and contradictions? Rebutting extraordinary or implausible claims lacking supporting evidence would be understandable, but the "north of Citgo" evidence seems quite credible and not adequately refuted.
But Aidan, David, John and I have been following the scientific method. We look for hard evidence and we use it. There are perhaps 13 people supporting the NOC path, none of whom mentioned a steep bank. Some clearly stated that it was flat. Without a steep bank, the turn to hit the Pentagon is impossible. There are a hundred people who have reported watching the plane approach. None of them reported a steep bank. Those that mentioned bank said it was slight. If the bank was slight the plane could not have made the curve. If the bank was steep the wings would have fallen off. Why do we have to go over this time and time again?
You try to justify the NOC path by claiming the plane was flying very slowly. Pleas find evidence for the slow flight that surpasses all the testimony for full throttle and the radar data.
If you are going to take up large slabs of time arguing the point here, I suggest you have a responsibility to do the calculations and point out where David and I have made calculation errors. Debate us on the science, not by assertions.
FL: "If the perpetrators were really going to crash the plane why would they bring it in from NOC? Why would they not bring it in straight? By bringing it in crooked they have to simulate a straight in crash - very difficult and with great risk of discovery ...There appears to be no rational explanation for your campaign to prove a NOC path."
AM: "On the contrary, staging a "south of Citgo" damage path would allow for the introduction of a false Flight Data Recorder (primary "evidence" of accused hijacker flight piloting), which was discovered just inside the mysterious C Ring hole (yellow circle) and well away from the severe interior damage that seemed to exist along what would have been a "north of Citgo" interior damage path. (see red line below)".
My dear friend Aidan, what is the logic of this reply? Why wouldn't they just have flown the plane in straight? They could still put the "fake" FDR in the debris to fool us, couldn't they? And there would be no risk of discovery of the faking. Not only that, the plane could easily do it, while the curved path is impossible. That seems to be a point you should take into account.
You still haven't answered how they stopped the plane dead when it entered the Pentagon on the north path.
AM: "As for the C Ring hole, I have serious doubts that shredded aircraft aluminum, fiberglass and insulation created the remarkably refined hole 300 feet beyond the concrete E Ring exterior wall that would have pulverized the airframe."
No Aidan. The exterior wall would not have pulverized the airframe. You apparently have not understood the implications of the F4 Phantom experiment. If you watch the slow motion version of the Phantom you will see that the body does not slow down significantly. It is destroyed at the front and from the front. In this case the obstruction was designed to not give way and the whole plane was destroyed. In the case of the Pentagon the wall was not indestructible. The plane would have crumpled at the front until enough pressure had been built up to burst through the wall. At this moment the remainder of the body would have been travelling at close to its original velocity and would meet no obstruction till it encountered the support columns, where fragmentation would begin. You can see that the first columns were destroyed but as the debris progressed through the columns the damage to the columns declined. This is to be expected as the mass of debris would be slowing down and declining in mass as some was left behind. Have another look at John's paper. You will see this expained in a reasonable manner. It is not at all surprising to me that there would be enough energy in this jet of fragments to push through the C-ring brick wall. In any event you cannot provide proof that it could not have done it. This is just another assertion without proof. Remember that this started a about 90 tons of material travelling at well over 500mph. I am actually surprised the material did not go a bit further. I think it illustrates the remarkable energy absorbing properties of aluminium as it tears and crumples.
You seem surprised the FDR was found near the C-ring hole. Since the plane was fragmented by passing through a series of columns it is reasonable to think that it would be largely turned inside out. Certainly the front of the plane, which would have crumpled against the wall, would have been stopped while the tail was still flying forward. At each collision some of the leading material would be stopped. Eventually the tail would be all that was left, carrying the FDR. That of course is an over-simplification, neglecting the chaotic nature of the event, in which material that had been stopped might be carried forward again, but it indicates that it is quite reasonable for the very dense, very strong FDR to plough its way through light aluminium fragments to the C-ring.
AM: "This hole is remarkably consistent with those created by wall breaching kits:"
It might well be but that is not proof it was done that way. Furthermore, if it had been done by explosives you would think the debris outside would be just masonry, but it was not; there were plane parts there. If they were planted they must have moved fast as there is still smoke coming out the hole in the photo.
AM: "And there is audible evidence consistent with an explosive wall breaching kit use at the Pentagon. Sound of a massive explosion was captured by live TV broadcasts:"
None of our papers suggest that explosives were not used.
AM: "As for the calculation requests, I will perform them ASAP."
Great. We will compare. I trust you will do these before responding.
@ Frank: Answers To Your Quoted Questions (3)
AM: "Such (structural) damage is more consistent with an impact trajectory along the red line seen below (or a "north of Citgo" path)."
FL: "Then how do you explain the greater evidence for fire at the D-ring to the left?"
Fire damage ... not structural damage. Plus fire can spread unpredictably. In any event, there is comparable fire damage to both sides of the impact point. (see previous images)
It seems the paper you co-authored with David Chandler is misleading. Its calculations are based on an AA 77 trajectory that is approximately 400 feet farther south than where Morin and Paik place it. (see image below from the paper) Morin and Paik approximate AA 77's fuselage to be directly over them when its passes their locations. Morin also states AA 77 would have hit the Air Force Memorial east of the Navy Annex had it been there on September 11, complicating the alleged official flight path.
Becaause the data points are false, the calculations are meaningless and the conclusion (that AA 77 needed to perform an extreme banking maneuver to be observed by 3 Citgo witnesses) is invalid.
The following image seems to best depict all witness observations (aircraft location, aircraft right bank, etc.) (Paik, Morin, Hemphill, Brooks, LaGasse, Turcious and Reagan tower's Stephenson)
Terry Morin
Aidan says: "Morin also states AA 77 would have hit the Air Force Memorial east of the Navy Annex had it been there on September 11, complicating the alleged official flight path."
As Craig Ranke says, witnesses are not computers. Why the double standard, considering no single NoC witness drew the exact same flight path as another one, meaning they all drew mutually exclusive flight paths?
About that Air Force Memorial and the plane flying into it:
In case you're confused about the definition of "parallel", I've designed a pop quiz that may help resolve the issue:
(A) or (B) ?
The trajectory in the official videos of the Pentagon attack
The two videos released by the U.S. Department of Defense, in May 2006, shows portions of the aircraft that is supposed to have hit the pentagon. Watch these two videos :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8
In the first video, a fraction of the fuselage is visible :
http://i.imgur.com/sx1pZ.jpg
In the second video, the tail of the aircraft and a white smoke are visible:
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/slide1.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/slide2.jpg
It is perhaps impossible to determine whether there are in these images, the Boeing 757 which is supposed to have hit the Pentagon. This aircraft :
http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-757-223/0982095/L/
But do we distinguish at least a trajectory of the aircraft in the official videos of the Pentagon attack? Is this trajectory is the official trajectory, shown by this image of the "Pentagon Building Performance Report" :
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/pbpr/fig3.13.jpg
See also the study of Russell Pickering: “Pentagon Video Observations”. The author says: "It strikes me that something flew into the Pentagon. I don't know what to say though because it also appears nearly as certain from all of the comparisons that the size, bright color and reflection of the object in the videos does not match what you would expect from a 757-200. I am NOT endorsing a missile or anything else! I am just looking at the physical evidence without a conclusion." :
http://www.rense.com/general71/pentvi.htm
This study shows the picture below of the aircraft, in the extension of the white smoke :
http://www.rense.com/general71/old_vid.jpg
Aidan,
I think Mr. Legge started with the obvious point in replying to your comments.
If you don't think there is evidence of a missle, what reconciles the damage to the light poles with the North of Citgo approach?
I think CIT has been thoroughly discredited, citing their work is a slippery slope which you are OK doing it seems.
Pentagon: Does ANYONE Believe the Government's Story ?
I'm afraid all of our crack analysts and experts at times cannot see the forest for the trees: they explore all the minutiae regarding the damage to the Pentagon, and in their reports, they seem to ignore the issue of RESPONSIBILITY.
To illustrate this, let's start from the top:
1. A majority of the 9/11 truth movement agree that there was a government conspiracy on 9/11 that involved the controlled demoltion of 3 WTC skyscrapers
2. It is logical to assume that the masterminds behind 9/11 wanted to enforce a "shock and awe" pyscho-ops via 9/11 by having simultaneous attacks in both NY and Washington, DC
3. It is logical to assume that BOTH the attacks in NY and DC was planned in detail, and part of a unified, master plot
4. It is NOT logical to conclude that the Pentagon attacks were left in the hands of inexperienced Jihadist pilots
5. It is NOT logical to conclude that the trajectory of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon, and the site of the impact, were NOT controlled
6. Regarding the Pentagon attack, those who argue that the agents of the attack, the trajectory of the aircraft, and the impact site were NOT controlled by a master plan are letting the US government off the hook. In their erudite and scholarly papers, they never seem to talk about WHO is really responsible for the attacks. They explore the minutiae of the lousy five still frames fed to us by the government, and never raise suspicions of the video withheld by the government that could lay a lot of this speculation to rest. If the videos confiscated by the government support their version of events, why the are they being witheld with the bogus claims of "national security" ? Do the videos of the planes hitting the WTC compromise "national security"?
I respectfully suggest we need to put the focus back where it belongs.
You asked:
If the videos confiscated by the government support their version of events, why the are they being witheld with the bogus claims of "national security" ?
You have not read this, I can tell:
What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf
They keep the videos from you to help make us look stupid.
So, Who IS Responsible for Pentagon Strike ?????
I have yet to see a single individual response to this question: One must either conclude that the government planned and excecuted this attack in parallel with the WTC attacks, or not. This is a simple YES or NO question....
Answering this simple question will clear away a lot of cobwebs.
Anyone ?????
It is not simple.
And, it is not a Yes or No answer.
In fact, it is far from simple too.
You don't have to choose!
instantkarma said: "One must either conclude that the government planned and excecuted this attack in parallel with the WTC attacks, or not. "
Either ... or... False dilemma!
The False Dilemma Fallacy
This is related to "Either US Government or Al Qaeda"? Many still cling to this cherished false choice, for no reason.
Do You Think Al Qaeda helped plant explosives in the WTC ?
While one can make all kinds of logical trees with multiple alternatives, we need to apply reason to these choices.
I have not heard ANYONE suggest that the government enlisted Jihadists in planting and exploding nano-themite in the WTC, which is what brought the buildings down. As for the trivial part, directing aircraft precisely into these targets, why would the perps possibly engage a bunch of Islamic cokeheads and lap dance patrons to execute a precise military manuever, with so much at stake ?
Given this fact, why the heck would they employ such characters to direct an aircraft into the Pentagon ? Using such agents would take on tremendous risks for no gain.
Even if you postulate the government used some of these Saudi Arabian individuals as patsies, which does seem logical, there can only be one central authority behind the entire 9/11 operation, and this is the US government.
NO!
This is absurd, please don't take it down this road.
I will answer you in good faith.
There is no evidence of who planted explosives at the WTC. None.
In that sense, the only logical course is to stick to physical science such as the nature of the destruction. The nature of the destruction implies, almost conclusively, that explosives of sorts were used to demolish the towers.
With that said, if someone I am talking to will only look at the science if I say "it might have been Al Qaeda, I don't know," is it wrong of me to entertain that discussion?
Over time, the possibilty of Al Qaeda involvement in WTC demolitions gets to be slim to none, with some research.
One more person looking at the science is a good thing, right? Or would you rather me pretend to know what happened and by whom?
Of course I don't think al Qaeda planted explosives, and I am happy that you are at least able to consider Saudi Arabia as partners in crime, because we just don't know.
However, there is no doubt that American officials committed treason for 9/11.
This is already addressed in the article
And I've gone over it many times: nanothermite is not mutually exclusive with 9/11 hijackers. I do not believe Al Qaeda planted nanothermite inside the WTC. This is a straw man argument.
Quoting myself:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=45540#45540
This has all been covered before, and such reactions are (QED) very predictable.
The answer is no, there does not have to be a central authority behind the entire 9/11 operation. No, 9/11 hijackers and nanothermite are not mutually exclusive. No, pork eating Atta does not permit somebody to simultaneously claim non-existing, non-hijacking Atta. And so on, and so forth...
And another thing:
- I don't see this vociferous concern raised when discussing whether or not planes crashed into the World Trade Center; rational truthers accept this as fact without suddenly going into "crisis mode" over what this means for "who did it".
Why is the Pentagon any different? And would that question not be seriously impeded if a plane crashed into the Pentagon while it is falsely alleged it did not?
You don't see the difference???
How about the flight path? The number of pilots who claim that a plane cannot fly at that speed at that altitude, the contradictory nature of the eyewitnesses and the fact that the FBI confiscated EVERY video of the event and refuses to release them.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
Re: difference
"How about the flight path?"
Well... what about it? We have it way more exact than the WTC flight path, that's for sure. Imagine having to reconstruct that path from witness testimony alone... How many people would place UA 175 to the north of the Greek Orthodox Church? Would we then accuse everybody who didn't place the plane there of complicity in mass murder, as CIT did with every witness who disagrees with their theory/flight path?
"The number of pilots who claim that a plane cannot fly at that speed at that altitude"
It can certainly fly, but it's very unsafe and will lead to structural damage to the airframe. We can see that happening just before impact:
Watch the vertical acceleration. That's how a 757 behaves when flown outside its proper flight envelope. It's fluttering, may be suffering structural damage in the process. It crashes shortly thereafter, as evidenced by the severe longitudinal deceleration (pink line)
This isn't as bad as what Hanjour did, but obviously it's abnormal to do this outside of a flight show:
Here's the guy who flew that 757:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3157106/
"2g pull up" he says... that specific aspect of his stunt is in fact worse than what Hanjour did when he (or whatever flew that plane) crashed it at full throttle into the Pentagon to do the maximum amount of damage...
(ETA: I'm quite sure the captain was using his radio altimeter to maintain a proper altitude separation from the ground, which means the RA works fine and is reliable at that velocity)
"the contradictory nature of the eyewitnesses"
Eyewitnesses tend to be that way...It can't be helped.
"and the fact that the FBI confiscated EVERY video of the event and refuses to release them."
We have several videos, such as the gate cam video, the CITGO video and the Doubletree video, but only one of them shows a glimpse of AA 77, and no impact theorists are usually dissatisfied with it when shown to them... that can't be helped either.
"Regarding the Pentagon
"Regarding the Pentagon attack, those who argue that the agents of the attack, the trajectory of the aircraft, and the impact site were NOT controlled by a master plan are letting the US government off the hook. "[Quote] The best comment of them all. Also the point where I jump off the band wagon. If I'm being ask to believe that Hani Hanjour flew that plane,that it is a mere coincidence that it struck where & how it did then I refuse. I can't understand how anyone who believes such things are a mere coincidence could be a Truther. If they can believe that then they should have NO TROUBLE believing every aspect of the official story!
Debunking
This topic is getting a lot of debunking activity, and the gentle suggestions are that we go by the available physical evidence (which *seems* reasonable) and trust the scientific analysis (which also seems reasonable). But then, those nagging questions keep surfacing like some kind of plague that doesn't respond to penicillin. For example, the nearly complete absence of evidence and testimony from the commission. When Kennedy was killed, the Warren Commission, despite employing several nefarious characters, released 26 volumes of evidence and testimony in addition to the single-volume whitewash. Here with 9/11, we have only the whitewash, plus this continuing game of scientist -vs- scientist.
BTW, the 26 volumes of the Warren commission contained a great deal of helpful information that contradicted the commission's conclusions. One can reasonably conclude that the missing info here would explain a great deal. Like the Warren volumes that note Oswald's training in Russian language, the missing 911 commision info would likely contain much damaging detail about the alleged hijackers. As though the hijackers even matter, which they don't, since they didn't do the demolition of the towers.
InstantKarma has made a very good challenge, and the debunking of the Pentagon/missile scenario leads me to think the debunkers are trying to get a foot in the door here at 911 Blogger, or a bigger foot than they've had previously.
Pentagon holds all the cards ..
.. as to what exactly hit it and how.
The Pentagon was in charge of the examination of the site, the clean-up, forensics. No independent, outside scrutiny of that site took place.
Who wants to second-guess the Pentagon?
Why waste time doing that? Who benefits from endless in-fighting and wild speculation that can never be fully resolved?
As far as I am concerned, Legge, Chandler and Wyndham do us a favour by honing in on the data and refusing to get caught in the second-guessing game.
I couldn't (personally) be bothered what exactly hit that building. I am merely curious that it got hit at all after the lights flashed red over an hour earlier. But frankly, I can see enough of what went on in sept 2001 from the N.Y. data without having to give myself a headache over this issue.
National security
I agree with instantkarma's post entirely. Focus needs to be on the strongest evidence, not the weakest. If you want to win against the government, you need a strategy and commitment. You can't keep begging the fox for information on how he massacred the chickens.
Picking at bones, next to a feast of evidence.
The pentagon issue is such an evidence vacuum to inhabit, that whilst I commend and respect the great work that is done by various researchers into it, I would like to share an analogy that I have often use when discussions about 911 end up going toward the issues surrounding what did or didn’t hit the pentagon : If we were on the jury, in a court here, and we had heard evidence and were at the point of deliberating a verdict and the judge said to us on our way out,
‘there are also potentially 80+ videos of the crime in question being committed that are in the possession of the court, that you have not yet seen.’
I would imagine that as jurors, we would be inclined to decline deliberating until we had seen them, and rather ask the question as to why the court was not being forthcoming with this evidence.
Surely it makes most sense to stand back, and whilst what little evidence we have should be picked over, and carefully scrutinized, I would caution against coming to any hard conclusions about the pentagon, and I for one, reserve judgment. There is no onus on the 911 truth movement to come to any conclusions in this matter.
There is no evidence vacuum
except for those who live in a vacuum.
All the available evidence points towards impact of AA 77 at the Pentagon.
The videos (CITGO, Doubletree, Gate) are just a small portion of that evidence. Although it can't be ruled out that additional videos exist which are being withheld to bait the 9/11 Truth Movement into no planer arguments, the 80+ videos claim is largely a myth. (None of them show impact, because the cameras weren't pointed there / the impact zone isn't visible) Please read through this.
potential
is the key word. and given that you or i have not seen the 85 videos that FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire said MIGHT be POTENTIALLY responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request, how could you possibly know what they do or don't show - (" (None of them show impact, because the cameras weren't pointed there / the impact zone isn't visible)" - This is what i mean when i talk about a vacuum. It leads to speculative statements being made by people who claim to know what is contained in POTENTIAL evidence that they have not seen. Neither of us have seen these tapes. I tend agree with your statement as regards the evidence pointing towards AA77 impact. This remains however speculation, so i will reserve judgement.
It certainly makes sense to agree re the AA77 impact, rather like pascals wager. There is less to be lost in that course of action than the alternatives, however as i said there is no onus on us to come to any concrete conclusions, and to do so has serious potential to backfire on us all.
I already know
a plane hit the Pentagon though... I do not find that conclusion speculative anymore.
I guess it depends on how much time one has invested in studying the evidence.
If I claimed anything but plane impact, with what I know now, I'd be dishonest with myself and others.
SC
SnowCrash,
I must thank you for your patience, presence and presentations.
It was you and JimD who were willing to debate with me about the Pentagon, not even that long ago really.
The evidence is almost overwhelming that a plane hit a Pentagon.
I see myself in so many comments from people who disagree with the evidence, in order for a forgone conlusion. Damn!
Hopefully these same people are not afraid to challenge themselves into a bit of digging and research. That is what it took for me, this should not ever be a religous following based on belief.
D.R. Griffin is not right about everything! You don't need to hate him folks, but know that fact at least - he is not right about everything.
Anyhow, I just want to give credit where it is due.
I am truly thankful for your presence SnowCrash.
* I should also add that I have been thoroughly impressed by Frank Legge's work and research. Frank, your work is a big reference point for me now..... I am sorry it took me so long though! Thank you.
Thanks
And thank you as well, for your efforts to get your facts together when you write blog posts, etc.
There is nothing more important.
As you can see, I'm not engaging everybody at the same time anymore, and I hope some will look at the evidence I'm presenting and linking. But we're running into belief perseverance, hardcore denial, confirmation bias and the concomitant paranoia. (Why are you debunking? Yada yada...)
People protect their flawed beliefs as if they were their life savings. It shouldn't matter what the outcome of 9/11 research entails. It's deeply disturbing to see people assert that truth is evaluated by checking how much it conforms with predetermined conclusions, while yet knowing so little about the Pentagon attack.
Paranoia
"But we're running into belief perseverance, hardcore denial, confirmation bias and the concomitant paranoia. (Why are you debunking? Yada yada...)"
That's exactly what the government, major media, and pretty much all legitimate institutions in the U.S. say about 9/11 conspiracy believers.
So who's right?
Could you be more specific?
'... 9/11 conspiracy believers.'
That's a mighty vague phrase there, given that everybody's understanding of the 9/11 attacks concerns some kind of criminal conspiracy. Everybody understands that they required planning and coordination, and nobody attributes them to the work of a 'lone nut.'
What everybody does NOT understand is that such a description is what the word 'conspiracy' refers to. Instead, having been subjected to the ceaseless, one-sided misuse of the term by the corporate media, they instead misunderstand it as referring only to those theories that go against the official one--and not even necessarily to theories per se, but to any skepticism directed towards the official conspiracy theory.
It is especially troubling to me whenever I encounter this one-sided, media-driven, propagandistic misuse of the term among those who are supposed to be skeptical towards the major media and the institutions they serve. Is that what I'm seeing here?
Is that what I'm seeing
Is that what I'm seeing here?
No. I think some are just trying to help get towards the truth of the matter.
Remeber those folks who used to say that holograms hit the towers, not airplanes, do you remember? Remember how ridiculous that was?
Now imagine if one day you look through the evidence again and again and again and say:
"Gosh Darnit, I don't see any evidence for a flyover. I see some plane wreckage. I see that the columns in the Pentagon are bent in, consistent with something outside the building coming in. All the witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon. I realize that the "punch-out hole" went through only one wall, not three. Not one witness saw a missle. Not one witness saw it flyover and up, up, and away."
Does that mean you are now agreeing with the official Govenrment story?
I would think not!
Why and how the plane was allowed to hit the Pentagon was not in that group of questions! Aidan M is treading some water into if something else controlled the planes. Why were those hijackers in the country and how? Buying plane tickets with credit cards!
Those are relevant to 9/11 truth and most likely more important to the case than undermining the positions we have established, by arguing without evidence about; no planes; missles; fly-over's; etc....
The misinformation is coming in exotic theories. The sooner we come to a better understanding of this, the better.
Please, if you have not read this, allow me to sound like a robot to other who have:
What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf
Good points
But just to be clear, the 'here' in my comment was referring to the use of the phrase 'conspiracy believers' in the preceding comment, from dalethorn.
Second That
I second that.
Nor Cal Truth & SnowCrash
The patience and perseverence you both show is remarkable. Thank you for your support. You both understand that many of those who attack the plane impact theory do so with the best of intentions and should be treated kindly. That helps.
Jet speed at ground level
Have any real large-jet pilots commented on the feasibility of flying a large jet near ground level at approximately 450 to 500 MPH/knots?
I ask because big jets when they land at around 140 MPH don't generate that much airlift, and they suppress the airlift the wings create by use of flaps to push the plane down.
But a big jet moving at near 500 MPH generates a huge amount of airlift, and I'm curious as to whether it's really possible to fly one of those with reasonable ease at ground level.
Yes
See here.
Ground effect as proposed and portrayed by no impact theorists does not work that way. Unfortunately it has been misrepresented many times. Controllability is also discussed in the article.
Problems
The problem I have with the "see here" site is that it's a one-sided debunking site. I have not found debunkers to be at all honest in their presentations of data.
A fact is a fact
It doesn't matter who says something, if it is true it is true. The fact is that ground effect declines as speed rises. You will find the same graphs in text books.
Doesn't matter?
There's an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me for falling for it. I'm getting a bad feeling about this. Based on the direction this is being steered in, the final conclusion (already making its appearance here) is that the "terrorist" Hanjour actually did this job with a passenger jet.
I asked about air lift, and the answer is about ground effect, which is not what I asked about. It would be nice to hear what "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" have to say - instead I am steered to a debunking site.
In fact, aside from the initial article here which seems to be written by a credible 9/11 researcher, everything else has a strong odor of debunking, which is (in this kind of case) full of dishonesty.
My tentative(!) conclusion is that a normal jet, Flight 77 or whatever with its passengers, did not hit the Pentagon because:
1) The Pentagon was a planned target of 9/11.
2) The planners (who also had to demolish the 3 WTC buildings) were not the "terrorists".
3) The planners could not allow barely competent Cessna pilots to handle a critical part of the work.
What is contained in the mass of unreleased documents I don't know, and what has been destroyed along with the physical evidence I don't know, but what I do know is that an attempt to prove that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon leads to concluding that it was Flight 77 with its passengers, flown by a "terrorist". Now if that were true and the "terrorist" had training in flying a 757 etc. in the analogous manner of Oswald being trained for *several months* in the Russian language at an ONI school, then that would certainly be interesting, but it would not change the 9/11 conspiracy one iota.
So we come full circle to "why all the intense discussion and rebuttals here?" What is the point? Is this merely an academic exercise to prove a technical point, or is it a genuine attempt to debunk the portion of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory pertaining to the Pentagon? Yes, I like the idea of finding "truth" as much as anyone else, but like one person at least said "It's like facing a row of debunkers, whose clients are holding the real truth behind their backs in secret, while the debunkers walk through the 'available' evidence sifting, sifting, filling in blanks, asking us to accept what we cannot know, so we can come to the final conclusion that the clients were right all along, and the terrorists did it." It's like the old shell game.
We have 1500 or so architects and engineers for 9/11 truth - let's have 100 or so major airline pilots for 9/11 truth weigh in on this issue.
I remember when Victor Marchetti wrote about the CIA in the 1970's and his book was heavily censored by the CIA (first in history as I recall), then years later the "redacted" portions or many of them were released and wouldn't you know it, there was nothing really bad there, just embarrassing stuff like a cat with an antenna up its tail.
Bottom line: We know who the bad guys are and what they did. We need to get more details on them. Now a debunker can claim with the air of legitimacy that I'm calling for support of a foregone conclusion. But that's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking that we act like the prosecution team and let the defense team take care of their end - and not have the defense team working here in our corner. And I don't mean prosecution of "terrorists". I mean the government and military people who did 9/11.
The 9-12 Fly Under
dalethorn said..."It would be nice to hear what "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" have to say - instead I am steered to a debunking site."
The Fly Under that happened on 9-12 has never been debunked! Debunkers and "Pilots for no plane crash at the pentagon" both agree to censor and ignore the evidence for a fly under on 9-12. 9-11 happening on 9-12 itself, completely destroys the official story, not to mention the Plane flying under the pentagon and parking itself in the secret underground airport that no one has ever debunked or proved doesn't exist. As Former CIA Director James Woosley and CIT both say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
dalethorn said..."I'm asking that we act like the prosecution team and let the defense team take care of their end - and not have the defense team working here in our corner. And I don't mean prosecution of "terrorists". I mean the government and military people who did 9/11."
Who cares if some in the military might not like the "truth" exposed - 9-11 "truther researchers" are way to smart to fall for this...................
"On September 11, 2001, when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed just yards away from his second floor Pentagon office, Brian was thrown to the ground and engulfed in flames. Of the burns that covered 60 percent of his body, nearly half were third degree in severity. On his second day in the hospital, he received a surprise visit from his Commander in Chief, President George W. Bush."
http://www.brianbirdwell.net/about.htm
"The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs."
http://usma1961.westpointaog.com/BirdwellLuncheon.htm
And let's not forget the "secret agents" that posed as cab drivers for 50 years and reporters and other "civilians" who watched a passenger jet fly into the pentagon which proves it must have flown under the pentagon and as the photo from the video shows, it happened on 9-12. Why do so many on this site promote the official story of 9-11 happening on 9-11 with smoking gun proof it happened on 9-12?
The pentagon is a building. Flight 77 was a passenger jet. Saying flight 77 flew into the pentagon supports the official story that planes flew into buildings on 9-11. Why go along with that when we have proof planes flew under buildings on 9-12?
Jimd3100Stein CON / Charter member of "Total MIHOP Warriors Alliance"
Sorry buddy i fail to see the humour here :((
Sarcasm is not appropriate for this subject, my humble opinion only.
Parody
When I first saw the comment you replied to, I thought it was written by you. I was having much fun thinking "what an authentic parody, well done". Especially the part (I thought) where you complain about being steered to a debunking site and then sarcastically recommend Pilots for 9/11 Truth instead. Then I saw yours was the one below that.
Parody
Although I respect the PNPs opinions (I was almost there at one time or another), I have also engaged in some humorous parody.
I hope it doesn't improperly offend anyone (as can be unnecessarily divisive), but I thought it was kind of funny ... and we all could use a laugh at Rummy & Cheney's expense lol
.....................................................................................................................................................................
Rummy reporting to Cheney on plan to make people think a Boeing flew into the Pentagon:
"OK, here's the plan:
We'll really use a flyover plane and blow up the pentagon only with some explosive device.
Stage 1 - Preparation
First, well beforehand, we unnecessarily risk involving far more witnesses and prepare and load a bunch of mangled plane parts ......... some of them even from the wrong plane !! (as flyover supporters have reported)......... inside both the Pentagon AND some FBI vans. Also, we'll leave some corpses belted in plane seats hidden inside too ... we'll just have our agents hang alot of air fresheners in the room so nobody notices the smell beforehand.
Then, the day before, we break down a bunch of lightpoles around incredibly busy highways near the pentagon and leave em lay there in full view of potentially hundreds of thousands of witnesses (those silly sheeple will never put 2 and 2 together !).
Can you dig it so far?
Of course we prepare an explosive device in the pentagon or launch it from the plane or some nearby battery when needed.
Stage 2 - Implementation
Then we take a Boeing ... or to make it even more unnecessarily challenging ... maybe some other smaller plane (as reported by some flyover supporters) and fly it so dangerously close to the ground and the Pentagon right when the explosive device blows up that everyone thinks it hit the Pentagon !!
(We'll just have to hope the plane doesn't get damaged flying so close to the ground and through an explosion, and crash somewhere else and completely ruin our plans. If a bomb goes off in the Pentagon WITHOUT our alibi jet hitting it, people will REALLY wonder how it got there).
When people in the heavily populated area for miles around hear and/or see the big explosion ... instead of turning their heads to look to see what happened, they'll obviously stare tunnel-vision ONLY at the smoke ... or duck & cover for their lives and never look at anything! Nobody will EVER notice the big explosion-proof Boeing flying away !
But here's the best part: We'll have the plane fly a course that doesn't even match up with our pre-planted lightpoles !! . Good fun! That'll really mess with em!
I thought about just claiming that the plane was flying high enough to avoid hitting them (as it would HAVE to be to not hit any poles; the perfect story lol) ...................................... ..................... but, what the hell !! We do risky stupid shit like this for no good reason sometimes, right?
Stage 3 - Cover up
Next, we'll confiscate and control all the videos - we'll have to make damn sure we get every single god damn one since any one of them would prove it was a flyover! I sure hope there ain't no Abraham Zapruders out there.
Then, in full view of hundreds or thousands of rush hour traffic, dead-stopped, out-of-their-cars-walking-around, picture-taking, interstate motorists only a few hundred feet away, we'll have this army of potential cover-up witness FBI agents plant large and tiny pieces of pre-mangled plane parts everywhere - some of them not even to a Boeing !! (as claimed by various flyover supporters)
Then, we'll unnecessarily risk it and involve dozens more potential cover-up witnesses by preparing them with false statements about the plane really crashing, lightpoles actually getting hit, etc.. There will be some real ones as well ... who while watching the plane approach right up to the Pentagon, will simply turn their heads to avoid seeing the horror - these people will really think they saw the plane hit the Pentagon! Pwned!
Then we'll have this cab driver smash in his windshield and him and another one of our agents lay one of them meaningless pre-planted poles on the ground near his car to claim it hit it! And we'll have agents do the same at all the other locations - Nobody will ever see them! Sheeple!
Lastly, despite our complete tyrannical control, we'll pretend to kowtow and release one video that shows there was no plane ... just to show them we aint afraid of them! "
Cheney to Rummy: "Why not just fly a Boeing into the Pentagon? Too expensive? Not evil enough?"
Rummy: "Because nobody would believe that"
Cheney: "Great plan! Any concerns at this point?"
Rummy: "Well, I'll need to figure out what to do with the real flight 77. I was thinking about crashing it into a building and making people think that really just a bomb went off. Whaddayathink?"
I'm asking that we act like
I'm asking that we act like the prosecution team....
No you are not. Prosecution teams work with evidence, something you keep ignoring for what you more correctly stated about yourself:
Now a debunker can claim with the air of legitimacy that I'm calling for support of a foregone conclusion...
This is much more accurate with your proposed process.
It astounds me that you missed the second half of the first sentance you relpied to, from Frank Legge:
It doesn't matter who says something, if it is true it is true.
Interestingly, you reply with:
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me for falling for it. I'm getting a bad feeling about this
And then you finally ask:
So we come full circle to "why all the intense discussion and rebuttals here?" What is the point?
Because you still have not read this:
What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf
Please do us all a favor and read.
If you are honestly concerned
If you're not a debunker and care, please tell me why you're doing this. Is it some academic exercise, or is it an attempt to show that the official story is true? What's the end game here? Truth? That does not compute, because we know we are not going to get truth from anyone.
Prosecutors don't have the defense (i.e. debunkers) working in their corner. Prosecutors do have investigators whose purpose is to discover weaknesses in their case, so they can correct, fix, or abandon threads that detract from their case rather than contribute to it. Of course, if the whole case is bad it needs to be dropped.
Are you claiming that this Pentagon issue is a weak case and needs to be dropped, or are you claiming that it's likely a "terrorist" actually did what the commission or government says he did? What then? Would you suggest that the government "allowed" a terrorist to attack the Pentagon, not caring what the results of that might be?
I'm trying to find out what you believe to be the most likely scenario, and how that fits into the overall 9/11 picture, and whether this is just an academic thing or whether you're involved in the larger case.
I'm a debunker if you tell me something I know to be wrong.
I'm trying to find out what you believe to be the most likely scenario...
And I have been trying to tell you. What is your thoughts regarding this paper for starters:
What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf
It is obvious that elements in the Government allowed the attack at the Pentagon to happen.
It is obvious.
What is obvious as well, after reviewing all the evidence available, is that a plane hit the Pentagon.
It is also obvious that trying to argue a plane did not hit the Pentagon is crazy. Literally. We look like fools if we do that.
It is not either/or us/them black/white.
Sorry to say, but this is complicated, and easy answers are not necessarily correct ones.
I read it
I read your arguments, which is what they are - arguments. Now back to the issues. Yes, I know there are kooky conspiracy theorists hanging around. So what? Just because my brother or sister is kooky isn't a reason to throw them out of the family or not eat T'giving dinner with them.
As far as theories "damaging the credibility" of the movement - I don't buy it. For damage to occur some person or persons with good credentials and following would have to be proven to be lying, fabricating etc. The mere presence of a lot of bad speculation isn't damaging.
Debunkers getting contentious with honest persons seeking to understand where the issue is going can cause damage. So answer the questions: Why do this? So far as I know the overwhelming cause of the New Pearl Harbor is the collapses in New York. What device exactly hit the Pentagon matters only insofar as whether the government fired it, whether they "allowed" someone else to fire it, or whether they just couldn't prevent the terrorist from doing it.
What's the point? And you're wrong about prosecutors. Some of the most successful have concocted crazy conspiracy theories of their own (Helter Skelter) to gain leverage when they couldn't connect someone to a murder with hard evidence. Prosecutors deal with some evidence, but there's a lot more to it. I've seen debunkers work, and work hard, and it's a rare debunker who will tell you why they are doing what they do.
So really cares what device hit the Pentagon, unless the object is to suggest the government scenario is correct - the terrorist did it. If that's the truth we will eventually "realize", then we can quit now.
You asked a question
and then I gave you an answer. But you rejected my answer, and Frank's, because it's not what you wanted to hear. You could go to the library right now, or to the FAA website, and read more about ground effect by accident than you ever wanted to know on purpose.
Instead, you set off on a long rant, castigating everyone else for not catering to your fantasies, which you wish to remain intact. You even admonish not to even try investigating the Pentagon unless the conclusion is that it was some kind of conspiracy. To my dismay, I've seen several in this thread do this, as if such an attitude is acceptable in research.
..."Conspiracy or I'm putting my fingers in my ears, so I can't hear you"...
Is that the attitude of a truth seeker, or the attitude of an ideologue?
Do me a favor and don't ask questions for which you have no want for an answer.
And for the record: I don't want people like Robert Balsamo in the air, piloting and transporting people from A to B. The man is a danger to his crew and his passengers. There is not an honest or competent bone in the man's body.
Now we are getting down to it
Now it is becoming very clear about debunking. I have fantasies, do I? My questions were extremely clear, and you are trying to slip out from under them with the "fantasy" excuse.
Forget the rant. Just answer the questions.
Why are you doing this?
What is your end goal? To prove what?
What is your attitude about the government lying, obfuscating, etc.?
Why attack me, when I'm just an ordinary guy seeking answers.
I'm not a debunker, you are. Answer the questions.
Answer your questions?
How about you adjust your attitude.
Attitude
Is that a threat?
No
It's a piece of good advice induced by genuine irritation over being cross-examined for daring to speak the truth about the Pentagon attack, in the context of my assessment of your knowledge of that event, which seems to be lacking, as well as psychologically fortified against improvement.
BTW, you knew it wasn't a "threat" to begin with, but I guess that didn't matter going in. Like a football player taking a dive to try to get the ref to hand out a card. That gets no points with me.
As you recall, once upon a time we were discussing ground effect. Why not show your aerodynamic arguments refuting the points made, so we can keep this on topic, rather than divert into pettifoggery.
Questions
"Why are you doing this?"
To answer my own questions about 9/11, to promote understanding of the events of 9/11 and to combat historical revisionism.
"What is your end goal?"
Twofold. To achieve accountability and justice for the events of 9/11 and to achieve an accurate historical record of what happened on 9/11.
"To prove what?"
To set out to prove something means to induce confirmation bias on yourself. Rather, you should examine the literature and source materials on 9/11, and only then proceed with the next step: interpretation and perhaps, conclusion. It's an iterative process. The wrong way to go about it is to shoot at the wall and then draw a target around the bullet holes.
"What is your attitude about the government lying, obfuscating, etc.?"
The government tells the truth sometimes and lies sometimes. The government also obfuscates. The government, however, while one can attempt to analyze it as such, is ultimately not a monolithic entity. Like every group, it consists of competing forces within certain established boundaries. The cognitive dissonance of attempting to prove government conspiracies by citing government evidence without acknowledging this apparent paradox proves my point.
Navigating the jungle of historical resources available on 9/11 requires more than a simplistic anti- or pro-government position.
CIT often derides evidence "coming from the suspect". Yet CIT cites evidence "coming from the suspect" just as easily when it suits their argument. The 'suspect' must, and is often required or compelled, to provide evidence. An a priori dismissal of exculpatory evidence which can only be provided by the object under examination amounts to a circular argument.
My participation in 9/11 research has to some degree, and due to coincidence, gravitated towards the Pentagon attack. It just so happens a plane crashed into the Pentagon, just as planes crashed into the WTC. As sentiments spoken in this thread reveal, the only reason some people don't believe a plane crashed into the Pentagon is because there's no crystal clear, sensational video footage comparable to what was shot at the WTC. WTC no planers have been ridiculed and ostracized from this movement. Pentagon no planers and no impact theorists, however, are given a pass for similar absurd conjecture for the simple reason that video evidence is presumed to have godlike powers of evidentiary persuasion, and because we have, in the words of Chris Hedges, transitioned from a print-based to an image-based society.
Moreover, another important contributing factor to Pentagon errors is 'intuitive physics', which was applied to the WTC ('aluminum can't penetrate steel') to promote no plane theories,and is even more frequently applied to the Pentagon in combination with misconceptions about witness testimony, with arguably even more disastrous results.
I trust this concludes your cross-examination?
Nobody is trying to fool you.
You say: "There's an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me for falling for it. I'm getting a bad feeling about this. Based on the direction this is being steered in, the final conclusion (already making its appearance here) is that the "terrorist" Hanjour actually did this job with a passenger jet."
No, dalethorn. These papers make no claims about who was flying the plane or how it was flown or whether it was a standard 757. If you want to attack these authors, take the trouble to find out what they are saying and argue about that. There is no evidence that I am aware of that the hijackers named in the official reports were even on the planes.
You say: "I asked about air lift, and the answer is about ground effect, which is not what I asked about. It would be nice to hear what "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" have to say - instead I am steered to a debunking site."
The site I linked you to traced back to the FAA’s Pilot’s Encyclopedia of Aeronautical Knowledge, hardly a debunking site. What do you think ground effect is if it is not a contribution to "lift"? You are right that lift is increased if speed is increased, if all else is equal, but it normally isn't. As a plane speeds up the pilot lowers the nose progressively to counteract what would otherwise be increasing lift. He must do this if he wants to avoid climbing. So at very high speed there is very little "angle of attack" of the wings. It follows that at very high speed there is very little ground effect (see reference).
The three authors involved in this excercise have worked diligently and honestly using the scientific method. If you can find fault with any calculation or conclusion in the papers based on hard evidence we will be very glad to hear about it and correct our work.
It is true, as you say, that the perpetratorsof 9/11, and that of course includes both the attack at the WTC and the attack on the Pentagon, have gone to great lengths to hide evidence, but they didn't hide it all. There is enough to make some very sound conclusions about the WTC and the Pentagon. We just wish to see the Pentagon attack addressed with the same thoroughness as the WTC in the hope of reducing the present disputation and therby increasing the effectiveness of the work of 9/11 activists.
Are you serious?
If you are asking these questions now, after all that has been discussed on this site, let alone this article and the other recent Pentagon blog post, along with all the comments. I don't know what to think other than...
Do you read anything?
It has been done.
Witnesses were interviewed, planes have been flown into walls and fly low to the ground, the light poles have been addressed, plane wreckage found.....
Michael Moore is not a reliable source for 9/11 facts.
He is not researching the subject anywhere near what many here are doing.
You are welcome to push harder for the truth, anytime.
Start here:
What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf
continue on:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://911research.com/
I agree 100 %
that Michael Moore is not a reliable source for 9/11 research. Fahrenheit 9/11 is pure partisan propaganda that supports the official story and promotes incompetence theory. I was trying to point out that "EVEN" Michael Moore has asked "Why is it that we have not seen the Pentagon videos?"
Doing experiments and interviewing more folks does not effect the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement or point to any theory. It is simply information gathering.
The perpetrators want this to go away. They do not want to have to produce more hit pieces. They interviews conducted in the CIT videos are a threat to them, even if all the people were wrong about what they saw.
Boy I wish we could get a 757 and try to fly that thing close to the ground at those speeds. Every bone in my body tells me that would be totally impossible.
Flying close to the ground
I know at least one person who flies the big jets. I wish I could get an answer out of him. I agree that flying close to the ground at high speed would not likely have been practiced on a simulator by terrorists prior to 9/11, assuming that a simulator would even be programmed for such an absurdity. So we are left with the pure luck scenario. Or, as this topic progresses, some kind of compromise where a big jet was flown in, but perhaps equipped with explosives or other special gear, and even (or especially!) flown by remote control.
I have every appreciation for investigation of any kind that has a purpose, but so far this one isn't looking good, unless someone like the original author can summarize his overall perspective on 9/11 and how he believes this article will help.
Unfortunately, our media and our government, and probably most of the prestigious institutions in the U.S. consider all of the architects and engineers who believe in the conspiracy to be nut-cases, let alone us nobodies who post on these forums. So in working at this huge disadvantage, 10 years after 9/11 and there is absolutely no prospect of rolling back any of the changes in law or anything else, I don't see any reason to disprove conspiracy theories that don't have sufficient proof or validity - after all, the 9/11 conspiracy believers are just nutballs anyway (their description, not mine), so why not focus on the area where we have absolute proof of government crime - blowing up the towers with people in them.
Good Question
Why aren't you focusing on the towers?
You seem to be putting a lot of energy into being all freaked out because some researchers want to say a plane hit the Pentagon.
Try thinking about it this way (not that the 27th time is the charm or anything):
If people can be deterred, through logic and professional publications, from preaching weak theories, they might concentrate on stronger evidence.
I have a friend who started a conversation about 9/11 with me by mentioning the Pentagon and how he thought it must have been struck by a missile. I directed him to Legge's paper, because I wanted to offer just that kind of deterrence - otherwise, every new person he tries to talk to about 9/11 truth might just get the missile-hit-the-pentagon theory first. Wouldn't that be a shame?
Also, I've noticed that you are frequently throwing around the 'debunker' label. It's a very childish label.
Of Course Pentagon Destruction Was Staged: Occam's Razor
The whole "hypothesis" of the 9/11 truth movement is based upon a "prima facie" case that 9/11 was staged. By necessity, this includes BOTH the attacks in NY and DC - it is not credible to assume that the WTC buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition (which could ONLY happen via federal and state government agencies), and that the Pentagon destruction was a "willy, nilly" chaotic event that was a joint exercise between our government and Bin Laden.
It is true that this "staging" could have been done in several ways: for example, an actual commerical plane could have been converted into a flying missle, or a military aircraft could have been camoflaged to imitate a passenger aircraft.
The physical facts DO matter in terms of convincing others that something stinks to high heaven in both cities, and it IS important to not support "looney" ideas, such as assertions that NO flying object impacted either the WTC towers or the Pentagon.
I suggest the use of "Occam's razor" (given multiple interpretations, the simplest is often the best) as a logical tool in dealing with all the possible permutations regarding the events of 9/11.
For this reason, it seems to me that at a certain point the nit-picking over the Pentagon is counter productive. As Nor Cal Truth points out, it seems that tremendous amounts of energy are being devoted to proving that the official story of the Pentagon destruction is TRUE. This can bite the movement in the butt: those who argue vociferously that the Pentagon was bombed by a spontaneous act of Jihadists who got lucky, can inadvertently encourage those who have been saying that this is the way the WTC towers were destroyed.
Woops
As Nor Cal Truth points out, it seems that tremendous amounts of energy are being devoted to proving that the official story of the Pentagon destruction is TRUE.
No, that is not me. Maybe you are mistaking me with someone else, or misreading my words.
I am asking people who don't agree that a plane hit the Pentagon to read this as a start:
What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf
"Nor Cal Truth": Sorry I misquoted you
I intended to respond to a comment by "sewalkie" - Sorry about the error.
Maybe I don't understand.
thought the argument in this article is that the Pentagon event happened pretty much like the government said it did and that it is ridiculous to think that it could have been staged.
You write:
"It is true that this "staging" could have been done in several ways: for example, an actual commercial plane could have been converted into a flying missile, or a military aircraft could have been camouflaged to imitate a passenger aircraft."
I agree with you. This is exactly what I support, looking at all the possibilities. It is the 9/11 Pentagon 757 purist who would say you shouldn't explore that possibility because "converting airplanes into missiles" sounds too absurd could discredit entire 9/11 truth movement. Does that really sound any more or less realistic than a fly over possibility? I think both sounds reasonable.
If I had to chose one over the other, I would chose the fly-over because the videos would be more likely to be released if a large commercial plane or one that looked like one really did hit the Pentagon.
Choosing one or the other
When I'm faced with choosing scenarios while being denied evidence by such nasty, mean, ruthless characters as Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol et al, I just assume the worst.
There is a principle in law as to giving the benefit of the doubt to an accused. And if we could get those people on trial, we should grant them the benefit of the doubt as to their *persons*, but not their *offices*. See what I'm saying - we don't need to grant benefit of the doubt to offices - we own those offices. We don't own the persons, so they should get benefit of the doubt as persons only.
this and that, but
this and that, this and that, but the main point remains the same:
id est:
there is absolutely no 100% proof that whatever was the flying-thing that hit the Pentagan, that was AA77.
I'm not a fly-over blind-believer, and I do have many many doubts it could have been a missile [my point based on UAL ACARS evidences is plane-swap], but, to be honest, it does not exist any hardcore evidence that bounds the Pentagon hit to AA77.:
no serial number matching evidences
no videos evidences,
the "strongest" evidence connecting AA77 to the Pentagon attack, are the military medical papers that say that ADN samples of all the dead,s were recover [ intact ] from that hell of fire and rage and destruction, allowing to identify all passengers, crew members and hijackers from those samples.
you simply need Faith, and misteries fade away.
A more intersting and helpful thing, would have been the release of the ACARS communications also for AA involved planes (the ones related to UAL, confirm 93 and 175 werent where they told us so), but.... secret silence sshhhhhh.
Post Scriptum:
a couple of questions, 'cause I did never well understood these two points:
1) how is possible that if a 757 flying at something like 500 Mph hit some light poles, those poles don't fly away, pretty far away, from their original bases?
2) ...and coming from point 1, how can Morin's accound [with his flash lights associated to the impact with the light poles] have more "weight" that the one of Lagasse?
Need for evidence
One of the major problems with some people's focus on provable evidence is illustrated by our own government's decisions to give patterns of behavior the nod when physical evidence is suppressed or destroyed. For instance, when the FBI stumbled across the Mafia (or Mob) in 1957, it put Hoover in a peculiar position, him having denied the existence of such things. Eventually the government enacted RICO which gave the FBI the ability to pursue criminals who had formerly escaped justice due to the fact that they hired people to do the crimes, which then could not be traced directly to them.
Later, circa 1970 in the early drug wars, the FBI resorted to breaking down doors of civilian homes without knocking, which escalated their war on the people. This intensified with the SLA and the first goon squads (a.k.a. SWAT teams), and then with 9/11 it went further yet with "anything goes".
My suggestion here is that given the government's coverups and destruction of evidence, we should shift focus to their patterns of behavior as the ultimate proof of wrongdoing. The FBI and their sponsors were not wrong when they enacted RICO et al - we just need to be as smart as they are.
yes i have thought for some time now that RICO type
laws are needed for any and all officials who have the public trust and are expected to protect the public and the public interest. From police officers to politicians ! Violate or compromise the public trust in some type of pattern that can be substantiated and go to jail for 20+ years no parole. Let's take the incentive for profit of any kind out of public service. Then perhaps we can have real public servants. Also any expertise you have as a result of public service cannot be used for profit in the private sector for at least 3-5 years after leaving public service.
until when
until when there will be people "happy" to be fooled by things such like the Hanson phone-call ( ending at 09:03:15, while officially UA175 hit South Tower at 09:03:11, although ACARS says well different times and locations ), their plot will always be replicable
from the JFK assassination, to thru the Iran-Contras delivering ( passing thru Mangoose and Condor and orange Operations), you can't get nowhere else than to 9/11.
same actors. same plots. same business. same money. same cover-ups. same rampaging fascism.
white is white, black is black. 1+1 =2.
if someone don't see it, it is just because don't wanna see it, having more "ease&slack" in looking at the finger instead of the moon the finger is pointing to.
Jesse Ventura and 9/11
A quick review of Jesse Ventura's examination of the Pentagon scenario settles the large jet issue very easily. A large jet is relatively very soft, and flying into the twin towers at high speed they are easily absorbed, even though going very fast. Flying into the heavily reinforced Pentagon the jet would have essentially disintegrated before penetrating far. The glaring and total absence of photos and video, in spite of the many cameras on the building, is real evidence. The testimony of Norman Panetta is real evidence. The video survey of the lawn 5 minutes after the crash is real evidence. But in spite of all the evidence this way or that, it really makes no difference unless government innocence can be surmised somehow.
another major problem is
another major problem is:
HOW could a low-then-less untrained mr.X eye-see eye-spot, from the small cockpit windows, its target manually flying a plane at 500+ Mph?
Geee! lucky man ain't him?! oh yes! it was not a cave-plot-story but a 100%-good-luck-everybody day, that morning!!!
Let us step aside from the science for a moment (edited typo)
With over 80 comments already on this paper, I think it is time to step aside from the science and make a philosophical contribution. I observe that many of the people supporting the north of Citgo flight path appear to be attempting to make an honest contribution in support of the campaign to expose the truth that 9/11 was an inside job. This is highly commendable. They use the fact that the authorities have clearly lied about the WTC to assume that it is highly likely that they are lying about the Pentagon.
Well they certainly are lying about the Pentagon. There are the lies of omission. They omit the evidence for the identity of the plane. They omit evidence for the identity of their claimed list of hijackers. And there are lies of commission. The NIST report was clearly a cover-up of criminal activity. The 9/11 Commission report committed itself to support a particular description of events which was contradicted by many of the testimonies they received. In August 2006 we saw an excellent summary of the improper actions of the authorities by Kevin Ryan:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf
But all that does not prove a large plane did not hit the Pentagon.
Let us think for a moment about how our knowledge about the WTC developed. There were many who were suspicious that explosives had been used to bring down the towers but it was a while before we had scientific proof. In June 2006 we had papers by Gordon Ross, Kevin Kuttler and myself proving the official explanation was false. I think I was the first to attempt to calculate the acceleration rate of WTC 7. I found it to be very close to free fall. This analysis had the advantage of being very simple to understand. It was peer reviewed and published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies in June 2006.
Others using better software and videos have done it more accurately since and found that it was exactly free fall for the first 2.5 seconds. The work of David Chandler is now well known. The work of Tony Szamboti showing there were no "jolts" is also well known. Other aspects of the collapses such as the velocity of debris ejection added to the case. Thus developed our sure knowledge that explosives must have been used. Then came the analysis of the dust showing the nature of the material that had been used in the demolition.
Clearly it was a slow and painstaking process with strict application of the scientific method that brought us to the substantial position we are in today. During this process those working on the case for controlled demolition were bombarded with arguments, abuse and threats by those who wanted to maintain the status quo, but they did not give up.
There are three scientists who have contributed papers to the current debate about the Pentagon, John Wyndham, David Chandler and myself. All we seek is a thorough understanding of what happened that day. All we ask is that those who are interested in the case adhere to the scientific method. That of course means that any proposal which is found to be contrary to evidence be discarded. We are aware that we can expect arguments, abuse and threats from those who wish to maintain the status quo but we will not give up unless proven wrong scientifically. We invite scientific debate.
The strange thing about this case is that most of the expected abuse will come, not from those supporting the official explanation, but from those supporting the claim that the plane flew north of the Citgo service station. This bizarre twist leads to us being accused of supporting the official story of 9/11 though all our work on the WTC refutes this. It is similar to the accusations we all experienced that in investigating controlled demolition we were unpatriotic. That was not logical then and it is not logical now to accuse us of supporting the official story because we find that one small part of it, the impact of a large plane with the Pentagon, appears to be true.
Finally there is a need to touch on our purpose as our motives have been questioned. Essentially it is simply that as scientists we want to have the truth known and understood. It is our belief that this understanding will reduce the disputation that goes on in the 9/11 movement and will increase the effectiveness of 9/11 activists in their outreach to the public.
THIS THREAD
I see blogger is still stocked with only the finest commentators available.
Good Overview by Frank Legge
I appreciated the attempt by Frank Legge to recap a lot of earnest discussion about the 9/11 destruction at the Pentagon. I tend to believe that a healthy and open discourse is healthy, and that it should not be constrained by the idea that government "spooks" are watching this website, and using it to figure out their next PR spin.
To do so gives the perps too much credit. They do not care enough about appearances to bother to "spin" the 9/11 movement - just think about the nonchalant way they have of telling a score of bald-faced lies about the WTC: e.g., there was no evidence of molten steel, there were no credible reports of secondary explosions, the collapse of Building 7 conforms to their model, etc.
I believe the scientific insights of Dr. Legge, et. al., which I really do respect and appreciate, would be received much better if they were framed in terms of the overall attacks on 9/11. Application of science to human behavior is also appropriate, and I expect all of these scientists to agree that all the events of 9/11, at both the WTC and DC, were planned, staged, and executed under a script that demanded certain and deterministic results. The assertion that the government destroyed the WTC towers with controlled demolition is not consistent with a "benign" interpretation of the Pentagon attack, that it somehow resulted from a crew of Jihadists who got lucky.
With this concession, the fact is that (in a figurative sense, at least) the government fired a "missile" at the Pentagon on 9/11 with a controlled trajectory and target. Within this conclusion are permutations, such as whether this "missile" was a retro-fitted commercial jet, or any other of the variants that have been suggested.
IMHO, healthy debate within the 9/11 movement in this context should be taken in a positive way, as a sign of strength, from those who demand the truth, regardless of the consequences.
Missile
There is absolutely no evidence of a missile at the Pentagon. (Covered earlier in the thread)
You might as well claim it was struck by a giant banana.
Basically, it can be reasonably assumed Pentagon missile theorists have not been studying the Pentagon attack at all, or have only very cursorily parsed the third rate conspiracy literature from around 2002.
The term "Missile" was Figurative, Not Literal
I stated that:
"the fact is that (in a figurative sense, at least) the government fired a "missile" at the Pentagon on 9/11 with a controlled trajectory and target. Within this conclusion are permutations, such as whether this "missile" was a retro-fitted commercial jet, or any other of the variants that have been suggested."
In a figurative sense, if the government deliberately flew a commercial jet into the Pentagon to cause destruction, I believe it is completely appropriate to deem it a "guided missle". The key point here is that it is a deliberate act, and not an accidental one.
You're more than smart. . . you see into people's souls. . .
I hear "missile," I think........"Missile." That's what he said. That's what he meant.
You don't KNOW he was speaking figuratively, do you? Do you?
To be clearer
I carefully read before I responded, I responded because of this part:
"Within this conclusion are permutations, such as whether this "missile" was a retro-fitted commercial jet, or any other of the variants that have been suggested."
I concluded one of those variants that have been suggested was a missile, so I decided to press the issue again.
More evidence
SnowCrash said..."You might as well claim it was struck by a giant banana."
Actually I think you are mixing the non plane at Shanksville with the non plane at the pentagon. The giant banana was what crashed in Shanksville, and thanks to our "outstanding investigation" we at CON have uncovered a photo taken moments before the banana was shot out of the sky despite the pilots being ordered "negative clearance to shoot", but since this was a banana the theory goes that the order did not apply and hence we go from this......
To this....
Notice no parts of a banana were found (they tend to disintegrate after being hit with heat seeking missiles and then crashing.) Nothing but planted plane and body parts were found once again exposing how 9-11 was an inside job. This may or may not be true but at least it will give people reason to look into the 9-11 event and take us seriously.
Jimd3100Stein CON
Thanks for the appreciation, instantkarma
You say: "I believe the scientific insights of Dr. Legge, et. al., which I really do respect and appreciate, would be received much better if they were framed in terms of the overall attacks on 9/11."
It is usual for scientific papers to focus on a single issue however exceptions do occur. Have you actually read the NOC refutation paper?
http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Chandler_NOC_Refutation.html
You will see that we have strayed as far as can be expected into providing the background to our concern about the Pentagon disputation. We show clearly on the first page that our underlying belief is that the use of explosives in the demolition of the WTC buildings is well established. Clearly this proves that 9/11 was an inside job. We explain that we do not want the evidence for that to be made less credible by foolish assertions about the Pentagon. The paper also links to my website which makes my overall position abundantly clear.
http://scienceof911.com.au/
Similarly Wyndham's paper links to numerous sites like those of Jim Hofmann which make clear that 9/11 was an inside job.
There is a clear danger that the powerful CIT website, full of misrepresentation, omissions and cherry-picked quotes, is influencing powerful people. We have DRG unable to refute the NOC claim. We have Barrie Zwicker, a powerful figure, destroying the scientific consensus about the Pentagon. It is not good.
And so we get again to our motivation in addressing the Pentagon controversy. I will repeat it. If good hearted 9/11 activists are trying to assert that there was no plane or that it flew over, or that it flew round a clearly impossible path, they will undermine the credibility of all those who try to persude the public that 9/11 was an inside job.
Maybe he would know. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUmr9dFbf2c&feature=related
Timothy Roemer
I think the only thing you've proven there is that 9/11 Commissioners are capable of misspeaking... just like the many other lapsūs linguae or jumbled trains of thought by for example Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld or Benazir Bhutto.
Nobody on the scene saw a missile, there is no physical or chemical evidence of a missile, missiles don't zig-zag through light poles, trim trees, cut engine shaped holes in generators nor flap tracks; litter plane parts all over the Pentagon lawn, or DNA all over the first floor.
I've never seen missiles which leave behind Digital Flight Data Recorders with a history of previous commercial flights either. You? AFAIK missiles don't carry passengers...
irrelevancies
So what?
Who said that these guys couldn't attempt to create a 'scene" that was consistent with some kind of half-assed 757 hit and took down the poles simultaneously? Is that so outrageous? They planted tons of thermite in the WTC but couldn't see in advance how to fake a plane strike???
Come on,. What's your investment in the "no missle" theory???
I don't get it.
NYC Guy.You might not see
NYC Guy.
You might not see it, but you are digging a deep hole for yourself.
What is your investment in the "I'm the only one who is arguing a missle, while I call evidence of a plane irrelevant, so why don't you pay attention to me" theory?
Freudian Slips by Gov't Officials Should Be Considered
Thank you, NYCGuy -
I don't understand why we summarily excuse inadvertent slips and incriminating statements by the perps. For questions immediately below, see citations further on.
For example:
1. Who amongst us was able to predict the Pentagon might be struck minutes before it happened ?
2 .Who amongst us "accidentally" says a missile hit the Pentagon, if we believe it is a passenger plane ?
3. Who amongst us would actually "mis-remember" seeing live video of the 1st plane hitting the WTC ?
Since there are those who will twist the inferences from the citation of these statements, it should be clear that a very logical possibility is that Rumsfeld is reflecting upon his knowledge that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was IN EFFECT a guided missile, even if it ACTUALLY was a camoflaged passenger plane that had been converted into a lethal weapon.
1. Pentagon attack came minutes after Rumsfeld predicted: 'There will be another event'
Posted: Tuesday, September 11, 2001
By By Robert Burns
The Associated Press
Rumsfeld was in his office when the aircraft hit on the opposite side of the building. He had just run there after hearing of the Trade Center attack while at a meeting on missile defense in his private dining room.
U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., also at the meeting, said Rumsfeld had just predicted that the United States would face another terrorist incident at some point.
"He said, 'Let me tell ya, I've been around the block a few times. There will be another event.' And he repeated it for emphasis," Cox said. "And within minutes of saying that, his words proved tragically prophetic."
After the Pentagon attack, Rumsfeld went "running down to the site where the aircraft hit, was helpful in putting some of the injured onto some stretchers," Quigley said.
2. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Interview with Parade magazine, October 12th 2001
Parade: “This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?”
Rumsfeld: “There were lots of warnings….
They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building [the Pentagon] and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.”
3. President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting
CNN, Aired December 4, 2001
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."
Missile-Information
This paper is a missile hitting the Pentagon of no plane theories. Right in the section where the belief that a missile hit the Pentagon was reinforced with a concrete lack of evidence by thread hijackers whose ideas couldn't fly, except north of cognition. Figuratively speaking.
Mike Meyer responds to analysis of C-Ring exit hole
I had a chance to review some of the recent items on 911 blogger, I would like to clarify my position with respect to the C-ring exit hole.
1. I weakly support the notion that a 757 hit the pentagon. I think there is a pretty good case based on eye witnesses that this is what happened.
2. I never stated nor implied that debris was "planted" outside the C-Ring exit hole.
When analyzing the C-ring exit hole, the key is to look at the outside picture looking in near the top. If you look at the bricks on the very exterior of the wall in the cut out, particularly near the top, you will see bricks which are cut out following a circular shape. This is a very anomalous feature that should be explained if we are to follow the "scientific method". There are also many bricks which are fractured on the exterior wall, how exactly did this happen?
Additionally there is all of this damage to the Pentagon, including this highly energetic C-Ring hole, but on the opposite wall, traveling into the pentagon, there is zero damage - pretty amazing for the forces to stop on a dime like this.
The best theory I have seen to date was proposed by Russell Pickering (formerly studied the Pentagon in extreme detail www.pentagonresearch.com (no longer exists in its previous form)) that something like a rapid wall breaching kit was used on this wall. Speculating a bit, the charge went off slightly before the 757 hit, and debris from the impact traveled through this existing hole. The National Geographic show I refer to in my write up on the C-Ring exit hole http://911blogger.com/news/2008-09-11/pentagon-c-ring-exit-hole-mystery had interesting survivor stories about the C-ring exit hole, in that a number of survivors escaped through this hole, perhaps this hole was place to allow an escape path out the back of the build?
I realize we want to come to closure about the pentagon, but the recent analysis does not adequately explain the very unique features of the C-ring exit hole. Many people with direct experience on shaped charge explosives would take one look at the type of brick damage done and quickly realize there is really on lone way to cut through bricks like this, and that is with an explosive charge. To refute this, you would need to explain how these bricks could have been cut like this.
azbadger
Have you noticed the fuselage of a 757 is cylindrical? It's behavior, while being obliterated inside the building, can be compared to a cylindrical 'soup' of plane debris and human beings, and it's that cylindrical soup which punctured that hole.
A 'wall breaching kit' does not spew airplane tire remnants, other mangled plane debris and human DNA outwards at an oblique angle.
Does circular damage to a brick structure mean anything...
...other than loss of integrity to its support structure?
Wow
Great picture! (I hope nobody died though)
All okay, minus a home.
"CTA officials and police are investigating why the bus crashed into the side of a house at 115th Street and Vincennes Avenue, injuring four people on the bus and forcing residents of the home to move in with relatives after their home was found structurally unsound."
http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/cta-bus-crashes-into-house-on-south-side.html
The home directory portion of the URL
...from the original image is a bit unfortunate ('dylanaverysucksballs'), but it gets the point across.. (the picture, that is, not the URL)
And the reason the bus isn't obliterated (and hasn't penetrated the house completely), is due to both mass and velocity, where the impact of the velocity component increases quadratically.
Aghh!
I did not see that. Moderators, would you please be able to swap images for us all? Sorry for the mistake.
New URL:
What Bus?
All I see is a cleverly disguised missile and a perp about to plant Bus parts. Until we have matching serial numbers for the parts, and a video of the alleged incident, it's best to hold back judgement and discuss how they converted this missile and who the perp is, and the exact direction the alleged bus came from. Also, any witnesses that go along with the official story printed in the MSM are most likely Mass murdering liars and should be exposed as such.
Jimd3100Stein CON
What gets me
Is the unbelievable accuracy with which the bus driver hit her target. For somebody who had only recently learned to drive, and wasn't even allowed to rent a Volkswagen, it's hard to imagine her pulling off this ace driving. Besides, there were two clocks inside the house which stopped five minutes before the official crash time, so this means there must have been an explosion before the bus even arrived at the scene. Most witnesses who saw the crash were either affiliated with the mainstream press, opus dei, law enforcement motorcycle clubs or the boy scouts, and who would want to defer to such a hodgepodge of questionable characters?
Other witnesses, who are trustworthier than the infiltrators just mentioned, and because we interviewed them on camera, saw the bus approach from the north side of the intersection, contrary to the official drive path. We even have an honest to goodness drive-by witness, Rose Robertson, who saw two buses on the scene, one approaching, heading east, towards Chicago, and one departing, in a U-turn at the mall. For inexplicable reasons we were unable to contact her after we initially went public with our smoking gun information. She now doesn't want to talk to us anymore, but in a second phone call she confirmed the hell out of her earlier claims. In our recent documentary, we butch... errr... edited the recording of our interview with her for clarity. We wouldn't want people to get any ideas we haven't inserted into her testimony ourselves.
Recently we went to a BBQ of a reporter who was on the scene and claims to have seen the whole thing. But jetting crosstown, we discovered there was a line of trees obstructing his view so it must have been all a lie. We tried to surreptitiously record the bastard but he got wise to our shenanigans and kicked us out. I can honestly say I have looked the devil in the eye.
We've also spoken to an elderly cab driver, who was almost killed by pole knocked over by the bus. We didn't think his story made much sense, and although some might insist that we do kinematics calculations to prove his involvement was staged as well, I feel that my see-saw analogy renders the need for calculations moot. Besides, although we acknowledge the doddering sweetheart reads paranoid literature, we don't think that has anything to do with why he eventually broke down and offered a 'virtual confession' of his involvement when we stared at him in silence for 15 minutes. After confronting him with his lies. He mumbled something about his role being insignificant compared to the "people with the money"... and we believe him. His wife accidentally slipped up and revealed she worked as a cleaner at the local police station, which only adds to the irresistible intrigue. He is, without a doubt, the first known accomplice. We would love for him to sue us for defamation, so we can finally present our evidence in court. I'm sure the judge will sympathize.
Besides, the bus data recorder, which we think was planted, showed it drove too high to hit the house (and nobody paid the bus fare) so that only adds to the mystery. We defer to "Bus Drivers for 11/11 Truth" and Bob Malshmamo for further comment. He recently signed up 25 new licensed bus drivers some of which actually drove the bus in question. They should know.
All of this independently corroborated, smoking gun proof shows convincingly that the whole event must have been staged in a cleverly devised military deception, and we urge you to contact your Congressional representative and present this important national security information to him.
Oh yeah, and everybody who refuses to debate this issue with us is scared of being exposed as the government loyalist, mass murdering traitors they really are. They should prepare to be ambushed in public places and "truth squaded". You can't hide from the truth! Until our detractors repent, stop defending the official story and contribute research that assumes the worst from the outset and leads to the inevitable shocking conclusion this was all a black operation of mass murder, we are not interested. Think of the children and be the change you want to see in this world. Stay tuned for our European tour coming up this spring. You can help pay for it by buying a 1000-set DVD truth pack from our online shop.
Signed,
SnowCrash CON
Bob Malshmamo
Jim and SC
I'm on the floor!
Its definately a Government agent planting a fake bus in the hole.
This must have happened after the real bus drove by - knocking down 5 fire hydrants on the way.
But 9/11 was no accident
'...the unbelievable accuracy with which the bus driver hit her target. For somebody who had only recently learned to drive, and wasn't even allowed to rent a Volkswagen, it's hard to imagine her pulling off this ace driving.'
All joking aside, what this picture shows was an accident. Of course, inexperienced, inept drivers (or pilots) are more prone to accidents than experienced, capable ones--though they can happen in the case of the latter as well. However, when the subject is something that isn't an accident; when we're talking about a building being deliberately targeted as part of a criminal plot, that is quite a different matter. Would the plotters in that case have entrusted that task to someone who'd shown such ineptitude with piloting skills (or driving skills, if you prefer) and hope he'd just 'get lucky' and get it right once the plan was in motion? That question is no laughing matter to me.
Not who is driving, but what is being driven.
The point of the picture is to show "circular" damage to a brick building.
The picture was emphasis on the point that there is no evidence for any missle, or anything else to have created the hole. (In the C-Ring of the Pentagon)
Some people thought because the C Ring hole was circular, it had to be a missle. Well......
Obviously, the point is made that that is not the case.
The C Ring exit hole was created by plane damage.
Response to Mike Meyer
MM, 1. " I weakly support the notion that a 757 hit the pentagon. I think there is a pretty good case based on eye witnesses that this is what happened."
One way to evaluate the evidence for impact of a large plane at the Pentagon is to contemplate the alternative. There were over 100 people who reported seeing a large plane approach or hit the Pentagon. There were hundreds more who must have seen the approach or impact but were not interviewed. Had the plane flown over the top, there would have been a great many reports of such an astonishing event, but there were none. I think we can safely conclude that it did not happen: the plane hit the Pentagon.
The other way is to just add up all the evidence for impact. There is the radar data backing up the FDR data, the many witnesses, the vast amount of debris inside the Pentagon, the adequate debris outside the Pentagon, the damage inside the Pentagon, the reports of many workers dealing with the debris, sorting it and stacking it in the car park, finding bodies, the identified parts of a 757.
MM, 2. "I never stated nor implied that debris was "planted" outside the C-Ring exit hole."
Thank you for this information. It is good to have clarification of the positions of people who have contributed to the debate. Aircraft debris was found outside the hole which would not have happened if the wall had been opened after the event by an explosive charge. In that case any aircraft debris would have been blown back away from the wall. Your suggestion that the charge was set off at or just before impact has to be considered.
>
MM, "When analyzing the C-ring exit hole, the key is to look at the outside picture looking in near the top. If you look at the bricks on the very exterior of the wall in the cut out, particularly near the top, you will see bricks which are cut out following a circular shape. This is a very anomalous feature that should be explained if we are to follow the "scientific method". There are also many bricks which are fractured on the exterior wall, how exactly did this happen?"
I see nothing surprising about the hole being circular. I would expect a large mass of fragmented material to build up on the wall until it gave way. I see no proof that it should not be roughly circular.
It is easy to explain the fractured outer layer of bricks. The wall is made up of about three layers. How they would break up would depend on the relative strength of each layer and the adhesion between the layers. If the adhesion was strong the layers would break together. If the adhesion was weak there could be separation first, then breakage could be at different points, as appears to be the case here.
>
MM, "Additionally there is all of this damage to the Pentagon, including this highly energetic C-Ring hole, but on the opposite wall, traveling into the pentagon, there is zero damage - pretty amazing for the forces to stop on a dime like this."
Others have commented on this. One explanation is that the hole was made by a missile which blew up as it went through. I find this to be absurd: an exploding missile would certainly have damaged the outer B ring wall. I see no reason to doubt that the velocity and mass of the arriving debris could be just sufficient to push the wall away, but do little else. It is a property of aluminium that it absorbs a lot of energy as it tears and crumples. This would be happening as it progresses through the columns.
>
MM, "I realize we want to come to closure about the pentagon, but the recent analysis does not adequately explain the very unique features of the C-ring exit hole. Many people with direct experience on shaped charge explosives would take one look at the type of brick damage done and quickly realize there is really only one way to cut through bricks like this, and that is with an explosive charge. To refute this, you would need to explain how these bricks could have been cut like this."
No, we don't have to fully explain it. In short, there is so much evidence that a large plane hit the building that it is not reasonable to allege it did not happen. The motive for finding that some part of the evidence (perhaps the C ring hole or lack of debris) is not consistent with impact, is of course that if you could prove it, it would be proof that the attack was an inside job. It is however not helpful to make assertions without proof. It is too like the theory that the plane flew over the roof. If you could prove that, it would be proof of an inside job, but there is no proof of overfly. And why should we be struggling to find an abberation that shows the Pentagon attack was an inside job, when it is perfectly obvious that 9/11 as a whole was an inside job.
Mr. Legge is right: 9/11 as a whole was an inside job
It IS perfectly obvious that 9/11 as a whole was an inside job.
The unifying principle behind Mr. Legge’s closing comment is extremely important. I belive that when we expand upon it’s direct logical implications, it results in a set of principles that can guide all future debates.
I do believe that Mr. Legge and many other respected scientists who have studied 9/11, and came to the above conclusion, did so based upon the overwhelming evidence that the WTC skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolition (I won’t even bother to recount this evidence here: for those who are “entry level” students of 9/11, please just read the scientific papers regarding free-fall, nano-thermite, etc.)
Starting with the inside job paradigm creates an irrefutable chain of primary and secondary conclusions.
First of all, the “inside job” involving a sophisticated form of controlled demoltion, in conjunction with airplane impacts, could only have been carried out with the direct approval of the very highest levels of the U.S. government and federal and state agencies.
It is obvious that the agents who carried out 9/11 were invested to an extraordinarydegree in it’s success, and as such, there would be zero incentive for them to rely upon any uncontrolled means of achieving this success. As such, ALL aspects of the 9/11 attacks, at BOTH the WTC and the Pentagon, had to be planned and executed with a very high degree of certainty and determinism.
For example, it is absurd to think that given this heavy investment by the perps that they would trust the piloting of these aircraft to inexperienced jihadists, and take the real chance that these jihadists might NOT be lucky, miss their targets, and nullify the entire operation.
For the perps of 9/11, there was absolutely NO upside to actually trusting the operation of these aircraft to such individuals, when all they were needed for was to be patsies after the fact.
There was absolutely NO upside to allow the trajectory of these aircraft to be uncontrolled, so that the one that hit the Pentagon might strike at Donald Rumsfeld’s office, rather than a selected target. As such, it is a certainty that the trajectory and the targets of these aircraft were pre-selected.
I found that when I tried to use this conclusion to assert that this made the aircraft FIGURATIVELY “guided missles”, others jumped on the word missles to rebut me. So just to be clear, in the future, let us agree upon a phrase that explicitly makes it clear that the perps did NOT rely upon a group of unstable and inexperienced jihadists to achieve their goals, or ANY techniques that involved unnecessary risk of failure.
Once we accept this as an irrefutable fact, other questions that remain diminish in importance. As I believe Mr. Legge has pointed out, endlessly debating about the size of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, as well as whether an aircraft flew into, over, or UNDER (ha, ha) the Pentagon is not that productive at this time, unless we actually have some “smoking gun” evidence (akin to the WTC destruction) to prove our point.
Irrefutable wha?
"...endlessly debating about the size of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, as well as whether an aircraft flew into, over, or UNDER (ha, ha) the Pentagon is not that productive at this time..."
Are you unable to formulate your understanding of the argument presented in this paper and Dr. Legge's paper, that it is important to debate that there was no fly-over, and the plane did in fact hit the Pentagon? Do you understand the reason this is important?
To come to the conclusion that offering fly-over/missile theories is wrong.
Let's say that again.
To come to the conclusion that offering fly-over/missile theories is wrong.
Do you see the benefit of such a conclusion?
It's because fly-over/missile theories are wrong and they will ultimately dissuade the public from grasping the over-arching truth of an inside job.
Let's say that again.
It's because fly-over/missile theories are wrong and they will ultimately dissuade the public from grasping the over-arching truth of an inside job.
It looks like you are simply trying to back out of the debate without conceding this conclusion is correct, by saying it's no longer important to talk about.
[EDIT: Removed mocking]
What a wonderful essay, instantkarma
We scientists, who are far too focussed on hard evidence, really need people with your gift for analysis of the implications of the hard evidence to explain it.
What a disappointment it is therefore to get to your last paragraph and see that you actually missed the point of what we have been doing with these papers. You say "As I believe Mr. Legge has pointed out, endlessly debating about the size of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, as well as whether an aircraft flew into, over, or UNDER (ha, ha) the Pentagon is not that productive at this time, ..."
No! That is certainly not what I am pointing out. What I am pointing out is that the evidence that a large plane hit the Pentagon has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and it is high time people recognized the fact and stopped endlessly debating it.
Well said, zica.
Thank you, Mr. Legge:
I’m happy you appreciated everything except the last paragraph. I did make a mistake in attributing my own conclusions to you incorrectly, for which I apologize.
I still belive we can work together towards a common goal without total agreement on the importance of each issue. I have the impression that you and others may believe that those who advance theories that a plane flew over the Pentagon pose a mortal danger to the 9/11 truth movement, while I feel the movement is much more robust than that. If such a threat was real, how easy it would be for those who want to hide the truth to inject such theories into our discussion.
In an earlier message, I emphasized the utility of using “Occam’s Razor” in identifying the most likely explaination for the events of 9/11. Based upon this principle, as well as the thoughts I expressed in my most recent message, I personally do not believe that that an aircraft flew over the Pentagon on 9/11, simply because it would have been totally unnecessary for the perps to do so, and would have introduced extra risk into the operation, without enhancing the objective.
I keep harping back to the WTC for context, because I feel the foundation for the scientific conclusions for controlled demolition are much more compelling, and do not rely upon any sources that might be questioned. You state your conclusions regarding the Pentagon impact are true beyond a reasonable doubt, but you must base your conclusions upon a mix of sources. As we all know, eyewitnesses can be drummed up if necessary, flight data recorders can be manipulated, and the crime scene data can be tampered with. Just like the WTC, the government hardly treated the Pentagon destruction as a crime scene that involved murder of innocents, as they rightly should have.
It is fine for you and others to weigh all the evidence we have about the Pentagon, as well as its quality, and reach your conclusions in good faith. I do think you need to recognize that there are others who in good faith still have their doubts, and that it is not a mortal blow to the 9/11 truth movement for them to express their honest convictions. In the end, the movement will be stronger in the long run; just as you may be providing a valuable service in warning others that their conclusions are not logical, it is quite possible that in the future they will return the favor.
I must say that I have never mocked or insulted anyone in my writings, and I do feel at times this element does creep into the dialog in this forum (although certainly not from yourself), and is really not productive. Our movement does not need thought police, but we do need thoughtful discussion, and thoughtful dissension. As a scientist (and I have worked with many), you know that historically logic usually does not prevail instantly, and getting acceptance is often a messy (and illogical) process. But in the end, science does ultimately win out.
I hope in the near future to introduce what I hope is a somewhat novel direction for the 9/11 movement to get the traction it needs to move forward – we already have ALL the science we need on our side already, and it is frustrating that we can’t seem to get the debate to the next level.
I’ll be looking forward to comments and criticisms from you and others when I do so.
Sorry for mocking you
You are right that mocking doesn't help. I edited that out and I apologize for venting my frustration that way.
Mortal
The point isn't how much of a danger of those theories are; it's that they are wrong and are a danger.
are you bickering?
Some here want to believe that an argument for freedom of speech and thought somehow refutes this paper and try to redirect the conversation in that direction.
I can tell you, from the first-hand experience of trying to open my neighbors' eyes about 9/11, no plane @pentagon theories have made it much more difficult.
"Outstanding investigative work"
Sigh...
Guzzling back the Kool-Aid by the gallon? IMHO, this is pure astroturfing, marketing and commercializing on behalf of Aldo and Craig. You are not here to discuss.... that much I can tell. No Pentagon witnesses CIT talked to ever wants to talk to them again when they find what these two paranoid, wide-eyed zealots are up to. CIT spins this as 'further evidence' for their theory: the witnesses must not want to talk to them anymore because CIT is on to something deep. Their silence and deliberate avoidance of their phone calls, e-mails and what not is, bizarrely, seen as encouragement by them. That..... is the mindset of a stalker who needs to be slapped down with a restraining order. CIT has driven various Pentagon researchers out of this movement, has viciously attacked 911blogger, has smeared and defamed Pentagon victims and witnesses and continues to divide, disrupt and destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement for fame and ego. They should have been dragged into court by, for example, Lloyd England a long time ago, but that's not something Lloyd can financially afford.
For you to just casually pretend none of this happened and then laud their horrible behavior as "outstanding investigative work" ... it's beyond absurd. You are advertising, it's plain as day.
I see widespread consensus across the blogosphere, forums and websites about both CIT and P4T. To say these groups are widely despised, and routinely banned everywhere would be an understatement.
For example: can you point out a few forums where Balsamo and Marquis can post under their own name? How many venues still welcome them?
CIT
Hey, I don't know those guys. But I'm not judging them either. I'm not investigating them. They may be guilty as hell, what do I know. All I know is they went out of their way to make videos and conversations of eye witnesses that bring up some interesting questions and perspectives. I think their interpretations may have been wrong. Either way, they did more than me :).
But you are judging them and perhaps with reason. Good for you. But what does that mean to me? Nothing. What does that mean to the 'movement'? Nothing.
The raison d'etre of the our collective efforts is to bring these issues in the public spotlight in a way that forces review. That's failing by the way. It's not because of different opinions. We all have the same opinion, that the official explanations are inadequate, justice has not been served and our way of life suffers for it.
Perhaps CIT were a little crazy. I don't care. Everyone's crazy in this. Bickering is what helps keeps us behind the wall of silence. You know what... CIT didn't commit these crimes and those who were involved are free. Focus your disdain there and express it to those institutions and people responsible for that fact. Our work here is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Judging CIT
You judge their work as "outstanding".
At the same time, you don't claim to know anything about them, nor about about the Pentagon, and you hint you don't even care.
Come on now, anditico, you're being a little dishonest with me. You can't have it both ways.
Operation Disability
anditico said..."CIT also did outstanding investigative work. If their conclusions were incorrect, that's to be expected."
Not only was their investigative work outstanding, they knew it would be outstanding since they knew what their investigation would show since they had already predicted it in 2005 and 2006 on internet forums.....
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=44236&postcount=63
And as you pointed out even if they are wrong that is to be expected because as everyone knows - All outstanding investigations should be expected to have incorrect conclusions, this is what separates outstanding investigations from insane con artists seeking attention. Lloyd England and Keith Wheelhouse should have expected to be outed as mass murderers, even if they are totally innocent - as you eloquently stated....
anditico said..."We don't have to be right."
But why keep pushing the "official story" lie that 9-11 happened on 9-11? When we have photographic and video evidence that a fly under happened on 9-12?
As part of "Operation Disability" where we "disable" the "official story huggers" I have the following announcement.......
We at CON will be joined by our affiliates "Total MIHOP Warriors Alliance" and the IHOPERs(The International House of Pancakes were behind 9-11 attack theorists) in a top secret conference call this weekend to discuss changing the phrase "9-11 truth movement" to "9-12 it doesn't have to be true movement" because..
anditico said..."We don't have to be right."
Jimd3100Stein CON
I have no idea what you just
I have no idea what you just said.
I think their (CIT) effort was outstanding. Maybe I went too far in saying their investigative work was outstanding. But I wasn't judging it. I'm not in a position too. Apparently others have judged their results not so outstanding after all. :) Maybe they didn't take kindly to being corrected or something. I wasn't aware of all that.
Look, they made an effort. That much I appreciate. Apparently their effort got under a lot of people's skin or something. I personally didn't follow any of that as my focus is elsewhere. But I am aware that there are attitudes that can help divide people in this effort and I ask myself, what's the point of that?
I do appreciate that people are so dedicated to clarify the facts and to continue driving these issues.
Let's say that CIT consequence was a disservice because, while not being dis-information (deliberate misguidance), it was providing fodder for doubt as to the adequacy and legitimacy of our overall drive. I think, if that's the case, the effect was probably minimal. However, perhaps another effect was that they helped bring people to the awareness that something else was amiss. I'm sure we disagree about the balance of those two effects. My opinion is that there is so much missing in the common perception of this day that any attention to the discrepancies is a good. For example, we don't chastise the Loose Change video so much because they might have got some things terribly wrong. They also brought awareness to the much larger hole in our perception of that day.
And, you're chastising me (I think). We're arguing or something. How helpful is that? :)
Of course I think it's helpful if we are 'right' but my point was that we are so far from what I consider right, I think we're still wrong. There's still just too much we don't know and literally can't know until the gates of information open up and we're pretty much at a stopping point until you sway the next president to open an investigation. And while it's good to know the general outlines of what happened and didn't it's just not that helpful to know a plane hit the Pentagon. It's nice to have made progress but if you think that's enough, I think you can't see the forest for the trees.
We're all still looking and hoping for that piece of incontrovertible evidence that will force people to sit up and listen. Barring that, we hope the weight of the argument will sway the enough people to make a change. Unfortunately, we've had both in great quantity, far more than enough of both of those things and it looks to have had little consequence (in the media or otherwise). It's puzzling and frustrating.
I'll repeat again. The disdain we exercise against others in this effort works against the overall effort in a large way. It's unfortunate, because it seems inevitable, but it does. I wish we could be more inclusive. For me, being right isn't enough. It just isn't nearly enough. I'll say this. I'd rather be proven wrong if, in the process, it sways others to discover the whole truth in a way that brings transparency and justice.
Background
' Maybe they didn't take kindly to being corrected or something. I wasn't aware of all that.'
Well, here's part of the background:
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-27/911bloggercom-accused-leading-911-truth-site-working-other-side
Transparency is the key
anditico, by heading your post "Transparency" I see that you are on the brink of understanding what this is all about. We have already discussed the transparency issue and I thought you had got it, but apparently not quite. You are suspicious of the authorities, and rightly so, because they lie about controlled demolition. So you direct your suspicion at the question of whether a plane really hit the Pentagon. That is a good place to start. You have a motive for studying the evidence. What do we find at the outset? There is ample evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon but there is a lack of evidence for the identity of the plane. That is queer. What are we to make of it?
We will come back to that question, but first let us address your main concern. You say that "The idea that having doubts about a plane scenario hurting the movement is what hurts the movement by ostracizing, angering and isolating people who share so many other perspectives within the movement. I know because I felt it even though I didn't care and had no stake."
There are two points to make about that statement:
1. It is not "doubts" which hurt the movement. It is the certainlty that so many activists have that there was no plane that hurts the movement. It hurts the movement because most of the public believes that a plane did hit the Pentagon, and they have no reason to believe otherwise. Clearly a person who believes the plane hit will be very resistant to listening to an activist stating that explosives were used at the WTC after hearing him satae that there was no plane at the Pentagon. Barrie Zwicker is the prime example of this category. DRG may have been like that once but there is evidence he now has doubts. Those doubts are a step in the right direction.
2. Logically, if you have doubts about whether a plane hit the Pentagon, you should not be ostracized and should not feel anger. Logically, some may wish to ostracize you if you assert something that cannot be proved, for example if you claim the plane flew over, or if you praise people who make claims of certainty. CIT makes claims of certainty and abuses people who doubt their claims. Do you really want to be part of such a team?
In summary, doubts are not the problem; it is certainty.
Getting back to the Transparency question, I think you should refocus your attention. Instead of accusing the scientists (who say there is strong evidence in favour of impact) of damaging the path to truth and justice, you should accuse the authorities of failing in their duty of providing the usual information that we expect when a plane crash occurs.
imbroglio
Moonbeam theories are not the problem although I must admit I don't think this imbroglio is serving much of a higher purpose. It seems that some people are putting forth the idea that cohesion is necessary, a united front as it were, to gain any impetus in the furtherance of truth: this is flawed reasoning on many levels. The concept is that you will turn people off if you tell them anything that is contrary to their received wisdom. I think that the issue we are addressing here is credibility. Edmund Teller went around telling anyone who would listen on the Manhattan Project that a fissile bomb had a good chance of setting the atmosphere on fire. Teller went on to create the hydrogen bomb which worked quite well. Was he discredited? Did he loose funding? No, he was pushed out in front of the scientific community with all the supplies, materials and funding he needed to complete the process.
The enemy,our enemy, if we choose to call it that is simply signal to noise ratio. A few years ago I bought an answering machine. I walked a couple of blocks to a pay phone and left a message to myself to test out the equipment. When I got home I was shocked by what I heard. Even though this was a low density neighborhood in a medium sized American city the noise level from the street where I used the phone was disturbing. I had become inured to it but there it was on my recorder: the drone of engines, this hiss of tires abrading rubber, the hum of the power sub-station and on and on, and this is just the ambient noise, then we add to that the noise from 50,000 watt stations, the plethora of cable channels, politicians, pundits, imams, preachers and priests all with a message, an agenda. Now, thanks to the writers strike when producers realized Americans would settle for dreck, we have the Kardashians, Dancing with the Stars, ad nauseam. Here is a hint: people that watch this crap aren't listening to you. This guy I know, he is 32, shushed me because I was talking during the MTV Music Awards. I said that whatever I said had to be more interesting than anything they had to say. To which he said: "these people have been held up to me as icons my whole life!" He really said that and he wasn't kidding. And this from a "well formed individual." A "well formed individual" despite what it sounds like is a very real medical term that addresses bilateral symmetry in a way that might obviate severe underlying problems arising from deformities: like having two heads!
Meanwhile, the noose is tightening; we have just had the NDAA for 2012 pass further restricting our freedoms. 40,000 new laws were passed in the U.S. this year. Is it still reasonable to say that ignorance of the law is not excuse? If you put the legalistic rule of thumb acid test to that, the "reasonable man" assumption and you answer in the affirmative; you either have to be crazy or a resurrected Byzantine scribe or Pasha. And now we have the The Enemy Expatriation Act (S.1698/H.R.3166) which can strip us of citizenship. Where would one go? And all this is happening in their own good time and not because of "no planes," "pods," "thermite," "thermate," "shoot down," "drones," "holograms" or the official story but in spite of them.
Even among people who say "911 was an inside job," if we can say that, disagree on who the "perps" are. You have: NWO, The Illuminati, The Vatican, The Jesuits, all working either individualy or in concert. And this is to say nothing of the always sparkling and evanescent phrase: "The Jews." The last I can easily handle. I always reply: by that do you mean: Rabbi Hillel, Jesus, Seymour Hirsh, Albert Einstein, Norman Finkelstein, Maimonides and Mr. Shapiro who used to make me Lox and Bagels with cream cheese?
Then there is politics: politics as usual, or maybe not; it frightens me what passes for political dialectic in this country. There are still those who think that Obama is a savior. Conversely, there are still those that think he is the one that screwed everything up: "just let our boy back in there, he will fix things." Try to explain to people that two political parties (corrupt or not) can not possibly represent the diversity of over 300,000,000 people. Is the minor outrage over pissing on corpses supposed to supplant the genuine outrage of forever birth defects and God know what else kind of Agent Orange crap we left behind in Iraq and Afghanistan? Everyone who reads this blog knows what The Patriot Act means. Tell me this: where is the outrage from the black community? I am not talking about black truthers but the corpus of blacks in America, lets even start with the Black Caucus. Where is the outrage? Member' all those civil rights you fought for? Well we took them back, so how about that?
So, if you can cut through all the crap that is stated above then maybe, just maybe, you have a point about presenting a united front. "I don't think that 9/11 was an inside job," the truther candidate might say. "At least I did until you mentioned that purple pod thingy with the Phoenician lettering on it, you should have kept your mouth shut because you had me at 'hello'"
Fun
That was a nice escape from this blog; kind of like watching the MTV Music Awards. I realize my own bias and prejudices when I read your writing with a British accent and dalethorn's with a Southern one.
Well, I think you're wrong about the people who watch crap because they're crap fed. Many do still have cognition and participate in conversations about whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. Never mind a unified front - do you think people are turned on or off when approached with weak theories about 9/11 truth?
This blog in particular is about a paper and it's conclusions (not about the movement or society at large). Do you agree with that paper? Is there a way you can comment without re-directing the focus to anything-but-the-paper's conclusions?
I agree
...but what about the simple importance of telling the truth?
Some people on this thread write copious amounts of poetically phrased, florid text, which is certainly entertaining and well written but seems to parachute from the plane/no plane debate altogether, as you imply. If that's what you mean then: I feel the same way.
We're constantly hammered with the mantra that what happened at the Pentagon is supposedly unknowable, mimicking Donald Rumsfeld's epic 'known knows (..) unknown unknowns' theme. Rumsfeld, although a war criminal and a liar, is logically correct: two variables: four possible outcomes. I'm saying what happened at the Pentagon is a known known, and certainly not unknown or unknowable, and I'm willing to say that not only to better reach people but because I want to tell the truth about 9/11. I don't discriminate between a conspiratorial and a non-conspiratorial explanation and I don't play favorites: I'll simply tell what the facts show happened, not in the least because I feel morally obligated to do so.
And... because I simply hate lies.. why else would I be here..
If I want to speculate I'll do so as well, but I'll try to warn in advance and make the audience aware of the distinction.
The rampant agnosticism we see people embrace seems to be motivated by self-preservation. Perhaps a safe middle ground for people who have difficulty admitting error. We also often see people abandoning flyover and become NoCpacters, another tactical retreat which doesn't necessitate a full retraction and an apology.
I see these arguments, in various manifestations:
And all of them amount to prevarication, backtracking and damage control.
We are truthers, people, we tell the truth. There are no excuses. Proving a conspiracy theory comes next in the priority list, unless it's okay to lie to gain a following, rationalized by any of the excuses above.
I don't cheat. I don't lie. I'm not a conspiracy firster. I'm a truther. That's how I feel. Very simple. I do realize people cornered don't want to come around. That takes a rare and strong personality type and few are lucky enough to be endowed with such grace. Nor Cal Truth is such a man. Jeff Hill is another. I hope I'm one, but I don't know. I try.
All said and done: agnosticism is harmful, for two main reasons. (1) It's a cop-out. A plane crashed into the Pentagon (2) It's strategically unwise.
(1) is what matters most to me personally. I'm not 'in limbo' about planes crashing into the WTC either, and if I were, I'd probably be hanging out in some of the shady, seedy forums promoting NPT.
In our image-based culture, it's the lack of videos that has caused this ongoing Truth Movement sectarianism. A decade is long enough.
Yes
That's what I meant. This paper is about getting at the truth.
You have some pretty good guesses about why there is evasion of the truth as a focus in the comments here. Considering how often truthers preach about cognitive dissonance and denial, it's very ironic and sad. But I guess those guesses are better than just considering them stupid.
forest for the trees
I hear you Frank. Thanks for addressing my concern.
Anyway, there's this forest for the trees thing.
I think there should be 90% focus on the fact, as you have just said, that those we trust to do the proper investigative work, have not done it.
Now, even with scientists, such as yourself, clarifying the probabilities and what is possible or not possible to construe in what has happened, we still know less than 40% of what we should. We can't go make a citizen's arrest, in other words.
And so, I tend to doubt that the discrepencies we have seen and the alternate theories proposed are going to have the deterrent effect on our goals as you suggest. Of course it's always necessary to go with the facts. Sometimes that takes time and we should respect the time it takes for others.
As you say, focus your energy on the fact that we don't have transparency and to those who can provide it. I would say that works both ways. Don't waste your time discrediting those with differing hypotheses, who cares and they aren't causing the deterrent effect you imagine. You'll discover the majority of those will side with the facts, eventually. But, probably not if stakes are placed in the ground unecessarily. And those that don't fold with the facts aren't worth your time anyway. They aren't having the effect you imagine. How could they? Even the in your face truth isn't having the effect we think it should for the general public, the media nor the investigatory committees.
In any investigation there are going to be a variety of hypotheses promoted along the way. You don't have to get political when some of these need to be dropped. No one is bothered by being previously associated with failed hypotheses, normally, unless they are made political.
Just look at the blustering fools going after me on this simple opinion page. That's the kind of reaction you foment when you draw divisions within a group that should be whole. When this crap happens it makes me ashamed to be associated with these people. Believe it or not, that's the type of reactions you'll get when you promote divisions and distinctions. If it's happening to me, believe me, it's creating a schism. I'm not here for a match of egos nor tripsidaisical comments. My goals are clear but I'm not here to build a house with those who denigrate others who don't share their every viewpoint. These people, who probably are very dedicated, might be driving a large segment away. It's fostered on the delusion that we all have to back the same hypotheses at the same time. We don't.
Let me be clear. Those outside the movement are going to understand that there are differences within which they will take into account. We're not a coherent organization. However, if they see internecine dialog within the movement concerning issues that even those within the movement find difficult to process, they are going to be turned away. Our real goal is momentum effective for more transparency and investigation. Being right helps us with a coherent message to those outside but it's a small piece, however much hope we have in our internal successes, in the whole process.
I do appreciate being corrected and hearing your voice. I think its worth entering a dialog with those willing to participate in a dialog within the movement. But, if they are not willing to participate in a reasonable dialog what can you do but just move on? So, to all, mentioning CIT should not be a matter of contention. I don't know where they went wrong nor what it will take to get them on the 'right' track. But I feel it may have been a result of both sides being too entrenched, regardless that one side was right or not. There's always one side that is right after all. Their hypothesis may have failed the test but it must have had a positive effect somewhere, even if only to cause others to dig more deeply. These comments are just for thought not for debate. Thanks anyway.
And so to the point of my frustration. We've already won the day, fact-wise, energy-wise and every way else. What's it going to take to get to our real goals at this point? What have we failed to do? I'd like to be on the winning team. Let's focus on our goals and tell me what to do :).
The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to...
At least you're not in the business of denigrating those "blustering fools", right? Why must you try to redirect the conversation, so that you don't have to talk about the conclusions of the paper? Because you've got all kinds of knowledge about how not being right doesn't hurt us? Being right is a small piece? Does the same go for integrity?
It reminds me of what I have heard without fail from people who I know and approach about 9/11: truthers NEED the government to be at fault, no matter what. They see right through that psychology and it has never worked. I usually turn it around and say that goes both ways: some people NEED the government to be good and innocent - it can't happen here, as the phrase goes.
The truth is the goal and that makes us whole. Think Truth and Reconciliation.
Your position
"I don't like my position (that it was a missile)"
— anditico, 2011-02-03
"Whether it was an auto-piloted jet commandeered or substituted or a cruise missile makes zero difference, none what's so ever. The foolish ones are those who think so.
Stand by those you think foolish if they want to scream about a new investigation. Who cares. We know who the real fools are. Those who misinterpret scarce evidence are in both camps."
— anditico, 2011-02-09
"I think a missile, substituted plane, etc. are all within plausibility and I don't think it's plausible that anyone has conclusive evidence otherwise."
— anditico, 2011-02-09
"I can't convince myself that that building was torpedoed by a huge jet. That is the most likely scenario, just not convinced. Equally scientifically plausible, perhaps more-so, is a missile with a flyby. What, you trust people's impressions? I think I distinctly heard several people say "small plane", "smaller than a jet". Some even changed their stories to match what they had been told. A flight is a quick perception, obviously susceptible to expectations and explanations. Explosions are not expected."
— anditico, 2011-02-09
Given your position, which you apparently withheld from this thread for opportunistic reasons, and which you yourself seem to deplore, I'm anything but surprised about your posture.
Oh and:
"When someone shows convincing evidence that what we observed (and didn't) could result from a building being smacked by a 747 then I'll consider it."
— anditico, 2011-02-09
Have you figured out the difference between a 747 and 757 yet?
Anditico, a position review would help
You say "What's it going to take to get to our real goals at this point? What have we failed to do?"
Of course I cannot answer that question and neither can anyone else or we would have done it long ago. We try a lot of things and we make some progress, that is all so far, but we have hope.
What I assert is that the best foundation for making progress must be truth, not deception. There may be some people who think that making things up to throw a bad light on the authorities will help, but in the end it cannot do so because it is so easy to ridicule.
If you doubt that making things up has harmed the movement, go to CIT's site and look at the list of substantial figures who have endorsed their overfly theory. These people then, with perfect honesty and sincerity, try to spread an unviable theory to the public. The overfly theory is unviable because its foundation is the North of Citgo (NOC) deviation theory.
What I still find missing in your long philosophical posts is acceptance of the fact that the NOC deviation is shown to be impossible. There are a whole lot of things I agree we don't have proper knowledge about, like who was on board the plane, who was controlling the plane, how it was controlled, whether the plane was modified, but one thing is proved beyond reasonable doubt: the NOC path is impossible. Until you accept that, you will continue to live in a confusing forest.
Then you say "Tell me what to do". I can't answer that either but I strongly advise you to follow a particular first step: read the papers. If you do not come to realize that the NOC path is impossible, come here again and discuss the evidence. That is the one and only purpose of the papers and this thread.
More help is here:
http://scienceof911.com.au/
ok
Gosh, you guys are serious about this crap :).
Anyway, yes, you also make my point, while missing it.
You ask about my views. For 10 years, I didn't know what happened at the Pentagon. I, like others, wasn't happy with the idea of a plane disappearing inside a hole, a hole that looked too small and further creating a missile-like hole at the end (wall -C). Big deal. But still, there were no other concievable events. I wanted to believe the flyover, but we don't have evidence for that. I wanted to believe the missile look-like a jet theory. But anyway, my official position was that I didn't know, if you had asked me in person. I always felt that was the proper stance, since, in effect, I didn't know.
Apparently on some forums I argued the point this way or that, depending on what bothered me at the time. That's what forums are for, I think.:) I wasn't happy, still not completely, with the disappearance of a plane (jet engines and all). But I've never seen the explanation of the smoke or spray hiding the real entrance to the Pentagon. So I confess my other sin. I don't keep up with this stuff (facts) as much as I should. Doubting is good. You get questions answered where there are some and it spurs others to think and research otherwise. I don't think I would still be happy with your plane theory if I didn't see the ground floor entrance.
More to come, got to go to work.
Steve
Certainty
;-)