Pentagon Plane Puzzle + David Chandler: Going Beyond Speculation

Description

"Two complementary videos are combined here in the order that they were presented at the 9/11 Truth Film Festival in Oakland, CA, on Sept 10, 2015.

The first video is a preview of the witness section of a forthcoming film by Ken Jenkins titled The Pentagon Plane Puzzle.

That is followed by a PowerPoint presentation by David Chandler titled Going Beyond Speculation – A Scientific Look at the Pentagon Evidence.
In post-production, Ken Jenkins of 9/11 TV added many additional graphics to the live video footage of Chandler’s presentation.
David Chandler's presentation starts at 26:40."

Ken Jenkins has ask me to post this to 911Blogger and we hope that you will share it around with other activists.

Kind regards John

Thanks...

Thank you David and Ken.

pentagon

i would like to see an honest presentation here of the inestimable barbara honegger's meticulously researched film 'behind the smoke curtain.'

was it ken jenkins who was responsible (irresponsible! to say the least) for the unauthorized (and misrepresentational) 'shortening'/cutting of her film before its showing at this year's 911 truth film festival in oakland? as i understand it, that was a dastardly deed,' whoever did it. i'd like to see explanation for such unprofessional and unethical behavior, if this is true. last year it was prevented from being shown even though large majority had voted for its inclusion. many were thus looking forward to it this year, only to find it had been tampered with. and was it even announced that it had been done??

and was the same person responsible for doing same to the most excellent Massimo Mazzucco's 'the new pearl harbor,' yes, its long, but it is not up to anyone besides its creator to edit same and then sell the altered versions without permission. does anyone care to comment on this??

i used to check in here daily but have lost touch and some respect for the site. lynnb

Pentagon

You have been misinformed. The event in question is the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance's annual 9/11 Truth Film Festival in Oakland, CA. We are a democratically run group, so the decisions about what we show are decided by vote. The vote in regard to Honegger's presentation video Smoke Curtain was to show 90 minutes. Honegger herself made all the edit decisions, and we showed exactly the edit she supplied for us to show.

Don Chauncey

Don Chauncey is way too far out to see such details. He's making up BS, listening to himself on the TV.

Google map St. Barnabas Road and the Beltway.

Maybe others in the witness list need to be scrutinized.

Overall Chandler makes a very convincing argument. I still think we need to seek more evidence.

I agree

I agree Kawika.

QUOTE
" I still think we need to seek more evidence."

There are too many shades of gray. The more evidence and data (all inclusive), the better.

More evidence

Perhaps you are correct about that one witness, i.e., Don Chauncey, but given the total number of witnesses is over 180, dismissing a few of them does not significantly alter the collective message they give.

As for the desire for more evidence, yes, of course, the more the better! And there IS more.  As I tried to make clear, the witness section of the film is but one part of what will be a full length documentary, including a lot of focus on physical evidence. While David Chandler did an excellent job of covering much of the other evidence, I assure you there is more.

I am hoping to raise some funding to finish the film. One crucial element needed to clearly illustrate what happened at the Pentagon, particularly during the multiple impacts that occurred before the plane hit the building, is a new computer graphic re-creation of the plane's final approach path. The existing computer graphics fall far short of what is needed to clearly depict what happened.

Perhaps someone with 3D graphics skills will offer to donate their expertise and labor, but it would be a lot to ask of anyone w/o paying them something.

All the work on the film to date has been done with only a very few modest donations and a lot of unpaid labor.

Thanks for your comments.  For more information on this topic, see the papers at  http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/papers.html#papers_pentagon

 

Witnesses

Don Chauncey is just one example. I heard others that would cause me to want to investigate every one before using them. It may not be possible to fix a location for each one, but an attempt should be made. This is too important.

When I speak of gathering more evidence I have two primary issues in mind:

1. Video assets that were confiscated by the FBI.
2. The helicopter that arrived at ~9:27 and departed at ~9:32.

There is a FOIA request that is now ripe for litigation. It asks only for the list and the metadata of the confiscated videos. I feel this is a high value target that should be pursued ASAP. The sooner the paperwork reaches the court clerk the better. There is no way they can withhold a list. Once you have the list you can go after the specific video.

There was a helicopter, witnessed by a border patrol agent in an elevated location across the 395 highway. He did not see the fireball, but immediately associated the explosion that he felt with the copter he'd see a few minutes earlier. This activity has been almost completely expunged from the history. You can see it on the radar if you know where to look The witnesses at the heliport refuse to mention it. Only one woman on Rt. 27 reported seeing it. Again, a FOIA response is now well overdue. The only way to get more information is by court order.

Expunged?

I went to the 911 complete timeline and found three eyewitness accounts regarding the helicopter. It also says CNN reported live that several eyewitnesses thought a helicopter had crashed at the Pentagon, and that the AP reported on it as well.

The helicopter was seen on radar from multiple radar sites and is heard in air traffic control recordings. It's flight operations were also recorded on flight strips at Andrews Air Force Base. Your definition of expunged must be different than everyone else's.

The helicopter was 10 miles away from the Pentagon when Flight 77 impacted, how it could be of any relevance to proving or disproving that a 757 hit the Pentagon is beyond me.

I stand corrected

Expunged is too strong a word.

Then again maybe not. If you can't get Wallace, Skipper, Boger and anyone else at the heliport to mention this event, I'd say that's pretty damn curious.

There is a lot of misinformation about it. Like it was a Park Police chopper. Like it was sent to try to stop AA77.

We don't know what it was doing there or who sent it.

I want to know.

It may be related in some way to a plane arrival only minutes later. Some researchers have connect the two events together. Not saying I agree. I want to know more.

Or should we stop trying to learn? Just accept everything our benevolent bureaucrats tell us. Not a chance.

Relevance?

"Then again maybe not. If you can't get Wallace, Skipper, Boger and anyone else at the heliport to mention this event, I'd say that's pretty damn curious."
Has anyone ever asked them?

"There is a lot of misinformation about it. Like it was a Park Police chopper. Like it was sent to try to stop AA77."
Misinformation that is easily corrected. We know it wasn't a Park Police helicopter, it was from Andrews. We know for certain from the air traffic control recordings that it wasn't sent there to try to stop American 77, it was heading away from the Pentagon as American 77 approached.

"We don't know what it was doing there or who sent it."
Why is it being there suspicious at all? There was a heliport at the Pentagon with a staffed control tower so it seems pretty obvious that a helicopter being there is nothing abnormal. There was a Metro bus dropping people off at the Pentagon during the time of the attack. Should we consider that suspicious because we don't know what it was doing there or who sent it?

I'm guessing there were also delivery trucks at the Pentagon during the time of the attack. Should I be concerned and consider them suspicious because I don't know what they were doing there are who sent them?

How would any of this prove or disprove that American 77 hit the Pentagon?

Why is it being there

Why is it being there suspicious at all? There was a heliport at the Pentagon with a staffed control tower so it seems pretty obvious that a helicopter being there is nothing abnormal.

Because the witnesses at the control tower do not acknowledge it. They talk only about the preparations for arrival of the POTUS around 12:00. Boger talks about hearing a roar prior to the explosive event, but doesn't identify what that might have been.

Did a helicopter arrive and depart between 9:27 and 9:32 or not?

Part of the problem is the helicopter wasn't well known at the time of the interviews, so nobody asked pertinent questions. Now I'm asking.

We know for certain from the air traffic control recordings that it wasn't sent there to try to stop American 77,

Please point us to the ATC recording dealing with this flight. I don't see how the ATC would be in the position to know the reason behind the flight. Only the pilot would know, along with the person who ordered the flight to go there and beyond.

Again,

what relevance does the helicopter have to whether or not Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

"Boger talks about hearing a roar prior to the explosive event, but doesn't identify what that might have been."

Yes, Boger talks about hearing a "vroom" and then immediately starts describing how airplanes and helicopters fly over the tower all day long. In his CMH interview, he also says how he is looking out the window and "hears a" and immediately sees American 77 approaching the Pentagon. He describing the noise he heard before seeing Flight 77.

The most important part about Sean Boger's interview with CIT and his original CMH interview is that he describes watching the airliner fly and disappear into the side of the building. Why don't you believe him?

"Did a helicopter arrive and depart between 9:27 and 9:32 or not?"

Yes. Confirmed by multiple radars. If it was sent there to stop American 77, why was it 10 miles away and heading northbound, after having just departed, at the time the impact? It has as much relevance to what happened at the Pentagon as the Dash 80 that was on final approach to Reagan National when American 77 hit the Pentagon.

The Most Important Observation

The most important part about Sean Boger's interview with CIT and his original CMH interview is that he describes watching the airliner fly and disappear into the side of the building. Why don't you believe him?

You forgot to mention the plane was north of the CITGO. South path damages are a direct contradiction to this observation.

I asked whether there was a helicopter not not. You said, Yes. Confirmed by multiple radars. If it was sent there to stop American 77, why was it 10 miles away and heading northbound, after having just departed, at the time the impact?

I can't tell if it's relevant or not with only part of the data. The heliport witnesses are part of the equation.

Besides it wasn't me that said the helicopter "...had been directed to try to intercept that airline.". It was the Naval historian who interviewed Jeff Parsons. More than once this supposed trained gatherer of information leads Parsons, suggesting times, interrupting with details.

When I read his warning to Parsons I know something isn't right here: "Don't tell anyone about that story because that's one of our, I think that's one of the best stories that's going to come out of this. We don't want the press to get this."

The historian thought the helicopter was relevant enough to warn a federal; employee not to talk about it. Is it possible that the heliport witnesses were warned as well?

Go back to sleep. Nothing to see here.

I want to know the front and back and top and bottom of these events. I want to know as much detail as possible. I'll make up my own mind, rather than accepting someone's lame interpretation.

I think the overall point here is..

On a day where so much was planned and choreographed, was this an innocuous occurrence by people not involved or did it play an integral role? Just like Gopher and Trout http://digwithin.net/2011/12/04/gofer-and-trout-questions-on-two-flights-out-of-andrews-afb-on-911/ So I wouldn't mind knowing myself, just to get an idea of the detail these heartless bastards are willing to go. My hunch is not that far so personally, I think it's a bit more innocuous, but you'll never know what you'll find when you kick over a stone in this saga.

Peace all..

Go Truth!!
dan

Which is more likely?

"You forgot to mention the plane was north of the CITGO. South path damages are a direct contradiction to this observation."

This gets back to the point of the video. Every single person in a position to witness an impact into the Pentagon reported an impact into the Pentagon. You want to dismiss that because minor details in some witnesses' recollection isn't perfect compared to physical evidence. It's a strange standard to set given the history of eyewitness testimony. Using your line of reasoning, I could claim that American Airlines Flight 587 didn't crash into Belle Harbor because some of the eyewitnesses said a wing fell off instead of the vertical fin.

http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~bigopp/witness.html

"The historian thought the helicopter was relevant enough to warn a federal; employee not to talk about it. Is it possible that the heliport witnesses were warned as well?"

This looks like a mountain out of a mole hill to me. The first thing to note is the naval historian is conflating two different aircraft and two different stories. Parsons clearly states the helicopter he is talking about is a Huey that landed and departed from the Pentagon before American 77 impacted. He is perfectly clear on this fact.

The helicopter the historian is talking about is a Park Police helicopter, also a Huey, that wasn't airborne until after American 77 hit the Pentagon. We know with 100% certainty that the Park Police helicopters were not airborne three minutes before the Pentagon impact. So the aircraft the historian is telling Parsons not to talk about was not Muscle 6, the Huey that landed at the Pentagon. He is referring to the Park Police helicopters.

The interviewer also says he "thinks that's one of the best stories that's going to come out of this. We don't want to press to get this." He's obviously not trying to keep the story a secret, just keep it from the press. I would guess though that he wants to be the one to get the scoop on a heroic story of a Park Police helicopter pilot sent to intercept a kamikaze airliner headed toward the nation's capital with no armament at all, just like they did with Heather Penney and the other pilots from Andrews.

Free Passes

Why do you always give free passes to those who make serious errors?

Connect the dots for crying out loud! Make an effort to unravel the mystery. There is a huge haystack. We are trying to find needles. We are constantly having to sift through manure.

Every single person in a position to witness an impact into the Pentagon reported an impact into the Pentagon.

I have not done a comprehensive study of the video witnesses. Don Chauncey is a perfect example of one who could not be included as an impact witness.

Right at the beginning we have Janet in Rosslyn (@1:25). She says it went past her window low and disappeared behind trees. She also described it as a commuter. AA77 never went by Rosslyn. Sorry Janet, you are disqualified.

I am not the one offering these witnesses. Those who are presenting evidence to the jury should be very careful who they are putting on the witness stand.

"... the naval historian is conflating two different aircraft and two different stories."

The Naval historian is there to gather information, not supply it. He's not there to insert warnings about stories he is telling Parsons. This is highly suspect. I believe it indicates witness tampering and presents the possibility that Boger, Skipper, Wallace and others may have been warned also.

The historian, if he knows the timeline of the Park Police helicopters deployment, would also know that they couldn't have been sent to thwart any jet. This is bullshit. A fool's errand. I'm not buying it. The Park Police was never directed to intercept an incoming aircraft. Where are you getting this from?

The Park Police did arrive about four minutes after the fireball. With a bird's eye view pilot Galey says more than once: "...it just didn't look like a 757 hit that building." And, " ""This couldn't possibly have been a 757." There's absolutely nothing that you could
identify as an aircraft part anywhere around there. Nothing. Just couldn't have been."

A trained observer with unique elevated vantage points is convinced a 757 did not cause this damage. Hmmmm.....

Can you point us to the confirmation that Muscle 6 was a Huey? Again, what was the mission of Muscle 6 in total?

Parsons clearly states the helicopter he is talking about is a Huey that landed and departed from the Pentagon before American 77 impacted. He is perfectly clear on this fact.

Parsons doesn't say he saw the copter land or depart. He sees it moving inbound and disappears around the west side. He then moves to another room and a few minutes later feels the building shake.

"Why do you always give free

"Why do you always give free passes to those who make serious errors?"
Why do you dismiss testimony of those who make minor errors? Sean Boger, as example. He misremembered an arbitrary detail like which side of a gas station American 77 approached and you completely dismiss what he says about the airplane crashing into the building.

It would be like dismissing Titanic passengers saying that the Titanic sank because they said they were in a red lifeboat when there were only white lifeboats on the Titanic.

Just like you are doing with "Janet" from Rosslyn. You're dismissing her because no plane flew by Rosslyn when she said in the interview she was in a high-rise apartment just outside of Rosslyn. You have no idea whether or not American 77 flew by her window. You're also dismissing her claims because she described American 77 as a "commuter" aircraft. She's not the only one. You have no idea what she means by when she says "commuter." For all you know that is how she describes all civilian airliners. This gets back to the point of the video again. 100 people could describe it as a commercial airliner and you would ignore them and latch onto the two outliers who describe it as a commuter plane.

"I believe it indicates witness tampering and presents the possibility that Boger, Skipper, Wallace and others may have been warned also."

This naval historian must be the most incompetent conspirator ever. He warns everybody not to talk about something that potentially could have been seen by hundreds of people, captured on radar that was later released, and mentioned by CNN and the Associated Press. And to top that off, he records it and allows it to be transcribed and released to the public.

"The historian, if he knows the timeline of the Park Police helicopters deployment, would also know that they couldn't have been sent to thwart any jet. This is bullshit. A fool's errand. I'm not buying it. The Park Police was never directed to intercept an incoming aircraft. Where are you getting this from?"

Because the Park Police helicopter pilot would have been referring to projected United 93, or "the plane that crashed near Pittsburgh" as one of them put it. The pilots themselves even mentioned how it was 20 miles out, 10 miles out, four miles out. Sound familiar?

Where am I getting it from? From the Naval historian. He's the one that said it was the Park Police helicopter and that they interviewed the Park Police helicopter pilot. He also says Parsons would've seen the Park Police helicopter taking off after it landed by the Memorial Bridge. One of the helicopters landed near the Memorial Bridge to get out of the way of projected United 93. He's confusing the Park Police helicopters with the Huey from Andrews.

Pages 19 and 20 of this document:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/75285513/LarsonFOIA-USNPSNCR-Interviews-NPS-2011-00689

"A trained observer with unique elevated vantage points is convinced a 757 did not cause this damage. Hmmmm....."

A helicopter pilot that is trained to visually assess the damage to a structure impacted by an airplane while flying in a helicopter? Sounds interesting,

"Can you point us to the confirmation that Muscle 6 was a Huey? Again, what was the mission of Muscle 6 in total?"

It's mission is irrelevant. The confirmation that it is a Huey is the eyewitness testimony. He said he heard a "Huey" because of the way they sound. They make a very distinct whop, whop, whop sound from the two bladed rotors. This can also be heard in the air traffic control recordings. The flight strips from Andrews say "UH-1." And the "muscle" callsign is used by the First Helicopter Squadron Out of Andrews Air Force Base, they operate UH-1s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDn4ogNae5Y

Historian Re-Writes History

I wrote: The Park Police was never directed to intercept an incoming aircraft. Where are you getting this from?"

ADDIS77 replies: Because the Park Police helicopter pilot would have been referring to projected United 93, or "the plane that crashed near Pittsburgh" as one of them put it. The pilots themselves even mentioned how it was 20 miles out, 10 miles out, four miles out. Sound familiar?

Where am I getting it from? From the Naval historian. He's the one that said it was the Park Police helicopter and that they interviewed the Park Police helicopter pilot.

My reply: Yes, the Park Police pilots were interviewed, but I have yet to find any mention that they were directed to intercept UA93 or any other aircraft. They were doing medevac and coordination.

If anything, they did the opposite of intercept. One tells about putting down at Memorial Bridge to be out of the airspace. How does that translate, by the historian and yourself, into it "...had been directed to try to intercept that airline.". ????

Here's what pilot Bohn says: We found the circle at the west end of Memorial Bridge to be a very desirable area...We just landed there. ...We just chose to land because... We weren't going to be airborne for this critical time. The reports were coming: 20 minutes out... 10 minutes out... and next we got something like four minutes out.. (Bohn, PDF page 10)

(BTW what does 20 minutes out translate to in miles?. That's a very healthy margin of safety)

Now we are getting a bit off track, but this is an important element in the pilot's testimony. One pilot describes seeing the F-16s arrive, so close he could see the helmet.

On the issue of intercept, he clearly describes one of the three F16s staying in DC and the others headed up to PA. "One of them peeled up and went high and the rest of them just kept up in
a straight northerly direction. So we were told later that that was a flight that intercepted, that
went up to Pennsylvania, the other one went high and stayed over DC. We were told that by
some Andrews people, but I don't know. Can I confirm it? No."

(Galey, PDF page 11)

Take it for what it's worth--- Hearsay that just might be begging for further scrutiny, considering how we have been drilled over and over that no fighters went to PA to shoot down UA93. Do you think that the pilots with airspace command authority over DC before the F16s arrived might know some details about what was going on in their sphere of operations?

Historian

"Yes, the Park Police pilots were interviewed, but I have yet to find any mention that they were directed to intercept UA93 or any other aircraft. They were doing medevac and coordination."

"If anything, they did the opposite of intercept. One tells about putting down at Memorial Bridge to be out of the airspace. How does that translate, by the historian and yourself, into it "...had been directed to try to intercept that airline.". ????"

Not by me, just the historian. And his information is thirdhand anyway, he's relaying to Parsons what he thinks was told to another historian in the Park Police pilot interview. Is it possible that one of the pilots told a Marine historian that he went to intercept the airliner? Yes. But I've seen no strong evidence of it. I learned a long time ago not to rely on thirdhand, secondhand or even actual eyewitness testimony and recollection.

One example of this very thing happening is in the book "Touching History." Lynne Spencer claims that Billy Hutchison had United 93 on his radar screen. That never happened. Hutchison didn't take off until 35 minutes after United 93 crashed. Somebody somewhere got their wires crossed..

This whole "the helicopter that landed at the Pentagon was sent to intercept American 77" debacle is another perfect example. The inaccurate recollection of the naval historian confusing the Park Police Huey with the Andrews Huey has everybody chasing their tails. Just look at Shoestring's article he wrote up about the Park Police helicopters. All that confusion and all those questions based solely on the inaccuracies of memory recall. The Park Police helicopters took off after the Pentagon was hit. It's indisputable when you factor in primary source information like ATC recordings and radar returns instead of witness recall.

"(BTW what does 20 minutes out translate to in miles?. That's a very healthy margin of safety)"

Hard to say. I was told that projected United 93 would have slowed down on the TSD for its 10:28 landing time at Reagan. That would make it difficult to calculate any time/distance with any certainty. If he was receiving reports of 20 minutes out, that would put the time he started hearing about it at around 10:08, well after Linda Justice changed the flightplan.

Both pilots said they left the area and landed because of the plane that they found out later crashed in Pennsylvania. We know it is as projected United 93. The same plane ATC controllers can be heard discussing on the tapes, the same plane the pilots from Andrews can be heard looking for on the ATC tapes. The same plane the emergency rescue operations at the Pentagon was halted for.

"Now we are getting a bit off track, but this is an important element in the pilot's testimony. One pilot describes seeing the F-16s arrive, so close he could see the helmet."

I don't doubt this for a second. Billy Hutchison came in very low. Around 500 feet IIRC, this was captured on video. Somewhere floating around on the Internet is another video of an F-16 flying up the National Mall from East to West later on at about the same height.

"On the issue of intercept, he clearly describes one of the three F16s staying in DC and the others headed up to PA."

Yes, one F-16 was sent somewhere up North to intercept an airplane, but it wasn't United 93. This happens later on and it can be heard in the ATC recordings. Don't quote me on this because it's been years since I've listened to it, but I think one of the F-16 pilots described it as a "low wing Cessna." I remember that part because I don't know of any low wing Cessnas.

I am with this statement...

QUOTE from Kawika
Or should we stop trying to learn? Just accept everything our benevolent bureaucrats tell us. Not a chance.

Witnesses

I agree that it would be best to investigate (and even interview) every witness, among those that can be located. An attempt should be made. It is important. Would you like to volunteer to take on that task? Would anyone?

Anyone have the resources to make that happen?

Ken

Examine the Witnesses

I am suggesting only that the testimonies already obtained be examined for accuracy and plausibility. If somebody says they saw AA77 over Rosslyn, they should be taken out of the list of credible witnesses.

Priority should be given to those with a clear view, an elevated view or close proximity to the western wall.

In the absence of videos, they are our best source of information.

HOWEVER, the videos themselves should be pursued vigorously. This lack of documentation is unacceptable.

Like this?

Yes, like that!

Thank you! I was just about to dig up this exact information! Thanks for the link.

http://911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos

Discrepancies

I was intrigued by the gentleman who said he was on the 14th St Bridge, and the plane went overhead (and debris rained down).

It's also interesting to note that the North of Citgo witnesses are missing from this montage. Even with their testimony excluded, there are still questions as to the exact route that was taken, with both witnesses on Columbia Pike and 395 claiming the plane went above them.

I think David Chandler makes an excellent case for the official narrative, however I do feel that the eye witness accounts are biased towards that view.

DATABASE Started