The Barbara Honegger Show: DC 9/11 conference spun as new consensus


Panel 2

Pentagon panel: From left, Deets, Honegger, Sullivan, and Barrett.

By Craig McKee

Barbara Honegger calls last month’s “9/11: Advancing the Truth” conference “historic” and a “major triumph for the movement.”

More than that, she thinks it’s a huge step towards that elusive “consensus” about the Pentagon that so many of us have thought was neither possible nor particularly desirable.

But who can blame Honegger for her enthusiasm? It was clearly her show. Not only was she part of the organizing committee for the conference, but she spoke both on Saturday and on Sunday. The latter talk went on for nearly two hours – longer than the other two Pentagon speakers combined (I’ll return to this issue later).

But was the conference historic? Was it a “quantum leap forward” for the movement, as she also said? Not the conference I saw – and certainly not where the Pentagon discussion was concerned. (Other presentations were given by Richard Gage, Webster Tarpley, Barry Kissin, M.D. Alam, Kevin Barrett, Isa Hodge, and Wayne Madsen – but for the purposes of this article I am focusing on the Pentagon part of the event.)

In fact, all the areas that seem to make Honegger so happy with the conference are the very ones where I saw the most reasons for concern. I’m not primarily talking about the things that most obviously went wrong – particularly with the live streaming – I’m talking about things that organizers seem quite happy with.

The most important element of this conference was always going to be the Pentagon, even though the issue of who was responsible for the crimes of 9/11 was another major focus. Let’s face it, the whole event was held in a hotel overlooking the Pentagon for a reason! Unfortunately, it is with the airing of differing “perspectives” on the Pentagon evidence where the event fell most short.

The session was originally conceived as a debate that would contrast what organizers feel are the main positions on what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11: the no-airliner-impact position (which organizers described as the “Citizen Investigation Team position”); the case for an airliner-impact; and Honegger’s contention that a drone painted to look like an American Airlines jet was destroyed right before it would have hit the Pentagon wall.

(The idea of a debate was dropped in favor of three 50-minute presentations followed by a panel discussion featuring questions from the audience. For details concerning why this change was made and other aspects of the conference planning, check out my post on Truth and Shadows as well as the strong statement of condemnation for the event from invitee Craig Ranke of CIT.)

On the monthly 9/11 Truth Teleconference call on Sept. 25 (the Teleconference features participation from conference organizers as well as several who support the position that no airliner hit the Pentagon – and some who fit both descriptions), Honegger not only made the remarks I attributed to her above, but she also elaborated on the nature of the consensus she thinks is now possible. It turns out it bears an uncanny resemblance to her own position!

She said that the three speakers “paved the way for a consensus, a true consensus, which is basically a north path plane that didn’t fly over but, in my opinion, was destroyed before it could hit the wall near the heliport.”

I’m not sure how this can be an area of consensus when Honegger was the only speaker who said she believes it – at least the last part of it. It seems that the only point agreed upon by all three was that the official story is false to one degree or another. But we knew that going in.

It is clear that Honegger was pushing the “happy family” scenario right from the beginning of the event. She noted at one point that all three presenters are “friends” implying that this is in itself a major step forward. During his introduction to the panel discussion, Kevin Barrett said, “Our panel discussion of the contentious issue of what did or did not happen at the Pentagon – well it may not be all that contentious …” at which point Honegger interjected “anymore,” suggesting that something special had indeed happened. But nothing had other than the fact that none of the presenters seemed prepared to challenge each other on much of anything.

Just because there was no one prepared to challenge Honegger concerning her contention that a drone was destroyed just before it would have hit the Pentagon does not mean that her position has emerged or will emerge as the dominant one. I do have to say at this point that a really detailed assessment of her presentation needs to be tackled on this blog in a future article. But before we can get into that, we have to look at what was really going on with this conference. (Organizers Frank Tolopko and George Ripley have said that the conference is a first step in bringing together different Pentagon positions – with more conferences possible in the future to continue the process.)

So let’s look at the question of consensus:

First presenter Dwain Deets contended there was an impact of an airliner with the building even though he once believed the opposite. His talk was entitled “Pentagon 757” with the subheading “Crash evidence, though skimpy, is consistent with high-speed impact into a hardened wall.” Have you ever heard anyone say that they believe a plane crash occurred at a given site even though evidence of the crash was “skimpy”? Only on 9/11 would you see this, when the laws of physics and common sense were both suspended.

Deets bases his reversal of position on, among other things, his increased understanding of remote control technology that may have been employed both at the Pentagon and at the World Trade Center (he cites Aidan Monaghan’s book Declassifying 9/11 as an influential source for this). He also points to the “frantic” efforts to reinforce the wall of the Pentagon to withstand a high-speed impact, just in time for 9/11.

Second presenter Matt Sullivan took the “CIT position” that the large plane that approached the Pentagon did so on a path north of the former Citgo gas station, which is irreconcilable with the supposed damage path (Sullivan was the main organizer of the conference, and he took on the job of presenting this position after Craig Ranke of CIT, Shelton Lankford and I declined – again, see my previous conference article).

Sullivan’s talk, entitled “The Pentagon Flyover Theory” supported the idea that the plane flew over all right, but in the panel discussion he listed the flyover as the weakest point in the position attributed to CIT. I don’t recall him pointing to any weaknesses in his fellow presenters’ talks, however. I imagine that he was really saying that there isn’t the same eyewitness support for the plane actually flying over the building as there is for it being north of the gas station. Nevertheless, calling flyover the weakest point is a bit like Richard Gage saying that possible use of explosives at the WTC is the weakest part of the case for controlled demolition – just because we didn’t actually see them being planted.

And finally, Honegger thinks a drone painted to look like an American Airlines airliner approached the Pentagon twice and was destroyed (that’s the fireball we see in the “official” video) just prior to impact on the second approach. She believes this happened several minutes before the official “impact” time and several hundred feet to the north of the hole in the wall. She believes this destruction was “probably” carried out by an assault helicopter that she says witnesses saw hovering near the Pentagon immediately prior to the first external explosive event (which she also contends occurred at 9:32:30 a.m., several minutes earlier than the official time of 9:37:46).

Honegger contends that the white plane was supposed to be heading for the official story impact point but “something went wrong.” She also believes that the plane was destroyed to protect the building and that it could have been Dick Cheney who made this decision.

“Cheney, I believe, or the Secret Service, ordered the destruction of the white plane,” she said.

Calling all of that a basis for consensus is at best wishful thinking and, at worst, blatant spin.

One thing that was good was that the idea of creating a consensus statement (they called it a “conference statement”) was abandoned. I think this is a direct result of opposition to the idea from “no-airliner-impact” advocates, of which I am one. But this is speculation on my part.

The 9/11 Truth Teleconference considered a resolution in August that, had it passed, would have urged the organizers to drop the consensus statement, ensure that the order of Pentagon speakers be drawn strictly by lot, and keep Honegger from using her Saturday presentation as a lead in to her Pentagon one. The resolution did not succeed for reasons for too complex to go into here (any masochists among you can listen to our three-hour August call for all the details).

Honegger did speak last as feared, she did use her Saturday talk to lead in to her Sunday one (quite effectively), and while there was no consensus statement, she seems to have taken it upon herself to push the perception that consensus did at least begin to take hold.

It was, however, the length of the presentations that really dealt a fatal blow to the credibility of the Pentagon session as a mechanism for evaluating the arguments. The fact that Honegger spoke last and went on for nearly two hours almost seems like a deliberate statement on the part of organizers that they would not bow to pressure from the outside. Or maybe everybody was getting along so well they just decided, “What the heck.” Either way, it was a mistake not to even try to present an image of fairness and even-handedness.

On the Sept. 25 Teleconference call, we learned that the 50-minute limit to Pentagon presentations had been tossed out (for some reason) and that presenters had been told that they could continue as long as they wanted to. It just so happened that Deets and Sullivan had had prepared presentations that stayed within the original limits and had no need of any extra time. It all worked out so conveniently for Honegger.

She did get a “wrap it up in five minutes” signal just before the two-hour mark and said to the audience that she would not have enough time to finish all her slides. In fact, she said, it was the most important ones that we didn’t get to see. Another side effect of her long talk was that the panel discussion was kept to just 30 minutes. Of all the things that could have been shortened, the panel discussion was not among them.

On the August Teleconference call, Honegger stated that the order of speakers would either be drawn by lot or by agreement of the three speakers. Tolopko said after the conference that lots had been drawn. Either way, the speaking order ended up exactly as it was listed on the web site in the weeks leading up to the conference.

I can’t help wondering what would have happened if Honegger had drawn the lot to go first. Would she have gone two hours anyway? What if the other two wanted to do the same? (The big plus to this scenario would have been less time for Dick Gregory’s painfully endless talk, which finally had to be interrupted after 90 minutes by a poster auction. I’ve never welcomed a merchandizing effort more than I did this one. Sorry if this seems politically incorrect to say, but was he not given a time limit? And he rarely even mentioned 9/11 in his talk; it was mostly about race and civil rights – extremely important subjects to be sure, but …)

I wasn’t able to attend the conference in person, but I did watch as much as I could live streamed on the conference web site. And while I don’t want to nit-pick about little glitches that can happen at any conference – I do think it’s fair to report them (you might recall that the live streaming of Honegger’s talk at the Vancouver Hearings last summer was not accompanied by sound).

The live streaming appeared to go well on Saturday, the 14th, but Sunday was another matter entirely. For starters, it came on with less than five minutes remaining in Deets’s opening Pentagon presentation, so no one who wasn’t there could see it until it was posted on You Tube in the last few days.

Sullivan showed 17 minutes of excerpts from the CIT film National Security Alert, but while the film was running, a loud buzzing noise made it impossible to hear the soundtrack of the film. The final problem occurred during the 30-minute panel discussion after the lunch break. The sound there was accompanied by loud classical music that made hearing the speakers a strain. Fortunately, the recently posted videos are free of these problems.

Deets’s now viewable presentation uses the Sandia F-4 rocket sled experiment (in which a craft on rocket sled is rammed into a concrete barrier; the plane disintegrates into thousands of small pieces) to account for the lack of large pieces of airplane debris outside the Pentagon.

The thing about the Sandia test that has always struck me (and no, I’m not a physicist or an engineer), is that the plane does turn into thousands of small pieces of debris, but it does not create, and barrel through, a hole in the concrete barrier at the same time. With the Pentagon, we’re supposed to believe that the airliner that is alleged to have hit (as Deets now claims) was not only blasted into small pieces but ALSO penetrated through three rings of the Pentagon, creating a round “exit hole” in the middle ring.

Sullivan gave a basic overview of the position that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. Prior to the conference, I recommended to organizer Elaine Sullivan that this designation be changed since the position that no 757 hit the Pentagon is supported by most truthers and is not exclusively CIT’s. This suggestion was not heeded, and the description of Sullivan as representing CIT’s position has not changed to this day. During her second presentation, Honegger actually referred to Sullivan as “Matt from the Citizen Investigation Team.”

While I won’t criticize Sullivan too much for not having put together a more complex presentation I do have some concerns about his remarks that the flyover evidence is the weakest element of the case and that the main witness to this (Roosevelt Roberts) was “shaky.” It is also worth noting that he did not even mention Lloyde England, who was supposed to have had a light pole plunge through his windshield, according to his completely unbelievable story.

Honegger didn’t offer a weakest point, at least not at first – but then she piped in with the issue of debris. She said that people challenge her on this because there isn’t enough debris near the heliport to account for a 757.

“But it’s not a 757!” she said. So her idea of a weak point is a point that other people claim is weak but that she can explain. No problem.

Honegger links a number of events around that time of the morning on 9/11 to what she claims is the destruction of the white plane outside the Pentagon, including the evacuation of the White House. She also thinks that George W. Bush was rushed out of the Florida school following the alleged 9:32 event and that Andrews Air Force Base went on alert for the same reason.

Honegger made a number of other very interesting comments and claims during her presentations. Among those was her point about those who say we should ignore the Pentagon evidence because of the possibility of being discredited in the future when new evidence is released:

“If you have people in the 9/11 Truth movement who say don’t look at the Pentagon, don’t go there, because the government is going to release all these video tapes to make fools of us, they’re lying,” she said.

“Don’t trust them to be a real investigator.”

Those are strong words. And they seem to be directed at a number of the most vocal critics of CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. In fact, in their “Joint Statement on the Pentagon,” Pentagon pro-planers David Chandler and Jonathan Cole raise the issue of positions that are vulnerable to being discredited at some future date. They don’t mention the Pentagon videos specifically in that paper, but they do appear to qualify for Honegger’s distrust.  Jim Hoffman is another plane-impact advocate who has made this statement (he’s the guy who thinks that explosives might have been planted in the tail section of the 757, accounting for the lack of damage to the Pentagon wall where the tail section would have hit).

Honegger criticized Kevin Ryan for his unwillingness to consider the role played by Israel in planning, executing, and covering up the fake “terror attacks.” She also dismissed John Wyndham as not being an authentic 9/11 researcher. Wyndham joins Ryan, Chandler, and Cole in claiming that a large plane did hit the Pentagon. He challenges Honegger’s claim that the initial exterior explosive event occurred at about 9:32 a.m., claiming that the clocks that were stopped at about that time could have had hands fall down to that position as a result of the impact.

Slipping under the radar (no pun intended) was Mark Gaffney’s presentation on “Motive, men and means.” Gaffney, author of Black 9/11: Money, Motive, and Technology and The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America, started his talk by walking down the aisle and looking out the window of the meeting room at the Pentagon itself. Because the cameraman followed his movements, we have the opportunity on the video to see the view as well.

Gaffney, without acknowledging that what happened at the Pentagon would be the main point of contention for the following morning, ventured outside of his assigned topic and “explained” how from this window you would have been able to see Flight 77 approaching the Pentagon prior to impact.

“Flight 77 came right through here, not very far from the hotel. And see that antenna over there? I think it’s a radio station, a radar tower, it clipped the top of it because it was very low.”

Not only does the north side path exposed by CIT make this impossible, but research by Pilots for 9/11 Truth confirms that it would have been impossible for a 757 to have hit the top of the tower, then the light poles before hitting the first floor of the building while flying parallel to the ground at more than 500 miles per hour. CIT also received confirmation from the Virginia Department of Transportation that the antenna had not been damaged.

While Gaffney is entitled to his opinion, however unfounded, it was inappropriate of him to throw out this comment without at least acknowledging that this point is not supported by most in the Truth movement. In fact, by saying that not only did a 757 hit the building but that it was Flight 77, Gaffney puts himself squarely on the side of the official story.

He goes on to point out that the Navy Annex (several witnesses had the plane flying over the top of the Navy Annex – which is incompatible with the official southern path) has been torn down, continuing the “destruction of evidence.” I’m not sure why this building would provide important evidence to someone who believes that Flight 77 barreled into the Pentagon along the very precise southern path, as claimed by the official story.

While I don’t see this conference as a leap forward of any kind, it does offer lots for us to chew on.

We saw the “skimpy” case made by Dwain Deets for a 757 impact; we saw Matt Sullivan’s “intro to CIT” presentation that scratched the surface of the case that a 757 could not have hit; and we saw Barbara Honegger’s with her head-scratching suggestion that the fireball we have all seen on that Pentagon video is actually a white drone being blasted out of the air by a Marine Corps attack helicopter on the order of Dick Cheney. Or the Secret Service.

That last claim could be an article on its own.

521 comments

  1. I’m predicting this is gonna be another quite lively comment thread!

    Gotta run for the mo, real life interfering… but MANY MANY thanks for summing all this up Craig.

  2. Thank’s Craig,

    I am delighted with this summation of the conference. I think a lot of what has been said on the previous thread is worth reiteration here. Especially OSS’s fantastic offerings on the P4T site, which obliterate Honegger’ position with a finality that all should come to grasp.

    We also have a ‘theory’ of “gatekeepers” that involves an investigation of the thinking of Noam Chomsky, which is in my view critically relevant for explaining just what it is Honegger may be up to. We can begin those dots by noting her not too hidden entanglement with the military, and her continued position in that organization for years despite her seeming dissident views, which began laying a legend for her as far back as the Iran-Contra scandal.

    Mr Zwicker may have some things to say on this topic as he has written some fantastic expose’s on Chomsky’s baffling cognitive lapses when it comes to “conspiracy theory”.
    I see Honegger as more akin to the type of mole I have described Jim Fetzer as; that is a “super conspiracy theorist” who is able to maintain his academic position, and even thrive in that capacity while seemingly “cutting at the roots” of that same academic structure.

    As I pointed out to Craig personally, and have mentioned on the blog previously, there is something very telling in Honegger’s claim that Cheney tried to protect the Pentagon. How anyone that understands the hierarchy of command on 9/11 knows, Cheney had to be at the heart of managing the psyop of 9/11.

    \\][//

    1. Thanks, HR. Any and all of what you mention is fair game for this comment thread. I do hope to get some reaction to the “contrived consensus” aspect of the conference, though. I’m also interested in what people feel are new elements in the Honegger position and what conclusions they draw from those.

      1. You are welcome Craig.

        As far as the notion of ‘consensus’, to me this is a myth that these people, Honneger and those around her that set up this conference hope to propagate. There is certainly no inclusion of those who comprehend the depth of the real evidence with the click around Honneger. If anything this conference has split any such consensus rather conclusively and and perhaps irredeemably. Which may in fact be one of the aspects of Honneger’s real agenda.

        She seems to have padded her story with enough valid information [incidentally promoted by others already] to give herself a very thick layer of revetments to peal back before her true agenda is revealed.

        I hope others here can fill in some details as to what they see in all the tea leaves spread upon the table here.

        \\][//

  3. She said that the three speakers “paved the way for a consensus, a true consensus, which is basically a north path plane that didn’t fly over but, in my opinion, was destroyed before it could hit the wall near the heliport.”

    Honegger actually said this?? I’d like to see the source for that.

    She and others who dumped and ran on the other blog in the face of solid research and evidence that makes a total nonsense of her contradictory multiple “theories”, have yet to respond to my posts at Pilots. Or here.

    Honegger promised to get back to this blog after the conference. As did George Ripley and another guy (I can’t even remember his name).

    Deets knows that he has shot himself in the foot by allegedly providing a column damage legend to Honegger showing the “impossibility of a 757 impact”. And is now pushing for this same impact along a path with even less damage!

    Sullivan know jack sh!t about the NOC evidence (nor the entire witness pool evidence)

    The majority of “endorsements” still stand I take it? And what is Kevin Barrett’s deal??

    As Willy said, Honegger’s tripe has been torn apart at Pilotsfor911Truth. Completely annihilated. I don’t know what more I can do.

    1. Yes, she did say this (I assure you that I would not quote anyone unless they had actually made the statement). She said it at the one-hour-and three-minute mark of the September 25 Truth Teleconference call. Here’s the link:

      [audio src="http://www.houston911truth.net/audio/092513.wav" /]

      1. Cheers Craig

        I can’t listen to that link on my device, I’ll have a listen later.

        And with a simple partial rephrase, does she believe that she has created wriggle room for herself? She needs to start from scratch, cut the ambiguity and lay out exactly what her new “theory” is.

        All this is is political manouvring by an experienced PR disinfo queen.

        I see it as totally pointless in having another round of trying to decipher what merits her “theory” may have when my last rebuttal has been left gathering dust. We’re going to end up discussing the issue imagining what her response would be? Just for her to read through, not comment and tinker away at a “theory B” to file away for future release? Screw that.

        1. OSS, I definitely think people should read your analysis of Honegger, and if I do follow up with my reaction to her presentation it will prominently feature the work you have already done. I see it not as letting your work gather dust but rather helping it to gain further attention. Whether we like it or not, we have to continue making our case even though it seems like it has been done already. Honegger, Deets, and others will certainly continue to make their case (particularly Barbara) and if we have to continue to do the same.

          But that doesn’t mean endlessly arguing the same points. For example, I’ve chosen to repeat often that vocal bunch that includes Ryan, Chandler, Hoffman, Legge, and the gang are but a tiny minority who would like us all to think they represent a sizable portion of the Truth movement. We can never let people forget that MOST of the movement understands that a 757 did not crash at the Pentagon. If propaganda succeeds through repetition, then we probably have to use repetition to fight it effectively.

    2. I don’t think you need to do anything more OSS you are correct when you point out how your research and the Pilots information and research have torn Honegger’s theory to shreds. It is all over except the crying in my opinion, she has been fully exposed as a charlitain.

      The point you make which is most important though is that Honegger and the others you mentioned have done a disappearing act inspite of promises to address the issues we raised. This to me is the biggest red flag of all indicating dishonesty.

      Just remember that you cannot be a dishonest truther. It is an either or proposition.

      1. Craig

        “Ryan, Chandler, Hoffman, Legge, and the gang are but a tiny minority”

        Problem is that they have the ear of DRG, Gage, et al who do have a substantial audience. I mean, have any of them expanded on their “endorsements” for Honegger’s “work”? How about Kevin Barrett?

        I had a Skype conversation with two members of Pilots re WTC7 when a thread there had built up a head of steam. One was “on the fence” re the Pentagon and another was convinced that a small drone or missile had struck the building (a stubborn but 100% honest old guy who recently died of cancer).

        One of these guys never rests applying for FOIAs and the other was an engineer who was also an expert on ancient history (and in the end WTC7). All three of us put 100% in to our fields of research. Both of them agreed that the NOC testimony was solid and that they didn’t have an explanation. Much like another stubborn old guy, Peter Dale Scott. Those responses suited me fine.

        Now Kevin Barrett made the quip at the DC911 Conference that it showed that the Pentagon issue could be discussed “calmly”. Yes, if one main bullshitter out-bullshits two minor bullshitters and the rest of the audience hasn’t a clue that they’re being bullshitted. How could they all not be as happy as a pig in (bull)shit?

        I agree that we will probably have to repeat this information but if they play the coward’s game of non show or hit and run posts while ignoring the evidence, I say we need to go to them and confront them. How to do so, I don’t know.

        1. Barbara H. has repeatedly promised to discuss the elements of her presentation with anyone and make available any supporting information, so we’ll see if she’s true to her word. Deets seems to be I very accessible and willing to defend his position, which give him credit for. As you can see he has already contributed to this thread. Just try getting a question for Kevin Ryan answered. He wouldn’t even speak at the conference on a different topic because the Pentagon was being discussed. His credibility is zero as far as I’m concerned.

          I think that the fact that both Griffin and Gage have compromised their positions to varying degrees makes it that much more essential that we keep making the case, loudly and clearly. With Griffin, for example, we have to keep making the point that he still clearly stands behind the position that a 757 did not hit.

          As for Kevin Barrett, he is definitely on board as far as CIT and Pilots are concerned, but he did say in DC that “we all agree on the most of the really important details such as, well, the fact that which is the official story of what happened at the Pentagon is completely impossible; it didn’t happen” This is a lot like the Griffin consensus position. I think there are some extremely important and consequential things that we don’t agree on and that the three presenters didn’t agree with each other on. But I suspect Kevin was just trying to be neutral and inclusive in his role as moderator. I would like to have seen him challenge Matt Sullivan more aggressively when he was a guest on Barrett’s radio show in August, but that’s his style. And perhaps you have to be more that way to be effective in interviewing those from different sides. For instance, he was very polite and friendly to John Bursill on his show, but he made no bones about how strongly he disagreed with him on the Pentagon.

      2. Craig

        If Kevin Barrett had read the Honegger thread at Pilots, he could have challenged Honegger on all fronts! What kind of moderator doesn’t study up on all arguments being put forward? Especially on a contributor that selfishly and purposefully ate up most of the “allotted” time?

        I’m just tired of chasing after these egomaniacs. The information, evidence and rebuttals of all disinfo they cite is there but if their consciences are cleared by their blatantly dishonest groupies, then I don’t really care about their opinions. I’ve zero confidence in all of them when it comes to the Pentagon. It’s up to them to restore our confidence in their methods and intentions.

        I’m not writing this in anger (although I’m pissed at the merry go round). Just laying out how I have to react to stop me throwing the towel in altogether.

  4. Craig thanks for the summation of the DC conference and the excellent article. I consider this to be a very important topic indeed and something we should focus considerable attention on. First of all I want to say for the record that my own research tells me without a question that Honegger’s position is complete bunk and is supported by virtually no evidence whatsoever. Furthermore elements of her position are so questionable and so unsuported by witnesses that I think they are outright lies. I am speaking of her claim of a gunship helicopter shooting down the “drone” here. First of all there is zero evidence that such a gunship was anywhere near the heliport at the time of the “event” and secondly and more importantly even if such a helicopter gunship existed and did fire a missile which hit the “drone” just before impact the wreckage would have still carried on into the facade and caused considerable damage. There is no way (short of suspending the laws of physics) that the impact of the wreckage could have been avoided even if it was struck head on by a missile. Her claim is obviously on it’s face complete bunk for a number of reasons other than the one I just described. For instance why wouldn’t Sean Boger have reported this helicopter gunship firing on the incoming “drone” in his testimony since he was actually inside the heliport tower at the time. Seems to me to be a detail he would remember. Honegger horribly distorts Boger’s testimony and contorts or confuses (intentionally in my opinion) the timeline of what he saw and when he saw it. This distortion of Boger’s testimony is completely unforgiveable in my opinion and tells me that Honegger is not to be trusted AT ALL.

    This explosion before impact of the “drone” scenario is the whole basis of her argument and it is completely devoid of supporting evidence. In fact if you look into it seriously you find multiple items of evidence that directly contradict her theory. Her entire theory is based on her imagination as far as I can tell. Honegger does NOT represent any portion of the truth movements beliefs about what happened at the pentagon. Her bogus theory represents her opinion and her alone. No consensus is possible about the pentagon because on the one hand you have the vast majority of truthers who believe no plane hit the pentagon and on the other hand you have Honegger trying to portray her bogus theory as representing truthers other that herself. I don’t know of anyone who endorses her theory as correct, perhaps I am wrong but can anyone name a truther who endorses her theory and will put their name and reputation on the line?

    With the NOC evidence I can say that I am 100% convinced that it proves the plane flew over and the damage was staged. Many others here can say the same, so where are the truthers supporting Honegger’s theory?

    1. Thanks, Adam. I know Honegger points to a number of truthers who endorse her work in a general way, but I’m not aware of any who say clearly that they believe that a drone flying on the north path was destroyed as it flew over the Pentagon lawn. She does describe the idea of internal explosives in the Pentagon as being “by far” the most important element of her position, with the drone part being secondary. One would certainly have to say that most truthers agree that explosives were planted, so some might endorse her research without necessarily agreeing with the drone destruction. Perhaps some who support her white plane theory will express that here?

    2. Hey Adam,

      I am pleased that you brought up the issue of momentum with this comment:

      “..and more importantly even if such a helicopter gunship existed and did fire a missile which hit the “drone” just before impact the wreckage would have still carried on into the facade and caused considerable damage.”

      Issues based in simple unavoidable physics are some of the strongest arguments we have.
      Such as the damage ‘trajectory’ issue directly proves ‘flyover’, when the north path approach is seen as unimpeachable from the witness pool.

      \\][//

    3. AdamR

      What’s funny is that she, Sullivan and Deets argue against flyover (even in the face of the physical evidence) because they allege that

      1. The aircraft was “too low” to execute a flyover

      2. Dishonestly, that there are “no witnesses to a flyover”

      I’ll not go through each individual “stance”. Just take your pick. All three deny flyover.

      There is no doubt whatsoever that the aircraft flew over the Navy Annex (69ft tall building at 145ft ASL plus altitude of the aircraft above said building)

      There is no doubt that the aircraft flew NOC. They even claim a “consensus” on this. Citgo is 60ft ASL plus the altitude of the aircraft above this area.

      Initially, witnesses placed the aircraft ranging from “50 – 75ft” above the motorway (Route 27) a second before the explosion. Couple this with the fact that there are no witnesses to the 40ft tall lightpoles being struck on a road which is 45ft ASL.

      If anything, it was too high to impact the building on the 14ft tall first floor much less the unscathed heliport.

      It’s alleged that nobody saw the flyover when the massive explosion and 200ft diameter fireball occurred, yet it’s proposed that nobody saw the “first flyover” (that “circled around) without the explosion nor the “helicopter gunship”!

      The official “impact” starts at lightpoles one and two, through lightpoles three, four and five, low and level across the lawn, the generator trailer, Column 14, through a specific trajectory inside the building, and exits at the C Ring “punchout hole”. End of story.

      Deets, Honneger and the rest of the wordsmiths are blowing smoke. They’re trying to sideline the directional damage as being irrelevant. Or the alleged manouevre of a 757 at low altitude flying like an F16 as being another. The anomalous FDR. The witness pool. Everything can go to hell as long as they confuse the issue enough to bash an aircraft in to that building. Screw that.

  5. First presenter Dwain Deets contended there was an impact of an airliner with the building even though he once believed the opposite. His talk was entitled “Pentagon 757” with the subheading “Crash evidence, though skimpy, is consistent with high-speed impact into a hardened wall.” Have you ever heard anyone say that they believe a plane crash occurred at a given site even though evidence of the crash was “skimpy”?

    To employ the Griffinian phrase “esoteric interpretation,” I wonder if Deets is secretly playing devil’s advocate. Not only is he NOT one of the people who’s been a hard core impact promoter for years, but, as the one person who does come out into a public form and argue for “impact,” he flat out admits up front that the evidence is “skimpy.”

    He furthermore seems to actually be coming into unity with Honegger on one key issue: that there actually “was” aircraft debris in (relative) abundance at the heliport are, north of the “impact” area. This seems to be the thread here: “Ahhh…. lookie lookie!! Where nobody else has these past 12 years. Everybody was focusing on looking for aircraft debris in the impact area that the aircraft debris at the heliport area flew right over their heads!” [I think I deserve a cymbal crash for the har har har pun.]

    She says the “aircraft debris” is explained due to a helicopter gun shooting down a smaller-than-757 plane approaching NOC.

    He says (from his blog):

    An “ah ha” moment occurred when I ran across a photo in a different setting with “confetti-like” debris on the ground. I was familiar with the photo, as Jim Hoffman described the photo as “…portion of the lawn near the heliport.”

    The photo that gave Dwain his “ah ha” moment that there was indeed plane wreckage at the heliport:

    911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/debris_postcollapse1.jpg

    But here’s where he parts ways with Honegger:

    The helipad, it turns out, is in the exact right spot for deflected debris from a plane flying directly over the cable spools before impacting the Pentagon centered on column 14, the official impact column. This gave a boost to the 757-on-south-path hypothesis.

    Both positions are not rooted in evidence.

  6. … evidence of the crash was “skimpy”

    You have to do some pretty good contortions to build a position based on that.

    1. Mr Glynn,

      I was of and continue to be of the opinion that both Sullivan, and Deets were set-up as ‘fall guys’ for Honneger all along. That they ‘took a dive’, each one so that Honneger could bounce around the ring with her arms over her head as “undisputed champion of the Pentagon issue”.
      I had this opinion before the conference even took place, and as far as I am concerned what went down there fully verified it.

      \\][//

    2. To clarify, evidence available to the public was skimpy. Government authorities had access to any evidence inside the building, and released none of it.

      1. Dwain

        Did you or did you not supply a column legend demarking the alleged path of internal damage? She claims that you did.

        What do you say about Barbara Honegger’s use of your legend to claim that the alleged internal damage was an “impossibility”?

        Wouldn’t your alleged “NOC impact” be even less likely given that there is much less damage?

        Please clarify.

      2. I think that is a given Dwain,

        Why don’t you cop to what is overwhelmingly obvious at this point — you don’t really think that the aircraft actually hit the Pentagon do you? Someone needed to take that position for “fairness and balance”, and that someone had to be someone ‘safe’ who wouldn’t attempt too strong a case.

        It also seems obvious that Honneger was seen as the star and guiding light by all involved in this project. You aren’t a puppy, you surely must have known the bottom line to this whole masquerade — the Pentagon portion of this conference.

        \\][//

      3. No clarification needed Dwain… You once used to question theories based on “skimpy” evidence.. but it appears your current theory is mostly based on your opinion, pure speculation and the same ‘skimpy’ evidence you once used to question…. just as stated in the above article.

        Your opinion just so happens to now support what is being offered by the ‘suspect’ in question… the govt story…. while disregarding the mountain of contradictory evidence.. data.. witnesses.. etc… combined with a lack of evidence to support your theories.. ie “skimpy”.

        Some people are beginning to wonder why that is…..

        I don’t mind though… everyone is entitled to their opinions. As long as you still agree with our Mission statement and do not use our banner to support your new theories… I have no problem keeping you as a Core Member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth. We have a wide range of opinion within our organization… Those who believe in impact.. to John Lear… None use our banner to further their theories….

        …but where we all agree… is under the Mission Statement.. a real “Consensus” I suppose..

        Hope you’re doing well…

        Regards,
        Rob

        .

  7. I thought I might throw in a slightly irreverent comment here: Craig, this blog now has a “show” named after Barbara Honegger and a “paradox” named after Kevin Ryan. What other common nouns might we be able to name after proper nouns?

    1. Originally I thought of calling the blog “The Craig McKee Extravaganza” but I concluded that this had too many syllables (like Mozart having “too many notes.”) You think maybe something like “The Syed Supremacy” might work?

      1. Craig,
        I especially like your style of coming up with ‘Titles’, there is an art to it.

        But I would go more sparse. Such as this one; The Barbara Honneger Show DC 9/11 — leaving off the extension, “conference spun as new consensus” as far as the URL, but add it on page as part of the title using [:] after the main title.

        \\][//

        1. I have learned that there is a particular art to the Internet headline as opposed to one for newspapers or magazines. In a newspaper, you can leave more to the imagination because you already have the reader looking at your article. Usually, if they are intrigued at all, they’ll at least read the lead paragraph and go from there. With the Internet, you want people to click on your link, so you need enough information in the headline so that they know whether they might want to read it. This means longer headlines.

          As to the URL, you’re absolutely right. On WordPress, if you get everything the way you want it and then hit “publish” you’ll get a URL that includes your whole headline. You have to deliberately change it BEFORE publishing to get a shorter URL. I tend to be the absent-minded type, so 90% of the time I forget this step. And once it’s done you don’t want to try and change it. This causes problems. So I’ll try to keep your suggestion in mind next time.

  8. Dear Mr. McKee,

    And the over-arching theme to all this is that the 9/11 TM is still being infiltrated and played. And if JFK is any indication, we’ve got 38+ more years of it.

    Good job, though. I understand more fully why it was so difficult to write. Had you been doing it with pencils, I’m sure you could have started a bon-fire with all those broken out of frustration.

    //

  9. Craig,

    Your summary is a good one as far as I experienced the conference on-line. I only wish you had said more about Webster Tarpley.

    On the one hand, Tarpley correctly said that 9-11 must be seen in an historical context — past and for the future. I agree (as most/all of us would) and have placed the JFK execution on the agenda of this Wednesday’s 911 Teleconferrence.

    There is a Nov. 22-24 conference is Dallas that I would like to point to: http://tinyurl.com/COPADallas. Unfortunately, insufficient details are provided at this time.

    Jim Douglass will be following up his JFK book, with a second on MLK, Jr., and Malcolm X, and a third on RFK. The question becomes what 1963 to 1968 represents as a continuity or discontinuity from earlier U.S. leadership history. Did we then become something we weren’t before?

    On the other hand, Tarpley made the unbelievable claim that Assad of Syria is just a fine fellow. Did I hear that correctly (I haven’t recheck)?

    1. I would like to have looked at the other presentations, but I concluded that I should focus on the Pentagon for this piece. I can always write more. If I had decided to look at all the highlights I might well completed the article just in time for the 2016 election.

      I was interested in what Tarpley said about Pearl Harbor and the book Day of Deceit written by Robert Stinnett. Evidently, Tarpley is a big FDR supporter, and he thinks Stinnett is a charlatan – a pretty provocative position to take.

      I just found out about the JFK conference, and I’d like to know more also. I see that Mark Lane is speaking there. I have tried more than once to request an interview but never got a response. Same with James Douglass and William Pepper. I will definitely have one or more posts on JFK in the weeks ahead.

      1. “Tarpley is a big FDR supporter, and he thinks Stinnett is a charlatan – a pretty provocative position to take.”~Craig

        I have found this to be true about Tarpley as well. I can’t understand his position on FDR at all. And the Stinnett material is in no way based on opinion, or supposition. The footnotes of history now available on the attack on Pearl Harbor as a provocation by the US is simply beyond dispute.

        I see FDR in much the same light as Woodrow Wilson – that is as meat-puppets for the banking elites, the “High Cabal” as Fletcher Prouty refers to them. I think a fresh look at the entire history of the US, at least from the coup of the Philadelphia convention forward exhibits the reality that the elites in budding America were more congenial to the elites of the British Empire than to the “unwashed rabble” of the general population.

        “Might is Right” – ‘Manifest Destiny’ – “Means justify the Ends” – ‘American Exceptionalism’; all combine to this conclusion to my thinking.

        \\][//

      2. I see FDR in much the same light as Woodrow Wilson – that is as meat-puppets for the banking elites, the “High Cabal” as Fletcher Prouty refers to them.

        On this subject, I believe Mr. Douglas Reed has all the information one needs to know.

      3. Aha yes Mr Glynn,

        “Mr. Douglas Reed” you say, so you have read THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION.
        That is to my mind one of the most important books of the 20th century.

        I just finished Shlomo Sand’s THE INVENTION OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE, which is a great adjunct with a lot more archaeological backup to the textual proofs of Reed’s book. It is a free PDF now as well.

        \\][//

      4. That work is indeed on my Amazon wish list, but if it’s free somewhere, I’d be a mug not to. I can also recommend Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century, which is a whole ‘nother thing, but fascinating all the same.

        As for the C of Z, as I like to call it, yes, it is probably the most remarkable book I have ever read.

      5. Downloaded. Thanks for that. I’m in the process of writing another novel, but will no doubt find myself distracted by Mr. Sand’s thesis.

  10. Onesliceshort,
    I drew that diagram that Barbara used, showing there is no unobstructed paths through the standing columns on which plane parts could have reached the C-RING hole location. My only point, and reason for providing it to Barbara, was that the C-RING hole couldn’t have been caused by plane parts.

    I don’t support the idea of a North Path impact.

    1. Dwain

      I’m confused. Do you now reject the NOC witness testimony and the fact that nobody saw the aircraft on the directional damage path?

      You say

      Recently, I’ve taken a more careful look at many of the issues, and have gradually shifted my thinking toward an airplane impacting the Pentagon. One shift was deciding the north-path airplane was more likely not time correlated with the explosive event at the Pentagon face.

      What does that mean? Are you saying that there were two aircraft simultaneously within the Pentagon basin just before the explosion? What trajectory did the aircraft that you claim struck the building fly along?

      1. Dwain

        If you get round to answering my queries above…

        Check out the alleged internal damage that defies the notion that an aircraft caused the damage to multiple columns (some at points where the aircraft dimensions would have it not having fully penetrated yet)

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807823

        Or that an aircraft right wing allegedly caused damage to the facade

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807804

        Or the left wing

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807808

        Or the stabilizers

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807806

        Column 11A (now that one’s a mystery)

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807807

        1. Onesliceshort,

          1. “Alleged internal damage that defies the notion that an aircraft caused the damage to MULTIPLE columns.” I am not considering internal damage, as the ASCE could have been selective in which columns were included in their report.

          2. “Aircraft right wing allegedly caused damage to the facade.” P4T did not include the fact the wall section between col. lines 17 and 18 was a windowless (blank) wall. Those sections were not reinforced to the degree of the windowed walls.

          3. “Or the left wing.” I didn’t look closely at the left wing. My expectation is that a close inspection would not overcome the general situation that the extremely hardened windowed walls would cause decimation to the wing structure — resulting in little or no damage to the wall.

          4. “Or the stabilizers”: I spoke to the vertical fin mark to the facade in my DC 9/11 Conference presentation. If you are referring to the horizontal stabilizers, they are higher on the airplane than the engines. Thus, I would expect them to be decimated upon striking the 2nd story facade.

          5. “Column 11A”: I don’t see a significant problem with Column 11A. Looks to me it could have been just inside of the left engine core path.

      2. Onesliceshort,
        Yes, I say there were two aircraft, but not in the basin simultaneously. I accept the testimony of the NOC witnesses regarding an airplanes path, but I have reservations about part of the testimonies where of two witnesses (Terry Morin and Sgt. William Lagasse) who also say they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Also, I don’t think Albert Hemphill is a true north path witness. He is too imprecise about the plane flying over his right shoulder.

      3. Dwain

        So you’re saying that one of these alleged aircrafts flew over the building? Namely the NOC aircraft? Much like Barbara Honegger’s position, no?

        Which flightpath did the alleged “impact” aircraft take?

        And what is the proposed timeframe between these alleged aircraft?

        There is now no ambiguity over Hemphill’s “over his right shoulder” wordplay. He told Craig Ranke that he saw it between Citgo and Arlington Cemetery. Even when shown the official path by Jeff Hill to blatantly “coax” him, he still stuck to the path he described:

        http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1704&view=findpost&p=2464894

        And yes, Terry Morin couldn’t physically see the lightpole area, nor the alleged impact zone

        http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1704&view=findpost&p=2464913

  11. Hybridrogue1,
    My reason for participating was I think those who argue a 757 didn’t strike the Pentagon have not come up with sufficiently strong enough reasons for rejecting the evidence that a 757 did impact. Participation by anyone else in the session, or lack of participation, didn’t figure in.

    1. Alright Dwain,

      I will accept that on your word.

      However, I think your assertion that ” those who argue a 757 didn’t strike the Pentagon have not come up with sufficiently strong enough reasons for rejecting the evidence that a 757 did impact,” is insufficient in itself.

      You do have the problem of trajectory. You do have the problem of overwhelming witness testimony of a northern approach. And if you don’t think that those things are now proven beyond reproach, then you have not read and comprehended the compiled works of CIT and P4T, especially OSS’s recent exhaustive presentations at P4T.

      In a nutshell, if that airplane that came in over the Navy Annex, just north of the Citgo station had impacted the Pentagon, it could not have made the damage path as we know it to be. It is simple physics as per vector.

      I am not going through this argument one more time. It is now up to you to rebut the information now available at those sites listed, and expounded upon in the past pages of this blog as well.

      \\][//

    2. Dwain,

      You also say, “I don’t think Albert Hemphill is a true north path witness. He is too imprecise about the plane flying over his right shoulder.”

      The Hemphill testimony has been analyzed through and through, his position near the north side/his left of the Annex has been pin pointed. His saying the plane flew over his right shoulder can jibe with the rest of his testimony, where he insists that the plane flew over to the left of the Citgo from his POV. The reason that this is congruent with him seeing it above and to the right of his shoulder is the size of the plane and the size of the building. The fuselage could very well have been to his right while the left wing was overhead. That part he only saw in an instant glance.

      The fact that various witnesses claimed to witness the impact has also been addressed in an exhaustive manner. And again, repeating all of this over again is obviously an exercise in futility with you.

      \\][//

    3. Dwain

      You keep repeating that a “757” hit the Pentagon yet I’ve also seen you describe how a drone with a smaller wingspan could have caused the visible damage.

      Which is it?

  12. Dwain Deets states –

    “…I think those who argue a 757 didn’t strike the Pentagon have not come up with sufficiently strong enough reasons for rejecting the evidence that a 757 did impact. ”

    My (then) 10 year old nephew has stated –

    “…I think those who argue Santa Claus does not exist have not come up with sufficiently strong enough reasons for rejecting the evidence that Santa Claus has brought me presents for the past 10 years of my life.”.

    Then I taught my 10 year old nephew the logical fallacy commonly known as an “Argument from Ignorance”.

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

    I am pleased to say my now 12 year old nephew no longer believes in Santa Claus.

    1. Rob I for one really appreciate your sarcasm here in responding to Dwain. I am a sarcastic a-hole in some peoples opinion but I have long ago lost any concern for other peoples opinion of me. I come off very harsh to people sometimes but you know I think that a cold hard slap in the face is sometimes exactly what people need. If you have ever seen Chef Ramsey dish out a tounge lashing to people on his show Kitchen Nightmares you know what I mean.

      Dwain you obviously need a chef Ramsey style dressing down from someone whom you respect. I don’t know who that is but you need it in the worst way. To say that there is no evidence that a plane did not strike the pentagon is outrageous and totally discounts all of the NOC evidence. I consider that position to be a totally fraudulent one and worthy of an award for the most disingenuous load of crap I have heard since I stopped looking at the JREF forum 6 years ago.

      In any case your incoherent so called position indeed suffers from the logical fallacy Rob pointed out. For the record I am posting the details of that logical fallacy below so that readers can easily reference it in relation to your totally disingenuous official conspiracy theory about what happened at the pentagon. To paraphrase Chef Ramsey who has said to many failing restaurant owners when he discovered how filthy their kitchens were. Your theory about plane impact is disgusting and you should not even call yourself a truther, if I were in charge I would fire you on the spot. My God man have some self respect and drop this ridiculous charade that there is evidence an airliner hit the pentagon.

      Disgustedly yours
      Adam Ruff

      Logical Fallacy: Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for “lack of evidence to the contrary”), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

      1. “Not one comment posted today made any reference to the evidence I presented. Is there anyone there willing to address this evidence?”~Dwain Deets

        Perhaps you might be willing to present here, one or two examples that you consider your best evidence of an airplane crash at the Pentagon…??

        \\][//

      2. A side note, dealing with context. Sean Boger is counted as a north of Citgo witness. It is not claimed that Boger is a “flyover witness”. The only reliable testimony given by Boger is what he witnessed while in a state of pre-panic calm of noting the plane coming over the Navy Annex and over and to his right of the Citgo station. When he is finally struck by the fact that the plane is in fact seemingly coming directly at him, stunning fear strikes him like a bolt of electricity and his automatic nervous responses kick in. This is also where his testimony becomes unbelievable; he claims he saw the plane impact. Anyone who grasps the implications of the damage vector knows this is simply impossible.

        A second part of this is in criticism of Barbara Honegger. She 1] claims that we are saying that Boger is a flyover witness, as explained this is false. 2] She picks the most untrustworthy portion of Boger’s testimony as her highlight, while at the same time disagreeing with half of it; she claims he saw the plane explode, but claims that it did not impact the Pentagon.
        The problem with this interpretation is that the explosion and impact would have been to Boger’s perception the same instant. So we must extrapolate that Boger ducked and felt the bomb go off, and likely saw the flash from it reflected where he had dodged to. It is simply impossible that he saw the NOC plane explode, or hit the building.
        Another problem of the ‘exploding plane’ hypothesis is the quality of Momentum. Momentum is not interrupted by any but an overwhelming counter force. If a plane were to be on the said vector and explode at the point Honegger suggests, there would have still been a huge amount of momentum moving at the vector, whether as a solid mass or fragmented it would still have that force on that trajectory. Evidence is simply not there that such a force hit the Pentagon. The evidence suggests a force blowing outward from within, not visa versa, all along the effected wall of the building.

        \\][//

  13. Dwain Deets –

    You have claimed in the past that the aircraft speeds reported are the “Elephant In The Room”.

    You were so firm in your conviction that you wrote to the AIAA and posted your concerns to our forum.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19896

    You have previewed and approved this article before being published….
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraft_Speed_Deets.html

    Given the above information.. .based on data provided by govt agencies.. which you approved prior to publish… do you now think a 757 can fly stable and in control at more than 150 knots over Vmo? Regardless of who is at the controls?

    And if so… what precedent do you have to establish such an opinion which is contradictory to your past analysis just 3 short years ago?

    Furthermore, why do you now base your opinions on “skimpy” evidence provided by the ‘suspect’ and an argument from ignorance?

  14. As an aside question for Dwain can you tell me about ANY airliner crash wherein the wreckage was accessable where parts were NOT recovered with serial numbers on them? Any crash whatsoever Dwain, take your time. Also let me know what on earth happened to two 6+ ton engines. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO LACKS EVIDENCE!

    1. ruffadam.
      As far as I can tell, your question pertaining to ANY airliner crash has nothing to do with the staged crash at the Pentagon. I know of no other airliner that crashed at high speed into a hardened wall. If there is such a case, then please bring it forward, and we can ask questions such as, where were the serial numbers. Oh, and of course, in all those other cases, the authorities were trying to do their job as investigators.

      1. Dwain,

        My comment has everything to do with the alleged crash at the pentagon simply because there is no verifiable evidence with serial numbers linking the alleged aircraft to the pentagon destruction. In every other crash of an airliner where the debris was accessable parts with serial numbers were recovered and in some cases partial reassembly of the aircraft took place and an investigation actually happened. Not so with the alleged aircraft you now claim hit the pentagon. No such parts with serial numbers have been produced for the first time in history to my knowledge. So in your fairytale official version of what happened at the pentagon a real airliner slammed into the facade yet somehow left behing zero identifiable debris. This being the first time in history such a miraculous lack of verifiable evidence has been left behind after an airliner crash. Your justification for such a wildly improbable event is that the alleged crash into the pentagon is somehow so different then other crashes that there was no identifiable debris left or that the government is covering up the debris. What a load of crap. You have NO EVIDENCE other than a few photographs of alleged plane debris so small that the pieces could have been placed by hand. No serial numbers! Very convienient Dwain. Riddle me this Dwain why would the government cover up the investigation and hide evidence if an airliner actually did strike the pentagon? Real identifiable debris would support their case on the one hand and totally discredit us who insist the plane flew over on the other. Your imagined scenario makes no logical sense and you are way too smart a person to not know that. Frankly I have no idea why you sold your truther sole or if you ever really were a truther in the first place but your position now holds no water whatsoever and has no evidence to back it up. Frankly I agree with Rob you should just quit the charade that you are a truther because you aren’t one. You have a snowballs chance in hell of convincing any real truther who has done legit research into the pentagon that your scenario is plausible. Your scenario is basically the official story for God’s sake which the 9/11 truth movement rejected over 10 years ago for damn good reasons now here you are trying to rehabilitate it. Disgusting, You may as well start writting for popular mechanics they would probably pay you well to spread their BS propaganda.

      2. Mr Ruff,

        Perhaps you might explain how the side of a mountain is certainly a “hardened wall”. Perhaps not an artifact, but as a natural geological feature they can be unforgiving in impact situations.

        \\][//

  15. This is the bottom line as I see it regarding “Dwain Deets”.

    Dwain Deets came to us when he was ousted from the Board at AE911T. Although Dwain claims he was so fed up with what was going on over there… he claims he left the board.. among many others.

    He then started to research and tackle the evidence within his area of expertise.. Aeronautics. He came to our forum.. made posts… I spoke to him several times… I agreed with him.. and published his concerns.

    I had many telephone conversations with Deets.. .talking about aerodynamics… and at some points of the conversation.. .thought he may not have as such a good grasp of aerodynamics as many of our other seasoned Core members. But.. .since he is confirmed on a NASA website… and is retired… I showed some respect for my elder.

    Fast forward a few months…

    Dwain spent a lot of time with Barbara in person in Southern CA. He suggested to me many times the theories of Barbara… i have the emails.. unfortunately.. i did not record the calls.

    I told Dwain many of her theories are built on speculation and as he knows… we do not offer theory… nor endorse any theory.

    I never heard from Dwain Deets again….

  16. Alright Dwain,

    You have put up with some pretty hostile interrogation here and still come back to try to get your points across. So I want to make sure that I understand exactly what you are saying in the following quote:

    “You missed my point. I don’t think the airplane that came in over the Navy Annex is the same as the one that hit the Pentagon.”

    Are you asserting that there were two planes that came in at literally the same time on two different flight paths? That one of the planes, a 757 took the officially claimed path to the south of Columbia Pike, in essentially a straight path and slammed into the Pentagon at the official angle, knocking over the light poles and all of those official details?

    While at the same time another plane flew in over the Annex and just north of the Citgo and flew toward the Pentagon but did not hit it…? And this plane…? It flew over? It blew up at the heliport? What?

    Please be very clear, and final in what you say here. If you are clear on what you are saying I want to understand that as precisely as I can.

    \\][//

  17. Before the blog gets muddled….

    I don’t think the airplane that came in over the Navy Annex is the same as the one that hit the Pentagon.

    Dwain Deets

    I say there were two aircraft, but not in the basin simultaneously. I accept the testimony of the NOC witnesses regarding an airplanes path..

    Dwain Deets

    I’ve covered this in great detail at Pilots.

    How can the alleged two aircraft not be more or less simultaneous when the NOC witnesses described the explosion within seconds of seeing it??

    1. “How can the alleged two aircraft not be more or less simultaneous when the NOC witnesses described the explosion within seconds of seeing it??”~Onesliceshort

      And of course the above question is the killing stone for the two birds hypothesis entertained by Mr Deets.

      I for one have nothing more, and must dismiss Dwain Deets. Anything further on this is simply hazing, and that is nonproductive in my view.

      \\][//

  18. Hybridrogue1,
    “Perhaps you might be willing to present here, one or two examples that you consider your best evidence of an airplane crash at the Pentagon…??”

    1. A hole on the first floor exterior wall just wide enough to encompass the engine cores. The expanse between at the proper level to have been punched out by the dense wing undercarriage. The body tank, if it were loaded with fuel, may have been sufficiently dense to break through the wall.

    2. Results from the Sandia F-4 rocket sled test that shows what happens when a high speed aircraft impacts a massive reinforced concrete block (by extension, a hardened wall). The aircraft structure is decimated. This apparently is what happened to the entire upper fuselage, wing, and tail structure.

    3. Evidence of a severe impact at the second-floor level, at a position equivalent to the middle of the right wing. Turns out, this vertical section of the Pentagon was a solid-wall section. Solid-wall sections, as opposed to windowed sections, were not hardened.

    1. Dwain, if the impact was on the first floor, how do you account for the absence of any damage to the lawn or the floor just inside the building from the engines? Are you saying that the engines never touched the ground?

    2. Dwain Deets,

      Thank you for your 3 point response.

      I agree with your characterization of “skimpy”. I think the problems with even these three points are compound, and have been addressed previously.

      I will just leave you with this; you are welcome to, and have the right to hold any opinions you so desire.

      \\][//

    3. Before you go on to talk about the damage Dwain, could you respond to my post?

      You said…

      “I don’t think the airplane that came in over the Navy Annex is the same as the one that hit the Pentagon.

      Dwain Deets”

      “I say there were two aircraft, but not in the basin simultaneously. I accept the testimony of the NOC witnesses regarding an airplanes path..

      Dwain Deets”

      I’ve covered this in great detail at Pilots.

      How can the alleged two aircraft not be more or less simultaneous when the NOC witnesses described the explosion within seconds of seeing it??

        1. I can only give so much weight to witness testimony (or, the lack of witness testimony). It isn’t the end all to everything. In this case, there is physical evidence not supported by witness testimony, or more specifically, there is not witness testimony to support what the physical evidence suggests.

      1. Dwain

        Two witnesses were north of the alleged impact zone.
        How many explosions did Alan Wallace and Sean Boger describe?

        How many Route 27 witnesses described two planes flying across the road?

        How many witnesses described seeing an aircraft on (what must be?) a path that corresponds to the directional damage?

        1. Onesliceshort,
          I take it your bottom line is the physical evidence that is consistent with a 757 strike could not have been caused by a 757, because your witnesses did not say they saw a 757 strike.

      2. Dwain

        Let’s cut to the chase.

        You want to discount all witnesses because none of them saw “two planes”, or an aircraft on the directional damage path, or more than one explosion to “fit” with your take on what the NOC witnesses (or any witness) described.

        You can’t on the one hand accept the validity of the NOC evidence then dismiss witness testimony altogether because they throw a spanner in the works for theories you’ve simply invented.

        You have no evidence whatsoever for “two planes”. None.

        There was one aircraft witnessed within the basin seconds before the single explosion and fireball.

        The only scenario whereby an impact could have occurred is along the directional damage path. Correct?

        1. Onesliceshort,
          No, it’s not that I want to discount all witnesses, it’s that I don’t want to discount (ignore totally) all physical evidence. Furthermore, we have what I will call negative witnesses. Witnesses who did not attest to a hypothetical event, in this case, that two planes flew in the basin at different times. We have a lot of these, and none of their complement. I won’t throw out physical evidence because all we have are negative witnesses.

  19. And now, would Mr Ripley, or Ms Honneger please swear-in and take the stand?

    You can “draw straws” as to who’s on next.

    \\][//

    1. Dwain

      No, it’s not that I want to discount all witnesses, it’s that I don’t want to discount (ignore totally) all physical evidence. Furthermore, we have what I will call negative witnesses. Witnesses who did not attest to a hypothetical event, in this case, that two planes flew in the basin at different times. We have a lot of these, and none of their complement. I won’t throw out physical evidence because all we have are negative witnesses.

      Who said anything about ignoring physical evidence? By physical evidence I mean the purported damage allegedly caused by a 757. I’m actually looking forward to discussing this with you.

      But why the wordgames Dwain? “Negative witnesses”? Come on man.

      You don’t “give much weight” to eyewitness testimony but you want to introduce new terminology which basically boils down to your admission that nobody saw “two planes”? Haha.

      And you’re again insisting that two aircraft entered the Pentagon basin “at different times” when the NOC witnesses saw the aircraft and an explosion and fireball seconds afterwards. I suppose the lack of witnesses to an aircraft on the directional damage path or to multiple exterior explosions are “negative witnesses” too? Is this the way this discussion is going to go?

      Again, did the aircraft fly through the directional damage path?

      Please don’t play games. I’ve heard them all before and I’m already repeating myself.

      1. A recap on the discussion with Dwain so far

        1. He believes the NOC witnesses

        2. He believes that there were two planes. Seeing as he won’t be specific, he must believe that a “second plane” flew along the directional damage path. Which there are “negative witnesses” to.

        3. He claims that the explosion that the NOC witnesses experienced may have been a) the “second plane”
        b) internal explosions
        c) fill blank

        This would mean that the seconds between the witnessed NOC aircraft and the explosion testified to would have the “second plane” hitting the building seconds after the NOC aircraft was witnessed. That is, simultaneous.

        Two witnesses just north of the explosion, feet from the facade did not describe two or three explosions. Nor “two planes”.

        No witness on Route 27 described “two aircraft” crossing their field of vision. Nor two or three explosions.

        4. By his logic, anybody who didn’t witness his hypothetical events is a “negative witness”.

        5. Other “negative witnesses” would include “lightpole witnesses”

        6. He is actually acknowledging a flyover by his insistence that there were “two planes”

  20. Dwain complains no one addresses his evidence… so lets do just that….

    Dwain says – “1. A hole on the first floor exterior wall just wide enough to encompass the engine cores. The expanse between at the proper level to have been punched out by the dense wing undercarriage. The body tank, if it were loaded with fuel, may have been sufficiently dense to break through the wall.”

    Pure speculation…. as indicated in the use of the words “may have been”.

    Dwain says – “2. Results from the Sandia F-4 rocket sled test that shows what happens when a high speed aircraft impacts a massive reinforced concrete block (by extension, a hardened wall). The aircraft structure is decimated. This apparently is what happened to the entire upper fuselage, wing, and tail structure.”

    Are you seriously trying to compare a roughly 35,000lb object impacting a 12 foot thick concrete wall at 500 mph to a 200,000lb object impacting a roughly 1-2 foot thick wall with windows at 530 mph? Really?

    REALLY?

    Wow…. you used to have a rudimentary grasp of basic physics.. what happened?

    Dwain says – “3. Evidence of a severe impact at the second-floor level, at a position equivalent to the middle of the right wing. Turns out, this vertical section of the Pentagon was a solid-wall section. Solid-wall sections, as opposed to windowed sections, were not hardened.”

    Wait… i thought you just said the wing was “decimated” by a “hardened wall” in your Point number 2 above. Now you are saying the solid wall section impact by the upper right wing was not hardened? Shouldn’t there be a big wing hole in the second floor structure if you believe it was “not hardened”? And large wing sections inside the building? Where is the main spar Dwain? Was that also “decimated” by the second floor “non-hardened Solid-wall section”?

    Make up your mind Dwain.

    Now that I have once again addressed your “skimpy” evidence and pure speculation… Anytime you wish to answer my questions.. feel free.. .you been evading them for over a year… here they are again. I’ll have more when you get done with these…. but if past experience with you over the last year or so is any indication… you will dodge, dip, dive, duck, and dodge…..

    You have claimed in the past that the aircraft speeds reported are the “Elephant In The Room”.

    You were so firm in your conviction that you wrote to the AIAA and posted your concerns to our forum.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19896

    You have previewed and approved this article before being published….
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraft_Speed_Deets.html

    Given the above information.. .based on data provided by govt agencies.. which you approved prior to publish… do you now think a 757 can fly stable and in control at more than 150 knots over Vmo? Regardless of who is at the controls?

    And if so… what precedent do you have to establish such an opinion which is contradictory to your past analysis just 3 short years ago?

    Furthermore, why do you now base your opinions on “skimpy” evidence provided by the ‘suspect’ and an argument from ignorance?

    1. On evidence item 2, YES.
      On evidence item 3, that would be a 10-ft wide section of wing striking a “not unusually hardened” section of the Pentagon. Probably not a sufficiently dense section of wing section to punch all the way through. But, it sure did major damage.

      1. Dwain… comparing the Sandia test to the Pentagon impact is expected from some drugged out duhbunker kid sitting in his parents basement surrounded by Hot Pocket wrappers obsessing over “twoofers” for the past 10 years. Not a former NASA Director in charge of Flight Control Systems.

        tsk tsk… Dwain. I expected more from you.

        This guy gets it….

        “The nuclear power industry, which closely follows research results of the Sandia National Laboratories, has made no effort to clear up the misimpression left by the film of the test. Indeed, the test is a phony when it is used to demonstrate reactor containment survivability.

        The Nuclear Control Institute now calls on the Nuclear Energy Institute and other representatives of the nuclear power industry, to disavow the Sandia test, to acknowledge its misleading results, and to apologize for recklessly misleading the public.

        Here are some other details that dramatically illustrate just how misleading the film of the Sandia test is:

        — The fuel tanks of the Phantom jet were filled with water, not jet fuel (this to permit Sandia to measure the dispersal of the water upon impact and thus project how jet fuel would be dispersed in a crash);

        — The total weight of the Phantom fighter is only about 5% of a 767 jumbo jet;

        — The Phantom’s engine weight is only about 1/3d that of a 767 jumbo jet engine (the Nuclear Control Institute has calculated a jumbo jet engine could penetrate six feet of reinforced concrete);

        — The concrete test wall was 12 feet thick, compared with the 3.5-foot-thick concrete containment domes of nuclear power plants.

        What is needed is a peer-reviewed design analysis to demonstrate whether containment domes could resist a full-speed crash of a jumbo jet. Until such a design analysis is completed by U.S. government scientists and regulators, the industry’s claims that containments could resist such a crash should be rejected.

        Paul Leventhal
        President
        Nuclear Control Institute”

        Dwain says –
        “Probably not a sufficiently dense section of wing section to punch all the way through. But, it sure did major damage.”

        Once again your theory is supported by pure speculation indicative with the use of the word “Probably”.

        Explosives cause some major damage as well….

        I have seen the alleged right wing damage. It is hardly “major”. If impact occurred… the fore and aft right wing spars would have penetrated through that wall… as it did through the WTC Steel.

        And as expected… you evaded all my questions.

        Ok… I’m done here for now…. good luck to you Dwain.

        1. Rob,
          Criticism of the Sandia test is unwarranted. Apparently Leventhal and his Nuclear Energy Institute had an agenda. Off the top of my head, I can see the deficiencies in Leventhal’s argument.

          — The fuel tanks of the Phantom jet were filled with water in order to simulate the weight of the fuel. The objective of the test was to measure the internal forces involved with the transfer of energy from the plane to the target. Water worked just fine for that.

          — That the Phantom fighter was only 5% of a 767 jumbo is of little importance. The idea was to validate the analysis tools so the validated tools could be applied to other situations using finite element analysis (FEA). The modeling would of course include modeling of heavier airplanes, and details of the particular targets (containment domes, in the case of nuclear plants.)

          — Phantom’s engine weight is only 1/3rd that of a 767 jumbo jet (same comment as above).

          — The concrete test wall was 12 feet think, compared with the 3.5-foot-thick concrete containment domes of nuclear power plants. Well, yes. Another big difference is the 12-foot concrete test wall was sitting on a frictionless surface. Whereas, the 3.5-foot-thick container would be firmly attached to the ground. This analysis of high speed aircraft impacting hardened walls is a well-developed engineering discipline. The discipline, meaning analysis tools, are validated via the well-conducted Sandia test. Application to other situations are all done through computer modeling.

      2. As correct as Mr Deets is in his answer to the Sandia test {yes I think it is so} it still does nothing to buttress his analysis of the Pentagon event. It is still apples and oranges.

        \\][//

  21. Great post Rob.

    It’s ridiculous that Dwain Deets is even trying to float this. The Pentagon wall is 2 feet thick (brick, concrete, and limestone), the Sandia nuclear reactor wall is 12 feet thick!!!

    As Craig pointed out, he is trying to have it both ways. It exploded on the outside into confetti but also penetrated the Pentagon to the C-Ring.

    Dwain Deets was a sleeper and unfortunately CIT fell for his ruse.

    1. Broken Record

      It just shows how strong the NOC evidence actually is. They need two or three simultaneous bs theories, not to try and counter it, but acting as a buttress to eachother when each one inevitably falls to bits when we get in to the nitty gritty. No different from Good and Sarns, only split into separate camps, all slapping eachother on the back even though they each contradict the crap out of the other.

      Dwain has now pinned his colours to “two planes” (that all witnesses missed), that apparently weren’t simultaneous. But when pressed on the issue just a little, he now claims that he doesn’t know which explosion the NOC witnesses saw!

      Enter stage right Babs….

    2. “Dwain Deets was a sleeper and unfortunately CIT fell for his ruse.”~Broken Record

      When did this take place? What did Deets have to do with CIT? When was this?

      \\][//

      1. Woah, you’ve got some catching up to do. Dwain was 100% a CIT supporter. Like Barrie Zwicker, he endorsed CIT’s presentation on video. Craig Ranke drove down to Deets’ home in San Diego (and Rob, you’re wrong, he’s not single) for the filming. Check out the Dwain Deets of 2010. Do you think he might have taken an offer he couldn’t refuse between now and then in order to do such an about face?

    3. “the Sandia nuclear reactor wall is 12 feet thick!!!”~Broken Record

      The Sandia test had nothing to do with a “nuclear wall”, it was simply a solid concrete barrier. The nuclear issue was brought up by Rob. It is as irrelevant as far as the Pentagon is concerned, from both Rob’s and Dwain’s points of view.

      \\][//

  22. Good article Craig, thanks.
    For those just finding this blog, could someone please post links to OSS’s point by point annihilation of Barbara’s theories on Pilots? AFAIK, it is referred to repeatedly but not linked in this thread.

    Perhaps OSS could be persuaded to publish his dissection as a blog post here, as many people are not Pilots members and cannot comment there.

    I just sent an email to the DC911 Truth group, which I know is read by the conference organizers and George Ripley.
    ————————————————————————————————————–
    Subject header: lots of discussion about “The Barbara Honegger Show” on Truth and Shadows

    Body of email:
    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-barbara-honegger-show-dc-911-conference-spun-as-new-consensus/#comments

    A couple comments from that page:
    Honegger’s tripe has been torn apart at Pilotsfor911Truth. Completely annihilated. I don’t know what more I can do. All this is is political manouvring by an experienced PR disinfo queen. Honegger promised to get back to this blog after the conference. As did George Ripley and another guy (I can’t even remember his name).

    OSS you are correct when you point out how your research and the Pilots information and research have torn Honegger’s theory to shreds. It is all over except the crying in my opinion, she has been fully exposed as a charlatan. The point you make which is most important though is that Honegger and the others you mentioned have done a disappearing act in spite of promises to address the issues we raised. This to me is the biggest red flag of all indicating dishonesty. Just remember that you cannot be a dishonest truther. It is an either or proposition.
    ————————————-end of email————————————

    1. Sheila,
      Thank you for throwing that out there and spreading the word about this thread.

      I have to wonder if anyone is going to have the cajones to go through a point by point grilling here?

      So far only Mr Deets has had the nerve to confront this thread. I am sure many of the principle characters are well aware of this conversation and a lurking in the background.

      \\][//

    2. Not surprisingly, Shiela doesn’t mention the response she received
      to her e-mail to the D.C.9/11 Conference group, which is copied below
      (text in brackets added for commentary and/or clarification).
      Sue Wheaton was one of the main organizers of the Conference.

      On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Sue Wheaton wrote:

      Sheila — Would you please send us a link to where Honegger’s [alleged] “tripe” was “torn apart at Pilotsfor911Truth.” I’ve just scanned that site and don’t see it, but perhaps I didn’t look in the right place. I did go to the truth and shadows link and saw plenty of denunciation of Honegger but no meaningful critique of her content and theory — just denunciation of the conference and Honegger. If I were a high school debate teacher, I’d give that write up on Truth and Shadows an F.
      I think Honegger’s conclusion that a drone (presumably dressed up like an American Airline plane — I presume this is the white plane referenced in the Truth and Shadows piece but maybe not – that write up was confusing about the white plane) approaching from the north path was destroyed at the heliport pad makes a lot of sense — it comports with the CIT witness sightings of an aircraft along the north path and would account for the aluminum-like debris being picked up on 9-11. I think her discovery (or propagation of others’ discovery) of a crash or explosion north of the “fiery ball” explosion (caused probably from bombs inside where the naval auditors were looking for the missing money — a very important point, which I wish there would be more attention to) clarifies many previously unanswered questions. For that reason and because I value Honegger’s diligence and scholarship, I support her work and think she’s made a real contribution to our understanding of the Pentagon attack.
      Mainly though, I think Matt nailed it when he said at our October meeting that the visuals at the Pentagon were, and were designed to be, like a magic trick. How it was done is interesting to try to figure out; evidence is important, but the main point is: the official story about the Pentagon attack and all other aspects of 9/11 are lies. “Evidence” was fabricated; real evidence was obfuscated and destroyed, etc., etc.
      To me, the most important part of the Pentagon attack is the victims inside the building – who were they and what were they doing? The bombs which killed them (and there is much evidence of internal bombs, which we know thanks mainly to Honegger’s research) were meant to eliminate them and their work.
      I agree with Phil Fellows that your and the other truth and shadows participants’ continual and baseless criticism of Honegger and the conference in general is distasteful. Further, I find it petty and picayune. I’m not going to engage in the backing and forthing on it because one can get sucked in (like pulling on taffy or messing with tar, a trivial pursuit which can get you all messy and waste a lot of time). For that reason, I’m not going to respond to any further postings about this, although I would like to read what Pilotsfor911truth said, if you’ll send that [and which Honegger will rebut as soon as it’s made available, as she was not aware of it].
      Sue [Wheaton]

      1. Barbara let us know when you have digested OSS’s work regarding your theory. I find it unbelieveable that you haven’t looked at it already. That issue aside the letter to Sheila from Sue Wheaton does nothing to answer the many issues we have exposed with your theory. Sue sounds like a nice lady but she obviously knows very little about what we are talking about here. Your theory has been decisively debunked regardless of Sue’s opinion of us here at T + S.

  23. Dwain –

    Of course Levathal has/had an agenda. He wanted/wants accurate testing with accurate results to resist a jumbo jet impact. He recognized this cannot be accomplished by using an object which weighs nearly 95% less than the practical real world object being analyzed, using a wall which is 400% greater in thickness… on a frictionless surface. He understands physics. His agenda is Safety.

    In other words Dwain.. if the wall were anchored.. and were only 2 feet thick… (with windows no less)… and a Jumbo Jet weighing 200,000lbs+ were smashed into it at more than 500 mph… the WALL would be decimated and the aircraft would be spread out in large pieces.

    Again… I would expect such a comparison to be made by an obsessive duhbunker… not a former NASA Director who should understand internal aircraft structures such as wing spars reinforced with ribs and stringers… reinforced spars within the sections of the empennage… etc.

    Aircraft wings and tail sections are not just empty beer cans. They are highly reinforced.

    These reinforced aircraft structures are the very reason you see the WTC steel penetrated all the way out to the tips of the wing and the tip of the vertical stab. There is no such thing as “probably a less dense section of the wing”. I am almost beginning to question if you even know how a wing is constructed. Do you?

    Look at the lower left and upper right section in this picture. You will see the steel cut all the way out to the wing tips and the tip of the vertical stab.

    Now you are trying to say that a similar wing could not create such damage on a “non-hardened” wall?

    Please Dwain… save it.

    You use such pure speculation (and apparently have forgotten basic physics…) in order to support what we have been told by the govt based on your admitted “skimpy” evidence.

    What exactly is YOUR agenda?

    Hmmm….

    Have a nice day!

    1. Rob,
      Airplanes are not designed to survive high-speed impacts into hardened walls. That is why most of the structure is decimated when it strikes such a wall.

      Your comment “with windows no less” suggest you don’t know the effort the government went to to make those windowed wall sections impenetrable.

      As to the hole in the WTC, that is an entirely different subject. I’m not going there.

  24. Dwain says –
    “Airplanes are not designed to survive high-speed impacts into hardened walls. That is why most of the structure is decimated when it strikes such a wall.”

    I never claimed airplanes should “survive high speed impacts”.

    Wow… you’re really scraping the bottom of the duhbunker barrel for all your replies.. huh Mr Strawman?

    However, I do know that main spars do not turn into confetti after hitting a “non-hardened” wall “probably because it hit a less dense part of the wing”. lol….

    The WTC impact presents a good example.

    Dwain says – “Your comment “with windows no less” suggest you don’t know the effort the government went to to make those windowed wall sections impenetrable. ”

    I am well aware. I am also well aware that those windows do not compare to a 12′ thick concrete wall nor a “non-hardened solid wall”. Apparently you think they are the same.

    Dwain says – “As to the hole in the WTC, that is an entirely different subject. I’m not going there.”

    Yes.. we already aware of the points/question you evade which are fatal to your theories based on your admitted use of “skimpy” evidence.

  25. Wow Dwain I am amazed that you are even attempting to promote your bogus theory knowing as you must by now that you cannot baffle this group with BS.

    Bottom line is that:

    You have ZERO evidence to support your second plane scenario.

    You have no valid basis upon which to claim the NOC witnesses are “questionable” since they all corroborate each other and agree the plane they saw was NOC. You furthermore have no explanation for how all the witnesses failed to see the alleged second plane and lost track of time as to when the explosion and fireball happened in relation to the aircraft they saw.

    You have no legitimate explaination for the lack of identifiable plane parts in the wreckage.

    You have no explanation for the disappearance of the engines. (note the Sandia test you reference does not show the wreckage or engine remains post test so you cannot even say with any degree of confidence that the engine was decimated even in that scenario. The engine may have in fact been mangled but still there after the Sandia test.)

    You have no explaination for how the alleged impacting airliner could have even performed the maneuvers necessary to have struck the facade and done the directional damage.

    You have no explaination for how the wings, tail, and most importantly the two 12,000 pound engines did no real damage to the pentagon facade.

    All in all Dwain, your theory is as bogus as the official story or a three dollar bill, take your pick.

  26. I would really like to dispense with any further bullshit here and get another subject on the stand. Deets has turned this into a carousel. I never liked roundabouts even as a child.

    We have a rather firm understanding that Mr Deets has nothing further to offer. As we know torture is not effective in getting the truth out of an uncooperative subject. Eventually they will just say anything you want to hear to get off the waterwheel.

    \\][//

    1. HR1,

      I agree and am disembarking from the Deets carousel as of now. I would like to get back to the real issue at hand here which is the Barbara Honegger show. Her theory has so many gaping holes puched through it at this point that there is very little to be gained from a rehash. The only thing that could add to the discussion now is if Barbara offered a response of some kind. I really don’t think a meaningful response will be forthcoming but I may be proven wrong. In my opinion those who call themselves truthers and who promote a particular theory of 9/11 events should be ready to defend their position (effectively) when it is challenged. Those who refuse to debate their own theories and who refuse to openly discuss issues with those theories are highly suspect to me. HIGHLY SUSPECT!

      I know for example that if a legitimate challenge comes up about the NOC evidence that Craig or Aldo can and will deal with it head on in an honest way without evasion. That is the way real truthers operate, they face opponents in the open and respond effectively to challenges and if they cannot respond effectively to a challenge they conceed the point and change their position accordingly to account for the new information. In other words real truthers are capable of admitting when they are wrong.

      All I know is that Honegger does not operate the way a real truther would in fact quite the opposite. Her and Kevin Ryan and David Chandler and Jon Cole and a few other assorted, so called, truthers operate just like JREFers. They evade, make excuses, obfuscate the issue, avoid debate, and generally function like trolls lobing their garbage from afar and refusing to address challenges. David Chandler can’t lower himself to respond to CIT who tore his pentagon paper to shreds, he is too far above the fray you see. What a damn coward. Honegger takes a slightly different approach where she apparently responds to critics but when you examine her responses they either do not address the points at issue or intentionally confuse the issue further. That is as dishonest and cowardly as Chandler. Kevin Ryan much like Chandler will not lower himself to respond to us rabble either.

      Real truthers do not operate that way they face their opponents head on and defeat their arguments with better ones. The only people who evade the discussion are those who are either lying intentionally or who are pathologically unable to admit their mistakes and so will not allow themselves to be put into a situation where they would have to admit those mistakes. This is cognitive disonance in action and it is rampant in many so called leaders of the truth movement.

      1. “This is cognitive disonance in action and it is rampant in many so called leaders of the truth movement.”~Ruffadam

        Absolutely. And isn’t that so of so-called leaders in any and all movements?
        That seems to me the core problem of “Leadership”. And by the same token, in the Followers of leaders.

        Like you, I become more doubtful by the hour that Honegger, or even any of her supporters will dare to attempt a response here. It is so much easier to pretend this thread doesn’t exist and hope it goes away.

        Therefore, rather than let it just go away, and rather than await guests who are unlikely to show, why don’t we reiterate what we each see as he most important arguments we have made in earlier threads, and maybe fill those arguments out some. And then this thread won’t go away – at least not prematurely.

        \\][//

      2. Dear Mr. Adam Ruff wrote:

        In my opinion those who call themselves truthers and who promote a particular theory of 9/11 events should be ready to defend their position (effectively) when it is challenged. Those who refuse to debate their own theories and who refuse to openly discuss issues with those theories are highly suspect to me. HIGHLY SUSPECT!

        Not too worry. I don’t plan on detouring this thread into multiple neutron nuclear DEW devices at the WTC, my 9/11 hobby-horse.

        I just want to point out, however, that I’ve promoted this particular nuclear theory of 9/11 events and defended my position effectively when challenged [coincidently by Mr. Ruff and Mr. Rogue.] The two even conspired at one point to put together the definitive 9/11-nuking-debunking article on COTO or elsewhere [but I’m not sure much traction was actually made on that planned and boasted effort that would have had my full support, because I don’t relish being the sole duped useful idiot on the topic.] But it is MIA.

        Moreover, I wanted to point out that Mr. Ruff on August 9, 2013 came up with his own [hit-and-run] “particular theory” [“No radiation = no nuke”] but then did not defend his position (so it wasn’t defended effectively) when challenged. Ergo, “those who refuse to debate their own theories and who refuse to openly discuss issues with those theories are highly suspect to me. HIGHLY SUSPECT!”

        Given that some nukes almost went missing rather recently resulting in the heads rolling of a couple nuke generals, and some nukes might be unaccounted for, “successful deployment” on 9/11 without significant awareness or backlash could bring it back into play for another round.

        Mr. Ruff writes:

        Real truthers do not operate that way they face their opponents head on and defeat their arguments with better ones. The only people who evade the discussion are those who are either lying intentionally or who are pathologically unable to admit their mistakes and so will not allow themselves to be put into a situation where they would have to admit those mistakes. This is cognitive disonance in action and it is rampant in many so called leaders of the truth movement.

        Eggs-zact-lee. Let’s all just walk our talk.

        //

      3. As these charges against Mr Ruff are unfounded and outrageous I have left a further comment for Mr Ruff’s benefit down-thread:

        OCTOBER 30, 2013 – 5:17 PM

        \\][//

  27. Off Topic, but relevant in a sideways aspect…
    Here is an interesting tidbit about one of our “favorite people”, Cass Sunstein:

    Thought cop Cass Sunstein “reviewing” the NSA for Obama

    “There are currently two reviews ongoing. One is within the White House, run out of the National Security Council, which is what Carney is referencing. The other is an outside group, consisting of members that were appointed by President Obama—including the former acting director of the CIA, Mike Morell, and Cass Sunstein, the husband of U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and former head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs… (end quote; emphasis supplied).”

    Michael Hoffman’s Afterword:

    Cass Sunstein is leading a review of police state practices in the NSA for President Obama? Is this a misprint or a joke? Sunstein is the thought cop who, in 2008, co-wrote Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03, “Conspiracy Theories,” advocating that the Federal government suppress and “cognitively infiltrate” conspiracy theorists.

    Read more at:
    http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2013/10/thought-cop-cass-sunstein-reviewing-nsa.html

    \\][//

  28. In a comment above, I posted Deets’ 2010 stance when he endorsed the NoC evidence including the flyover conclusion. Upon having read this entire (at present) thread, I’m at the point of 100% convinced that Deets doesn’t believe the stuff he is putting forth. He did not have a genuine conversion towards “impact.” As I’ve spent time with him in person, I’d like to think that he wasn’t a mole from the outset, nor did he accept an offer he couldn’t refuse between 2010 and now. (I.e. either the suitcase of $100 bills or the bullet to the head). Here is what I would like to think: I He’s actually going out of his way to prove how skimpy his position actually is, in order to even further discredit the already discredited “impact” clique that refuses to debate their opposition. Don’t forget, he’s the only person who even has the balls to show up here and debate the “impact” position; you never see people like Victoria Ashley debating that position on a turf that isn’t rigged toward that position.

    I actually think we should thank Dwain for playing Devil’s Advocate. He has shown just how empty, devoid, bankrupt, pick your word, the “impact” scenario is. The “negative witnesses” bit made me laugh and spew tea at my monitor. If the likes of Frank Legge, Vic Ashley, Erik Larson, Kevin Ryan, David Chandler, Jon Cole, John Wyndham, Michael Wolsey, Mark “the plane clipped the VDOT antenna” Gaffney and the rest of the Propaganda Team are lurking and reading this thread (and it’s a no-brainer that at least a few are), they’re probably stomping their feet, banging their heads against their monitors and cursing the crap out of Dwain right now, for discrediting the “impact” scenario so thoroughly. Their blood is boiling that Dwain didn’t get the memo that you’re not supposed to debate this on an unrigged playing field!

    Now that my two cents are out of the way there, I agree with Willy: It’s time for Honegger to enter stage right and take the stand!

    1. Mr Syed,
      I began this discussion with that same view, and asked Dwain if he was just taking a fall. But I put that in terms of doing it for Honegger…and that may have been just enough of a point of detail for him to deny it and still be ‘honest’ – you may be perfectly right here. because the skimpy became the main meal, and skimpy is as skimpy does – and the only time it has real quality and worth is when applied to a bikini.

      \\][//

    2. I WILL definitely be posting a reply to this most recent post by Craig,
      which I’ve just been alerted to, in the near future.
      Barbara Honegger

  29. Hope you don’t mind Craig, but I’m reposting this before it gets lost:

    A recap on the discussion with Dwain so far

    1. He believes the NOC witnesses

    2. He believes that there were two planes. Seeing as he won’t be specific, he must believe that a “second plane” flew along the directional damage path. Which there are “negative witnesses” to.

    3. He claims that the explosion that the NOC witnesses experienced may have been a) the “second plane”
    b) internal explosions
    c) fill blank

    This would mean that the seconds between the witnessed NOC aircraft and the explosion testified to would have the “second plane” hitting the building seconds after the NOC aircraft was witnessed. That is, simultaneous.

    Two witnesses just north of the explosion, feet from the facade did not describe two or three explosions. Nor “two planes”.

    No witness on Route 27 described “two aircraft” crossing their field of vision. Nor two or three explosions.

    4. By his logic, anybody who didn’t witness his hypothetical events is a “negative witness”.

    5. Other “negative witnesses” would include “lightpole witnesses”

    6. He is actually acknowledging a flyover by his insistence that there were “two planes”

    Bottom line, Dwain is riding roughshod over all of the witness testimony on record because he believes that the damage had to have been caused by a 757. His impact theory is based on nothing more than the alleged impact zone.

    The sooner you drop the “two planes, one impact, one flyover” scenario and stick to the “directional damage path plane” alone the quicker we can move on and discuss the “physical evidence” Dwain.

    Deal?

    1. The problem is, North Path Flyover and 757 Impact are in direct conflict with each other. The only way they both can be true is if there were two planes.

      Although I get lazy and say, yes, I believe the North path witnesses, it isn’t a 99.9% belief. Better to call it a high probability the North path witnesses are correct. Same with the 757 impact evidence.

      In both cases, I think it is better than 50% probability for each is true.

      Let’s say, I believe North Path Flyover at a 60% level, and the damage at the Pentagon was caused by a 757, also at 60%.

      BTW, when I say North Path Flyover at 60%, I mean everything these witnesses say is true to their minds, including their statements about hearing or seeing a big explosion. Remember, it was a flyover, so those statements we are assuming are in error.

      This means, 60 + 60 = 120%, too high when only 100% is available. I can get down to the 100% by giving a 20% probability there were two planes. Not really an unreasonable possibility, even with the absence of non-negative two-plane witnesses.

      1. Dwain

        More word games?

        “Non negative two-plane witnesses”?

        Seriously?

        “Remember, it was a flyover, so those statements we are assuming are in error.”

        The NOC trajectory rules out impact, which you acknowledge. You’re now trying to blow smoke as to whether they actually experienced the explosion and fireball seconds after seeing the aircraft using a play on words?

        Is it your intention to rationally debate this or are you just trying to wind me up? If I were sitting having a coffee with you in person, could you look me straight in the eye and repeat this?

        I mean, you can question the validity of witness testimony but to paint them all as idiots?

        1) They saw the aircraft NOC.

        2) They saw, heard and felt the explosion within seconds.

        3) Your baseless hypothesis would have two aircraft simultaneously entering the Pentagon basin based on a sequence of events that was over in seconds. Big plane, boom.

        4) Not one witness described seeing two planes. From any angle.

        As far as I’m concerned, you haven’t a leg to stand on regarding this “two plane” scenario. Even you know it. You’re simply thinking ahead to the next play on words rather than looking for evidence to support your claims.

        Why is it that when the Pentagon issue is discussed it trails off in to the land of wordsmiths? Brian Good, Chris Sarns, Barbara Honegger and now Dwain Deets.

        Tell you what Dwain, I’m going to start discussing the “physical evidence” before you embarrass yourself even more.

        (No wonder Honegger avoids this blog!)

        First off, to see if this discussion is going to trail off in to more wordplay:

        1) You keep repeating “757”. Was it a Boeing 757?

        2) Which trajectory did this aircraft take?

        3) Did it cause the visible damage (light poles, Lloyde’s cab – ask Barbara – generator trailer) before reaching the facade?

        1. Onesliceshort,
          Concerning the physical evidence.
          757, Boeing 757? I probably should say “757” meaning it could have been some other transport with engines spaced apart from each other about the same as a Boeing 757. I don’t know of any other manufacture of an airplane designated a 757.

          “Did 757 cause visible damage (light poles, cab, generator damage)?” No, relative to the light poles and cab. Generator damage? That is the most difficult issue as far as I’m concerned. I explain all this in my DC 911 conference presentation.

          Presentation is at http://youtu.be/K79h6osGtsM

      2. “The problem is, North Path Flyover and 757 Impact are in direct conflict with each other. The only way they both can be true is if there were two planes.”~Dwain Deets

        This would only be a valid dilemma if the 757 impact evidence were actually convincing. It isn’t, and it is not merely the counterbalance of the witness testimony, it is facts of physics and aerodynamics, and ‘negative evidence’.

        Getting down to a 20% probability there were two planes, on paper statistically is one thing, making a rational argument that there is any basis to assert there were two planes an entirely different matter. Deets’ propositions have become a matter of hammering square pegs into round holes at this point.

        \\][//

  30. Dwain says –

    “Let’s say, I believe North Path Flyover at a 60% level, and the damage at the Pentagon was caused by a 757, also at 60%.”

    Mr Deets, how does your probability percentage factor in when you have assigned only a 30% probability of aircraft control based on high speed flight well in excess of aircraft limitations?

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20178&view=findpost&p=10787558

    Dwain says – “it is highly unlikely the [flight] profile could have been flown as reported. In other words, it seemed to be physically and aeronautically impossible” – Dwain Deets, within the first minute of the below video

    Mr Deets, how do you factor a 60% probability for a 757 causing the physical damage when you have already stated, based on your expertise, that the flight profile required to cause the physical damage is “highly unlikely” and “impossible” for a 757?

    How do you factor a 60% probability when you admit your opinion is based on “skimpy” physical evidence? How do you factor such a probability when most of your current theory is pure speculation and contradicts everything you have stated in the past based on your expertise?

    I am going to take a guess you won’t be answering these questions either….

      1. It appears Dwain now thinks the 757 approaching the Pentagon at “high speed” was on rails as was the Sandia test? lol…

        I agree with those who feel that Dwain might have been compromised. But for other reasons…..🙂

  31. Barbara Honegger couldn’t chime in to the previous conference thread fast enough, with her spin such as: “The Conference organizers leaned over backwards to try to give Ranke what he wanted, and he STILL refused.”

    That she hasn’t chimed in to this thread in over 100 (so far) comments says a lot.

  32. Dear Mr. Deets,

    Regretfully, I must pile on with all of the others, although I approach it from a different direction. You write:

    The problem is, North Path Flyover and 757 Impact are in direct conflict with each other. The only way they both can be true is if there were two planes.

    This isn’t a problem for me. Ms. Honneger and you are the ones arguing that a 757 impact must be true, and therefore come to a conclusion about the necessity for two planes that has even skimpier evidence to support it. Where are the eye witnesses to two planes? Where is the radar data showing two objects? (Or did one fly for a long stretch under the radar?) Given the timing of this, how can there be no witnesses to seeing two planes “hot on the heels” or “within-visual-distance” with one another? One low flying aircraft roaring through the area and basin is certainly going to cue people to pay attention, and a second close-by aircraft would have been noticed.

    At another point in the discussion above, the Sandia fighter-jet-into-a-wall video came up. At the speeds it was rocketed along its rail, wasn’t much but confetti left of the plane. You extrapolate this to 9/11.

    The issue is the alleged velocity of the aircraft. Where does it come from? Using simple physics [time = distance / velocity], AFAIK not a single eye witness [distance from Pentagon known] reported a time [between seeing the plane and seeing/hearing results of Pentagon explosion] that calculates to be the alleged velocity of the aircraft, which was 150 knots greater than its Vmo. They all said it was slower. Slower velocity, less velocity-squared in the energy equation to do the Sandia-fighter-mash into tiny pieces.

    Where did the alleged velocity come from? One source was the flight data recorder, which had the problems of (a) missing the final four seconds, (b) suddenly recovering the final four seconds, (c)_ analog and digital altimeters indicating two different heights, (d) cockpit door not registering a breach [okay, maybe I’ve confused this the FDR from another plane but is mentioned here as proof of how manufactured FDR data supported the overall lie and official story.]

    Radar is another source for the alleged velocity. I personally haven’t seen the raw data. The nifty 3D imaging from the radar data supposedly shows the flight path and its speed. Somebody can step in and tell me whether this radar data shows a velocity at low altitude 150 knots greater than the alleged plane’s Vmo at high altitude. For the sake of discussion, assume the velocity valid from this radar data. Then, where’s the data on the second aircraft?

    Nope. It is mighty suspicious to me for this detour into an alleged second Pentagon aircraft 11-12 years later. If it would have happened, long ago it would have come up and been supported by many witnesses, radar, etc. I don’t believe it.

    What I can believe is that a construction trailer was parked askew (e.g., neither perpendicular nor parallel) to Pentagon walls, stocked with a missile and an explosive package of aircraft aluminum that it would spew over the lawn (to mimick the debris from the Sandia rocket-sled.)

    It is more believable to me that this would take a page from the scripts of Hollywood in terms of providing just enough manufactured evidence for the live audiences to make (erroneous) cause-and-effect connections. “Saw low-flying airplane. Heard Explosiong. Saw smoke at Pentagon. Found downed light poles. Airplane is the cause of these effects.” Shanksville (Flight 93) is another manufactured crash site.

    It is easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they’ve been fooled. ~Mark Twain

    //

  33. This is the main problem with Dwain Deets.

    He is an Aeronautical Engineer who is not only familiar with flight control systems… but is also (once was…) familiar with aerodynamics.

    He spends most of his time endorsing information based on the expertise of Structural Engineers.

    As you have seen above in Dwain’s own words… he has no expertise whatsoever in Collapse mechanisms. If he were called into a court of law regarding Building Collapse… not only would the Judge laugh him off the stand during voir dire…. but so would everyone else in the court room.

    He has no expertise in impact analysis nor structural components.

    He is in an expert in Flight Control Systems. And as such.. that is where he should be granted credibility.

    Bottom line… Dwain Deets follows whoever is “popular” at the time. The very definition of group think.

  34. Just as an aside to Mr Ruff,

    I know that you are as aware as I am that there are some issues that can take a debunking and keep on punking. It all depends on the proponent and whether they will accept that the proposition has in fact failed on scrutiny. Certain issues simply will not die due to persistence whether they are valid or not. That being the case, those who see it as invalid are no longer compelled to address the issue after giving it a fair hearing.

    Such persistence will eventually become a matter of harassment, such as being thrown in one’s face over and again no matter the venue or topic of discussion.
    The term “fair hearing” may be picked up as though it were a brand new ball for a brand new game, but this is a ruse of verbosity and ever shifting strategies to reiterate long dead issues.

    I would say enough, but that too is picked up as yet another ball for another game, and all in masquerade, for it is in fact the same old game. And so it goes on and on and on, boring to the bone, and tiring to the soul.

    \\][//

    1. HR1,

      Agreed. Many of us, you and I in particular have given SEO’s theories a fair hearing for example and they have failed under scrutiny however he/she/it persists and even claims that these bogus arguments have not failed. The question for us now becomes what to do with an individual who refuses to recognize when their arguments have failed? Should we keep responding to them over and over and over even though the same rebuttals have already been made many times? NO! We need to hold their feet to the fire and insist that they counter our arguments that were already made EFFECTIVELY before we entertain further discussion. Simply waiving hands in the air and saying an argument is no good is NOT a valid debate response. SEO loves to do this and trolls use it as a favorite tactic. They ignore our arguments as though they don’t exist and then pretend they are having a legitimate discussion. IT ISN’T A LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION. In fact in a real debate failure to rebut or respond effectively to your opponents point means you lose that point and perhaps lose the entire debate if the point is important enough. In a blog setting however people are not held to any standards of legitimate discussion so they can and do simply ignore decisive rebuttals and return later with the same arguments as though they were never rebutted. This issue vexes me I must admit because those such as SEO repeat debunked material over and over because they know that at least some part of the audience is not aware of the debunk. Furthermore the repeated bogus points if not countered each and evey time stand a chance of derailing a thriving discussion. This tactic is totally dishonest and dispicable of course but I think it goes hand in hand with trolls and operatives alike. I would like to think about this problem as a group and see if we can come up with an effective counter to it without becoming censors.

      1. Adam,

        It has gone so far beyond the the original issue of his hypothesis and morphed into fanatic sniping. And it is that, which seems to occur on almost every thread that needs to be curtailed. I don’t care that he hangs on to his theory or not. What I don’t want to deal with anymore is this disparagement of our character. There is no sane basis for these outrageous allegations to continue. They have nothing to do with the original technical argument, but are spawned in a spooky fanaticism that simply cannot let go.

        It is way past time that it is let go. And as in all situations of dealing with fanaticism, just that sentence; ‘It is way past time that it is let go’ is what triggers the urge to strike out once more: Thus this perpetual roundabout of utter insanity.

        Obviously being silent as to challenging him does not work. You were merely speaking to what you see as proper debate, and it had nothing to do with him. Yet he had to jump you one more time. I don’t know how long this bullshit has gone on but it has to stop. Now.

        \\][//

      2. Dear Mr. Ruff,

        I composed two versions of my response to you. The first version was utterly destroyed when the application used for authoring crashed, which I attribute to residual artifacts of other work I was doing with it over the last couple of days (that also led to another crash).

        The second version (2013-10-31) was posted here, but got stuck in the moderation queue, which I attribute to its length, Mr. McKee wanting to review it, and then real-life preventing him from getting back to it. No problem. However, since then, I realized it didn’t need to be published here and asked Mr. McKee this morning to delete it.

        The version 2 response is published here 2013-11-01.

        An odd coincidence to note is that Mr. Rogue’s sockpuppet “Verity” was thinking about me yesterday (2013-10-31) at about the exact same time my posting was languishing in the moderation queue here. And the banter that he and Mr. Rogue throw back and forth not only touched on themes from my unpublished posting but even put a different spin on them, kind of like a pre-emptive move.

        Hmmmm. Most curious.

        At any rate, Mr. Ruff, you’re the one who boasts:

        In fact in a real debate failure to rebut or respond effectively to your opponents point means you lose that point and perhaps lose the entire debate if the point is important enough.

        This is to let you know that (a) I have rebutted your posting on the themes of this thread and (b) I am calling you out there to defend your hit-and-run “No Radiation = No Nukes” and to have a legitimate discussion on the subject of 9/11 neutron nuclear DEW. Walk the talk, son.

        Otherwise, I will graciously accept your resignation and the argument by default will be won by me.

        Have a great weekend, everybody!

        //

      3. Yes //, your increased irrelevance is duly noted. So just take your ‘victory trophy’ and leave it at that. Fair enough? You might parade it around at coto, I am sure they will be more than impressed.

        Your accusations, yet again of “sock-puppeting” is so old and trite that it is now simply a laughing matter. I will chuckle all weekend, if that is what you mean by enjoying it.

        \\][//

    2. Dear Mr. Rogue,

      I see that your 25% posting rate is down on this thread from from its usual &glt;33% elsewhere on T&S. A good trend! But that doesn’t mean that you should devote any of your Walmart-Greeter attention to my postings to pick up that pace. Just the opposite! This isn’t your blog; that’s not your duty. What Rob Balsamo said: “who made you King of the debate?”

      Run along now to your “wonderful” blog and make your sniping comments to yourself or your VerityTwo sockpuppet. Speaking of sock drawers, where’s Mr. A.Wright been hiding? You could use him about now.

      I so look forward to your next “wacky wanky” installment of Carnival d’Maxifuckanus, where truly all of your commentary concerning me belongs so as not to pollute what might be worthy in your other “wacky wanking” efforts. Ah, but the old-boy genius autodictat ain’t got that part of blogging figured out yet.

      Here’s a tip for your “list of articles”: <BR>, which stands for “line break” in HTML-speak. The alternative is to configure the posting via a checkbox to automatically turn a carriage return in your text into <BR> when rendered from the WordPress database. Sort of depends on the source with regards to which is better. Did you know Microsoft Word will let your search/replace on special characters like the carriage return (^p)? Consider that another useful tip.

      One final thought returning to your frequency of postings. It deserves to go down even further on T&S and increase significantly on your blog, now that you have such a wonderful “wacky wanking” blog to capture the witticisms of others that you feel compelled to post & share. Focus. On your blog. Not here.

      //

      1. The record shows that SEO was the first one to attempt to derail this topic by posting a totally off topic rant about my comment that had nothing to do with him/her/it. Since that post SEO has been trying his/her/it’s best to drag this thread down into the muck of 9/11 nukes (a totally discredited and thoroughly debunked theory which has NOTHING to do with the Barbara Honegger show article this thread is about.) My question is why is SEO unable to maintain focus on the topic and stick to it? I think it is because he/she/it has other motives and/or is bat shit crazy. Personally I lean towards bat shit crazy.

        Anyone else know of nukes that explode and leave behind no radiation? Some new technology perhaps? When someone makes me aware of such a device I will address SEO’s nuke theory again but until that time as far as I am concerned his/her/it’s theory has been decisively debunked and he/she/it is simply too mentally ill with OCD or something to drop it and admit the theory belongs in the garbage. No radiation = NO NUKES! Get it through your thick skull SEO and quit derailing threads jerk.

    3. First let me say that I appreciate the fact T&S is moderated by Craig McKee. I appreciate it even more when real-life prevents him from doing his duties promptly. Why? Because such delays s.l.o.w. down the debate in a needed way for more contemplative postings. It cuts down the “twitter-style” postings that don’t add much except back-slapping “me-too-isms” (or “you’re an idiot”) that over-run and flood other forums. Moderation delays, whether or not accidental, impose a calming down period. Sure, some heated postings do get approved maybe without as much moderation as they might deserve (including some of mine), but without instant-approval, it becomes more difficult for tit-for-tat shoot-from-the-hip escalation of flame wars.

      Mr. Ruff wrote [2013-11-01 – 8:27 pm]:

      The record shows that SEO was the first one to attempt to derail this topic by posting a totally off topic rant about my comment that had nothing to do with him/her/it. Since that post SEO has been trying his/her/it’s best to drag this thread down into the muck of 9/11 nukes…

      The record shows this particular “he/she/it” relating “his/her/its” posting to the theme at hand, which was Mr. Ruff’s rules for debate. “He/She/It” had hoped that when Mr. Ruff’s August 9, 2013 actions were held up to his own standard, Mr. Ruff would rise up and walk-the-talk to rectify being so hypocritical on several matters in his own rules for debate. “He/She/It” called out Mr. Ruff for his hit-and-run in the hopes that Mr. Ruff would follow “his/her/its” link, comment there, and finish what Mr. Ruff started… PRECISELY so that it would ~not~ derail the discussion here on T&S.

      Not to bright, our Mr. Ruff.

      From “his/her/its” perspective, Mr. Ruff has never substantiated his hypnotic suggestion about “[9/11 nukes being] a totally discredited and thoroughly debunked theory.” Not with links, not with witty words reflecting a deep understanding of the subject, nada.

      Mr. Dennis writes:

      i am not up on the nukes thing…

      Until I can merge the two along with salient points from their comments, here’s a couple of articles I wrote that can assist you understanding 9/11 nukes and where discussion can be continued.

      http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/
      http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2

      You’ll note that Mr. Rogue played a prominent role in the discussions. You’ll also note in the comments to the second where Mr. Adam Ruff does a hit-and-run [August 9, 2013].

      I love how Mr. Ruff proves that his high school diploma in debate was not wasted:

      I think it is because he/she/it [SEO] has other motives and/or is bat shit crazy. Personally I lean towards bat shit crazy.

      Let’s go with “and”. For once, Mr. Ruff and I are in complete agreement! No contention whatsoever.

      In closing, “he/she/it” most certainly has other motives: TRUTH. Nuggets of TRUTH belong with the TRUTH. Nuggets are championed, even when hosted within disinformation vehicles.

      Mr. Ruff, this link is calling you out on your “no radiation” hypnotic suggestions. Go to it. Read (not just the comment but the article and all comments.) Defend yourself there. Or STFU.

      //

  35. Dwain

    I know what it’s like to walk into a blog or forum where the questions are coming from multiple angles. I used to saunter in to JREF and bounce them around the room armed only with the NOC evidence coupled with the complete lack of verifiable evidence to support an alleged impact. Identified aircraft parts. An FDR (that makes sense) complete with serial number. A damage report that either admitted that it couldn’t explain certain aspects of an alleged impact scenario or blatantly lied/exaggerated. “Skimpy” at best.

    Since 2006, not one “SOC witness” has been brought forward. Not one! And you try to introduce another breed of witness in the “two plane witness” which you admit doesn’t exist. No dice.

    My offer still stands if you want to discuss the “physical evidence” but parameters need to be set before this so there are no surprises (like the two plane scenario):

    1) You keep repeating “757″. Was it a Boeing 757?

    2) Which trajectory did this aircraft take?

    3) Did it cause the visible damage (light poles, Lloyde’s cab – ask Barbara – generator trailer) before reaching the facade?

  36. WW says – “I don’t know how long this bullshit has gone on but it has to stop. Now.”

    Hey Willy… who made you King of the debate?

    Do you know why no one knows who you are outside of the comment section of this little corner of the internet?

    It is because you never venture outside of this little corner of the internet.

    So please… do not dictate to others here… as you have absolutely no weight in my world.

    Anytime you wish to venture outside of this blog and perhaps learn the simple steps in real blogging and forums… the rest of the blog world is your oyster.

    Then again.. you still havent a clue how to post on our forum… among 3000 others.

    I am a bit tired of your arrogant attitude and dictating to others who are respected.

    You keep doing that.. and you will find yourself alone here.

    1. Rob I don’t know if you are aware that the comment you quoted from Willy was directed to me and was about Senior El Once (SEO). SEO has been a weird stalker/troll towards Willy for a long long time and nowadays has been stalking me whenever I post something here. I don’t know where your anger towards Willy comes from and I guess I don’t really want to know but I will say this about him he is usually right on the money in what he says and is without a doubt one of the most intelligent people I know.

      I regard you also as a very intelligent person Rob but you do come off very hostile towards people sometimes. The reason I no longer post on your forum is because of the way you and Craig Ranke treated me concerning the Dakota report. No need to rehash it here but neither you nor Craig showed me any respect whatsoever nor did you really listen at all to what I was saying about the bogus report. The attitude was that you and he had already figured everything out concerning the report (you haven’t) and I was an idiot who was just wasting everyone’s time. The condescending attitude was just dripping off of you both. Well I did not appreciate it and I can assure you that you and Craig Ranke are not the only smart people on the block. I appreciate your work and his work and still promote it widely because I think you are right on the money yourselves most of the time. That is, you are both right about 9/11 issues but neither one of you seem to know the first thing about how to get along with other people who are just as intelligent as yourselves. When it comes to promoting your work I have to be honest Rob, you and Craig are amateurs at best. Your work should have millions of views online by now because it is solid great work. You should have hundreds of thousands of supporters.

      Loose Change got tens of millions of views so did Zeitgeist. Your evidence is so much more potent than what they presented yet both CIT and P4T have only a tiny fraction of the views and supporters. Why?

      I will tell you why Rob. It is because neither you nor Craig Ranke have the first clue how to relate to people or how to effectively present your evidence and make it appealing to a wide audience. Yes it can be done without compromising the content. You both know your stuff when it comes to the 9/11 evidence there is no doubt about that but your brains and your big bag of 9/11 facts does not make you any good at dealing with people or in understanding how to reach a large diverse audience. I do know about those things Rob so I can say with authority that you and Craig both would do very well in getting a grip on exactly what it is that you DON’T know. Arrogance is a weakness not a strength Rob and I will tell you this you are not the only really smart guy in town and Willy may just have an IQ point or two more than you do (I said may).

      In any case Rob I don’t really expect a response from you about this I just wanted to say what I think about the way you just treated Willy and a few others I know of. A little humility goes a long long way Rob. Something for you and Craig Ranke both to think about.

    2. Rob Balsamo on OCTOBER 31, 2013 – 12:08 AM, quotes me thus:

      “WW says – “I don’t know how long this bullshit has gone on but it has to stop. Now.”

      Perhaps Mr Balsamo can explain back to me exactly what the bullshit is I am making reference to. And if he has any idea of the topic Mr Ruff and I are discussing in the aside, perhaps then I will give some merit to Balsamo’s complaints.

      \\][//

    3. Rob, I’m not sure why, in your remarks above, you felt the need to take some not-so-thinly veiled shots at this blog. I suppose calling it “this little corner of the Internet” could be innocent enough on its own, but you add:

      Anytime you wish to venture outside of this blog and perhaps learn the simple steps in real blogging and forums… the rest of the blog world is your oyster.

      What do you mean “real blogging”?

      1. Craig,

        I think Balsamo owes all of us an apology. A sincere apology.

        I could say a lot more, but I will let it pass. This time.

        \\][//

  37. I will be responding to this latest post of Craig’s,
    of which I’ve just been made aware, and to this
    comments thread in the near future.
    Barbara Honegger

  38. Adam Ruff says – “your work should have had millions of views by now”.

    Our website has had 8,659,029 views to date. My youtube channel has had 1,762,174 views.

    The above numbers do not include the millions of views from people uploading our work to their own websites, blogs, Facebook and youtube, nor the thousands of DVD’s i have shipped around the world… .copied and handed out to others…. etc.

    Dont worry… i will no longer be posting here at TandS anymore.

    As for the Dakota Report.. .not really sure what you are talking about… but from what i remember .. it was poorly sourced and went nowhere. No one was holding a gun to your head to stop posting it anywhere else.

    And for the record… I sent this to Craig McKee on Facebook last night after i made my post and before it was approved.

    Rob Balsamo
    11:42pm
    dont approve my post to WW…. im just venting….. delete it.

    Rob Balsamo
    11:59pm

    well…. i guess you approved it.. so leave it…

    He read it… .then 5 mins later approved the post.

    I asked Craig to post this article to our forum since our forum automatically sends out emails to thousands of our members when a new post is made. He got 1 reply at our forum…. and perhaps only 5 or 6 people here make up all of the comments. A large percentage made by me.

    Enjoy go round and round on a topic that perhaps only a handful of people care about.

    Take care!

    1. Rob,

      I approved your comment last night and then went to bed. I only saw your message to me asking me to pull it when I got up this morning. You said leave it, so I left it. Why would you say, “I guess you approved it” if I hadn’t? I just ask for the record…

      So what are you trying to accomplish by insulting me, my article, and my blog? Not to mention those who comment here? You said you liked the piece originally; now you dismiss it condescendingly. I write what I want, and people either read it or they don’t. What exactly do you think you gain by attacking those who support you?

      It also seems that you have removed my article thread from your forum. Is that the case? What exactly is your problem?

    2. We often come across those who cannot admit it when they are wrong. They come up with first one, and then another excuse. They shift the blame of there own mistakes to others. They get angry and compensate by lashing out further. The thoughtlessly burn bridges that they themselves worked hard to construct earlier…all in a fit of self righteous ego-flame.

      Mr Balsamo may have acted in haste in pushing send on his first “vent” against me here, but he has now had the chance to sober up and reassess his own admitted “mistake” – but he is not reassessing, he is reiterating and compounding further to feed a ravenous ego.

      Where a simple apology would have served him well, he has turned to sneering boasts instead.

      Well as it is said; “Ye reap that which ye sow”.

      \\][//

  39. Barbara (quoting from an email):

    For that reason, I’m not going to respond to any further postings about this, although I would like to read what Pilotsfor911truth said, if you’ll send that [and which Honegger will rebut as soon as it’s made available, as she was not aware of it].

    You weren’t aware of my rebuttal of your theories Barbara? Should I go retrieve your initial response to it (re Sean Boger) on Craig’s last blog? Or where you said that you would respond to it when the DC conference was over?

    Tsk tsk. Bad form Barbara. Maybe Sue should go have a look at it?

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=getnewpost

  40. Maybe Sheila could pass these links on to Sue Wheaton? I don’t think Sue is aware of how Barbara’s theories actually require a hatchet job on both the NOC witness testimony and logic. Maybe Sue should read the rebuttal at Pilotsfor911Truth for herself?

    Here are just a few of the specific rebuttals:

    NOC witnesses

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809504

    Sean Boger

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809601

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809640

    The white plane

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809712

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809715

    “Millions of pieces of aircraft debris”

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809488

    “The helicopter that destroyed the plane”

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809487

    I should also add that my study of Barbara Honegger’s theories regarding the operational side of the Pentagon event aren’t just kneejerk wholesale rejections but are sourced and very detailed. And I try to lay out means of further investigation (esp the alleged time of the exterior explosion and the “white plane”).

  41. After reading Sue Wheaton’s reply to Shelia’s email, I think I have a very good idea as to the tactical nature involved in sending Dwain Deets over here to this forum first; to stir things up and marinate the thread before any of the others involved in the conference would appear. It is a replay of the tactic used at the conference itself – where Deets played the fall-guy to set the stage for Honegger’s triumphant entrance.

    The thread has grown to over a hundred thirty comments already at this point, with all the inevitable side trails, bickering and distractions of any free-form conversation. In other words, prepped for mining as a precursor to a PR slam.

    Note the timing of Ms Honegger’s first comment. What was going on further downthread?
    A blow-up between those who had previously had a congenial relationship. A crisis to take advantage of. Seeing this as happenstance is jejune. We are dealing with a highly professional PR team here in my opinion.

    \\][//

    1. Willy

      How’s about this for a brass neck?

      Quoted from the same e mail

      I think Honegger’s conclusion that a drone (presumably dressed up like an American Airline plane…..) approaching from the north path was destroyed at the heliport pad makes a lot of sense — it comports with the CIT witness sightings of an aircraft along the north path and would account for the aluminum-like debris being picked up on 9-11. I think her discovery (or propagation of others’ discovery) of a crash or explosion north of the “fiery ball” explosion…

      Hmmmm…..Sue should definitely read the rebuttal. Has Barbara Honegger belatedly done an unannounced 360° and horsed the NOC witnesses, boots and all, in to her theory (whatever the hell it now is)? Is Sue aware of this?

      And the fact that Barbara Honegger published that e mail without “correcting” her actual “stance” on the NOC witnesses?

      That’s it Barbara, keep it cryptic and morphable. Wordsmithery vs evidence.

      If you come here with some half arsed “other possibility” wordplay that the NOC witnesses saw an explosion on the helipad, you’ll be torn to shreds again too.

      I now see how Dwain Deets came to his recent “revelation” of his newly acquired “negative witness” based “two plane theory”. They had to compensate for their double act. It would be funny if it weren’t for those poor bastards incinerated inside the Pentagon that day.

      Posters here might be over the top at times (gnarly, stubborn old farts – me included) but everybody fights their corner without resorting to making crap up and flitting in and out whenever nitty gritty details start unravelling contradictory, illogical wordplay. That is, the truth will find you out.

      1. Well OSS,

        I think it’s pretty obvious that Sue is an administrator, doesn’t have a clue as to what is going on technically as far as the debate goes, and just parrots whatever briefing she gets from Ms Honegger. That may be a tougher job than one might imagine; as you say, Honegger has quite an easy morphing storyline depending on audience.

        And yea…there is a brutal frankness that distinguishes this blog from Nambypambyland and Gladhandville. The grill is always hot, but the meal is always satisfying,

  42. Context must always be acknowledged and updated. As we have noted here before, the NOC, although initiated by the gumshoe work of CIT is no longer exclusively CIT’s exclusive domain. A lot of analysis as to ‘what it all means’ has been applied by other individuals and camps. A lot of added detail has emerged, and OSS must be acknowledged as one of those who has added a great deal to that base. Quite a bit of the analysis has developed right here on this blog, and in the minds of the regular commentators here.

    We now see Honegger being credited with the hypothesis of ‘internal explosions’ at the Pentagon on 9/11. But this is hardly true, nor is it fair to give her any exclusive credit for such thinking. It simply follows [per-sequitur] that if a plane didn’t strike the Pentagon, that internal explosives are the only reasonable explanation for the damage.

    While I do think that Ms Honegger should be commended for promoting the internal explosives meme, it would be dishonest to give her the exclusivity that many of her loyal followers wish to grant. 9/11 does’t have a “one-stop shopping” super-store.

    \\][//

    1. Well that should be the first clue that Honegger and Deets are ops.

      They embrace the north side flight path but then pepper it with their bullshit THEORIES about 2 planes.

      If they were truly about advancing 9/11 truth and justice they would only be talking about the provable evidence that is the NOC path.

      Instead they downplay it and make it part of a hodge podge theories and disinfo – muddying the waters.

      If they believe the plane or A plane was on the north side of the gas station you would think that is the only thing they would focus on since there is overwhelmingly corroborated and thoroughly documented witness evidence available to prove it.

  43. I’m so naieve man.

    There’s me expecting a debate with Dwain Deets on the damage. I ask a couple of straightforward questions where he obviously knows that words won’t suffice and his credentials as an ex NASA employee will evaporate.

    Poof! Gone.

    Expecting a rational debate on the NOC witnesses. Shazam! “(Non?) negative two plane witnesses”

    Now watch Barbara (if she ever gets round to making her response). Will she contradict her new DVD and retract it? Or will she go along with the “two plane” nonsense? Hmmmm….

    The worst thing about waiting for a response is that I know that she’s not looking at the evidence. She’s not formulating a balanced argument taking the NOC evidence in to account without the illogical subplots and contradictions. She’s thinking of how to word it. Thinking of how to manipulate a worded formula which gives wiggle room and ambiguity.

    Can’t wait…..

    1. “She’s thinking of how to word it. Thinking of how to manipulate a worded formula which gives wiggle room and ambiguity.”~OSS

      Well you’ve got, we’ve got, her MO down. So I suppose all we can do is highlight those obvious techniques when she flies them here…if that ever really takes place.

      \\][//

  44. “What Rob Balsamo said: “who made you King of the debate?”~//

    Yes indeed what an apt character for you to emulate.

    All this lame bullshit about my posting frequency is as tiring and old as the other nonsense you spew.

    Bringing up Wright again…jeeezus. Why don’t you go back to the third grade and have a talk with your teacher?

    I let a good deal of time go by ignoring you, but if you want to stir up shit here again. Go ahead. I think you are a jerk for doing it, but I’m sick of giving you a pass so the forum isn’t interrupted by this anal hurlant you can’t seem to suppress. Where do you think this is going to get you? You got the heebie jeebies because I talk about you on my blog, and I won’t allow your thousand word sermons there? Is this your only outlet doodette? Why don’t you find somewhere to oink and take it there?

    Nobody here gives a shit about our differences. Start a counter-hybridrogue blog or something if coto got cold for you.

    \\][//

  45. WTC DESTRUCTION REVEALED
    I know exactly how the towers were brought down. By a device called G.O.D. , euphemistically referred to as God.

    This is a Gravity Oscillating Device based on reverse engineered alien antigravity technology. It is set up using special pylons driven into the ground around an area, these are very similar to lighting rods in depth and appearance.

    When the generator [top secret] is turned on, the device causes the gravity in the area to alternately become immense, like Jupiter strength and nonexistent, like there is no mass of the planet there at all. The effect is to pulverize the materials of whatever is within the perimeter, with a final Jupiter sized gravity pulse which sucks everything to the ground with great speed and strength.*

    Don’t you trust undisclosed and anonymous military sources? Really?..they are the number one relied upon source in practically all mainstream information systems.

    Anyway, everybody knows what happened at Roswell and the back engineering of those recovered flying saucers. Whatta you kidding? Yea, and look at how long the military has had this secret technology? Be reasonable – what? Do you think these guys sit on there hands…hell no dude, and they got trillions of dollars to sink into this stuff.
    Don’t be closed minded about this stuff…it stands to reason that God would exist, and if so that must be what took down the towers. Amen/Ahem

    ~ *U.M.S. [Undisclosed Military Sources] Amen/Ahem

    \\][//

  46. ruffadam, et al,
    i am not up on the nukes thing but…had read somewhere (sorry, no cite available, so cannot attest to credibility) that radiation levels of some elements around wtc immediately after 9/11 were spiked, thereby indicating that nukes were used. that being said, i think it’s a mistake to get too embroiled in what may in fact have brought down the towers. i know consensus is looked upon negatively here, at times, but cannot we all agree that fires and jet fuel did NOT do it, and not get too deeply immersed in arguing about what might have been the mechanism, be it mini-nukes, traditional explosives, nanothermite, ray beams from space, G.O.D., or whatever? And proceed from there. Specifically, we agree: the gov’t is lying. So WTF are we gonna do about it? That is always the ultimate question. WTF are we gonna do about it? What can we do about it? I’m called here and there and follow the call. The mantra is that that is the way to go. I was doing that before I ever heard of the mantra, so it seems legit to me. I have no better suggestion. Investigate the possibilities and proceed from there. If nothing draws you, i think it’s ok to go dancing.
    My two cents,
    –D

    1. So WTF are we gonna do about it? That is always the ultimate question. WTF are we gonna do about it? What can we do about it?

      Well said, Dennis. To my mind, this is really the only relevant question—NOC, painted drones, bombs inside the Pentagon don’t mean shit to the unbeliever, and it’s them that have to be convinced, otherwise it’s all just sound and fury, as the poet said.

    2. I’d be glad to drop it Dennis. That is my whole point.
      On top of that it is no longer about the initial nuke theory, it has morphed into pure harassment at this point. I don’t care what SEO thinks took out the towers anymore. I don’t want anything to do with him. But nothing seems to stop him from continuing the badger game.

      So yes, lets all drop it, consensus or not — the thing is way past its shelf life.

      \\][//

    1. Petty Vengeance:
      You fucked up here Balsamo, the record is clear to ANYONE even half awake.

      You pushed the SEND button and regretted it, and tried to get the comment you made left unpublished. And you didn’t even know what you were addressing in the first place, and likely still don’t.

      Now you are turning this tempest in a thimble into the sinking of Atlantis, a big deal over your ravenous ego. So now you are going to pit one blog site against the other…
      ‘The Blog Site Wars’…you going to get a score put to it and make a movie?

      I’ve come across some fragile insecure ego’s in my days of blogging Rob, but you take the prize.

      \\][//

  47. oh.. .and before i forget…

    I have no clue who Adam Ruff is… I have never considered him my “ally”…. i dont even know what he looks like.

    to me? He is just some obscure blogger who has been nothing but a cheerleader.. .a kiss ass… has no credentials whatsoever… and I welcome the fact that he does not like me.

    1. Rob,

      I am sure you have no clue who a lot of people are except of course for yourself. I am also sure you can recite every achievement you have ever had at a moments notice. One such achievement you can surely boast about is that you are a condescending arrogant prick who has no respect for anyone else. Ah why bother to reply when I can just repost an e-mail I just sent out regarding this very issue and save myself the extra work.

      Well Craig I have to agree, what a fucker. You know I should take off the gloves off and really let him have it right between the eyes. First of all I received the Dakota Report from a friend who wished to remain anonymous and I got it BEFORE Rob got it and secondly I did not want to promote the report when the whole mess started on his forum. What I wanted to do is see if we could investigate it a little bit and determine who put it out. If we could uncover that we might have a direct link to disinformationists for the first time. Also there are some very interesting comments in the report concerning how 9/11 was done from an operational standpoint. Like all good disinformation some of what is in the report is probably true. All I had in mind was to look at it from a different perspective and Craig Ranke and Rob blew a gasket about it and treated me like shit, like they do to almost everyone. This happened right in the middle of that e-mail chain where we were all trying to reason with Craig R and Aldo. As to Rob’s stunning success (in his mind anyway) the video on his channel that has the most views is at 155,000+ right now. When my group did our Bill Maher infiltration we got over 4 million views in less than a month and Luke Rudowski called us and gave us credit for putting WeAreChangeLA on the map in a big big way. That action was taken before CIT and P4T even existed by the way, back when it was hard to be a truther and nearly everyone was convinced we were crazy. Nowadays it is cool to be a truther and almost no one attacks us anymore. Loose Change and Zeitgeist both have over 40 million views each but far be it from anyone to tell the mighty Balsamo or Ranke a little bit about marketing and mass psychology. So from my perspective both P4T and CIT are a dismal failure when it comes to promoting their work, pathetic really. But hey they know everything so… I think I want to puke.

      Also Craig M do not let Rob put words in my mouth about how you run your blog. Your blog is the ONLY blog that does not censor people and even the disgusting SEO I do not want you to censor nor do I think it is appropriate to do so at this point. In fact my last comment to SEO crossed the line a bit and so if anyone is deserving of a little moderation it is me. As far as I am concerned Rob can go piss up a rope, he is an asshole and he is his own worst enemy.

      Adam Ruff

      P.S. As with all my letters I mean what I say and I do not mind if this gets forwarded to Balsamo or Ranke. Their ego’s may be the biggest roadblock in the 9/11 truth movement.

    2. Now who needs to get his facts straight huh Rob? You say above:

      “I have no clue who Adam Ruff is… I have never considered him my “ally”…. i dont even know what he looks like.”

      Why am I privy to your private friend forum then if I am not known to you or an ally? Perhaps this will jog your memory as to what I look like and whether or not I was your and Craig Ranke’s ally. By the way do you know how Craig R thanked me for doing this video? He told me he hated the picture I used of him and wanted me to take the video down and re-edit it.


      Here you go Rob here is a video I did for Richard Gage also at my own expense driving 500+ miles to do it. It involved considerable time expenditure to edit as well:


      At least Richard had the common courtesy to thank us for doing it.

      In case you doubt that I was actually a co-founder of WeAreChange LA here I am with Jeremy who interviewed Richard in the above video. In the video below we confront the Simon Wiesenthal Institute for smearing Gage in front of Congress.

      Here is the whole Bill Maher episode summarized in one nice package:

      Here is my piece about the media:

      All videos were produced by me at my own expense BTW without a single cent from anyone else.

      As to what happened with WACLA it was destroyed by infighting several years ago. We were a juggernaut for a short time and then egos screwed it all up. It sounds so familiar somehow. So that is why the website isn’t up super sleuth I haven’t been in WACLA for years.
      Oh one last thing Rob since you criticize others so much for not being masters of blogging or web design tell me why it is you could not discover any of the above using Google? Perhaps YOU need some technical training on how to use a search engine? Oh also there is no direct link to your YouTube Channel on your website so you might want to correct that little oversight. The videos you have posted there all connect to (JohnDoe X) on YouTube and I searched through all the videos on that channel and found your highest view count for your video American 77 Final Maneuver to be 158,102. The video you mentioned which has 690,000 views is a TRAILER for the film 9/11 attack on the Pentagon which itself has 20,512 views. Like I said PATHETIC. If you check out the Zeitgeist YouTube channel and click on most popular videos you find the first is Zeitgeist Moving Forward with over 21.5 million views and Zeitgeist addendum with nearly 6 million views and that counts only the instances of the films that are on their official channel. If you were to add up all the views on all of YouTube it would be over 70 million views for the various Zeitgeist films at least. Perhaps being a filmmaker like Peter Joseph has some advantages to getting the message out huh Rob? You are an amateur at best like I said and you ARE your own worst enemy. Treating your friends like crap has gotten you where you are today Rob so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  48. Once again Adam Ruff fails to actually look at the data.

    P4T was started in Aug 2006. Anyone who just takes a small amount of time to read the text under my name at our forum would know this.

    We Are Change LA didnt exist till late 2007.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/wearechangela/about
    (note the views as well…. a little over 2 million for ALL their videos)

    Bill Maher wasn’t ‘infiltrated’ until Oct 2007.
    http://www.visibility911.org/bill-maher-faces-off-with-911-truth-movement-live-on-television/
    (hmmm… no mention of Adam Ruff either… wonder why that is…)

    And if I recall.. We Are Change NY (the first We Are Change) did exist until early 2007. After the Les Jameson fiasco with NY 911 Truth.

    Anyone who would like to see when our website was first archived by the wayback machine can click here…
    http://web.archive.org/web/20060915000000*/http://pilotsfor911truth.org
    (This was when I switched from using Bravehost to a paid server)

    As for his claim that our video with the most views is at 155,000… once again.. Adam Ruff screws the pooch…


    690,925 views

    Again –

    And for those who would like to actually read through the Dakota Report thread.. .since it’s clear Adam Ruff can’t get any of his facts straight. Click here… Adam Ruff is “AtomicBomb”… but you’ll probably notice that when you run across the poster doing the most crying.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22101
    (be sure to also look at the join data under my avatar…. that is when P4T was founded)

    And for those who would like to see how I got started in 911 Research and founded P4T (well before We Are Change)
    http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html#Balsamo

    Adam Ruff… all bark.. no bite.

    lol

    1. If there were any justice in the world, they’d call it the Balsamo Truth movement…

      Rob, I’ve had enough of your bullying ego explosion. You’ve had your say. If you want to contribute a genuine comment about the subjects covered in my article then go ahead. Otherwise, piss off.

      1. Don’t worry Craig… i wont be back….

        lol… but i did find this interesting…

        http://urlm.co/www.wacla.org

        Less than 300 views per month? Per MONTH? We get that in a hour between the forum and main site.

        Actually… the wacla.org site won’t even load… is it gone?

        I know WACLA has done some good things in the past.. and many of them I respect… but i actually disagreed with their “infiltration” of Bill Maher as did many other 9/11 Truthers. Most people feel it did the “movement” more harm than good.

        Adam Ruff complains about us being a “roadblock” in promoting our own work? Adam… since you seem to be an expert on promoting ones work…. don’t you first have to have a website in todays climate to do such a thing? You should get on that with your “group”.

        Too funny.

        I doubt you’ll approve this Craig.. so i’ll save it for when Adam gets the nads to actually confront us. If you approve it.. even better.

        Have a nice day!

      2. Regarding your post of NOVEMBER 2, 2013 – 11:45 AM:

        You know Balsamo, even your sign off of “Have a nice day!” reads as sarcastic arrogant bullshit.

        \\][//

  49. It’s a testimony to Craig’s commitment to openness and transparency that he allows all kinds of comments here–even those critical of himself and his blog, and even when those criticisms are empty attacks from egotistical blowhards who denigrate T&S as nothing more than a “little corner of the internet.”

    Craig McKee is in fact one of the very few journalists who are following truth where ever it leads, dogma and public opinion be damned. Even most truthers seem to feel the need to fall in line behind a leader of some kind: Griffin, Gage or even a local leader like Matt Sullivan. Precious few have the courage, intelligence and tenacity to ferret out the facts that the powers that be don’t want us to know, especially when those PTB reside in the truth movement.

    Unfortunately, for reasons of cowardice, intellectual laziness or a paycheck from the NSA, many truthers seem unable to discern when their own “truth leaders” are feeding them a line of BS. Fortunately for us, Craig McKee is not one of them.

    Perhaps some have forgotten, but Craig not only earns nothing from this blog, (do you see advertisements?) but by putting out the unvarnished truth he has probably killed his chances of ever getting another good paying journalism job. Cuz, you know, he’s a conspiracy theorist.

    Truth and Shadows is a shining example of what journalism should be but 99.99% of the time is not.

    Some, such as Dennis, would argue that knowing the precise details of how 9/11 was pulled off is unimportant, that it’s enough to know that they lied to us. I disagree and here’s why:

    The truth movement has been heavily infiltrated* and we should expect infiltrators to be working to undermine our efforts and lead us into dead ends. We can know if we are being led astray only if we know the facts of what happened and who is guilty.

    Unfortunately, proving controlled demolition at the towers does nothing to pinpoint the guilty parties as there are thousands of potential suspects. Did bloodthirsty Muslims get jobs on the janitorial crew so they could plant bombs in the buildings? If the fact that planes didn’t bring down the towers ever becomes widely known, I fully expect to hear this line of reasoning put forward.

    Don’t laugh — it will probably be believed. Remember, with the media to sell the story, they were able to convince Americans that because of terrorists from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, we should attack Iraq.

    So no surprise, we see a large contingent of “truth leaders” trying to muddy the waters at the Pentagon, which is the perps’ biggest Achille’s heel. THE PENTAGON FAKED A PLANE CRASH ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY. That may be hard to spin, but they can mitigate the damage by any number of means, and they appear to be trying them all.

    What are we going to do about it Dennis? One thing we are going to do is keep the truth movement on track, despite the efforts of numerous operatives (and their unthinking followers) to dilute, sideline and belittle our most incriminating evidence. Calling out those who put forth half-baked theories about the Pentagon, and thus preventing them from gaining wide support, or yikes, “consensus,” is a very worthwhile use of our time.

    Think like a DA: it’s not enough to know that the suspect is lying. You need actual evidence to prove he/she committed the crime, and we have that evidence at the Pentagon. If it were ever to become widely known that the Pentagon faked a plane crash and the media conspired to cover up the evidence and sell a lie to the world, the existing power structure would collapse and real change would become possible. That is why we stand fast on this issue. The evidence at the Pentagon has the power to do what the WTC evidence cannot.

    *This has been discussed at length elsewhere, for starters you could read: http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/10/911bloggercom-accused-is-leading-911.html
    and
    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/gage-ignores-challenge-by-911-truthers-to-justify-pentagon-reversal/

    1. Beautifully put Sheila,

      I agree with your every point.

      It is especially critical to grasp that the infiltration of the “movement” is not a question but a verifiable and experienced fact. It is undeniable that Truth and Shadows itself is a prime target of such Sunsteinian machinations.

      I think what has happened to this very thread is a prime example. Consider the sequences of mayhem as they occurred here:

      The sudden burlesque of Deets and Balsamo showing up to have a ‘Great Battle’. The perfectly timed and sudden appearance of Honegger at this segue. followed almost immediately by the misdirection attempt by SEO, and then just after that, like it was a cue; Deets leaves. Then just after he slips out, Balsamo jumps my ass…all of these making a very chaotic mess of the thread.
      In my suspicious mind, it seems that all of this being coordinated is not out of the question.

      ‘Fake Enemies’ {Deets/Balsamo} may be very hard to imagine when confronted with a realistic bit of theater, but we all know that as one of the techniques of spookcraft.

      I have named names here, as is part of the frankness this blog is known for. Those who are “horrified” in being so named should take pause and reflect on how obvious these tactics are. Look back over this sequence of events here – it is so in your face that it is preposterous to deny. Perhaps those involved should have a huddle with their managers
      and express their dismay at being led in such an obvious game of theater.

      Meanwhile Honegger is obviously malingering, perhaps too aware of how blatant this act has become, and how obvious it is that she is one of the central players.

      \\][//

      1. If I may add an important point here:

        Being the just and honorable moderator that Mr McKee is, he puts himself in the envious position of not being held personally responsible for the words of any commentator here, as he obviously disagrees with many comments he has posted herein.

        Coupled with that fact is that I am not and have never been, nor seen myself as a spokesman for the blog. My comments above are entirely my own personal views. And any disagreement with them should be leveled at me and nobody else.

        \\][//

    2. sheila,
      i very much agree with all the positive things you say about craig and his high level of professional journalism here. and if you think it’s important to pursue exactly what happened at the pentagon, and stand fast, that’s fine: i wish you the best of luck with that effort.

      to me it’s patently obvious that the whole thing was a grand illusion of some sort, the best explanation being bombs on the inside and a plane flying over at the time of detonation to make it appear that a plane crashed there. whether or not that plane was flight 77 or some operation northwoods substitute, i don’t know. yes, i’d like to know, but endless arguing amongst our heavily infiltrated selves over this and other issues strikes me as counterproductive. that’s all i’m saying.

      i find honegger and deets totally unpersuasive on this issue–they simply have no evidence. and they have no consensus. end of story. i feel no need to argue about it, or convince anyone else. if you do, that’s your prerogative.

      re: “Think like a DA:” while in law school, i did a summer stint as an assistant prosecutor. in court every day, prosecuting cases, i learned how to think like a DA, and did so. with 9/11, as i have no prosecutorial power, i have tried and continue to look for ways to get officialdom to do something real in NYC, where i live. an incredible long-shot but for me preferable to endless arguing on websites about exactly what brought down the towers and bldg 7, and whether or not nanothermite, mini-nukes, some advanced form of weaponry, and/or whatever else may have been involved. the evidence is quite clear, especially with regard to bldg 7, that there was controlled demolition. for me, that’s enough. now it should be up to official investigators to pursue exactly what happened. that’s what’s needed. here, in NYC, we continue to look for ways to try and get local officials to do their duty, but have not yet succeeded. will we ever? highly doubtful, but our energies are in that direction.

      re: “If it were ever to become widely known that the Pentagon faked a plane crash and the media conspired to cover up the evidence and sell a lie to the world, the existing power structure would collapse and real change would become possible.” would it? how? with all due respect, in your best case scenario, how would this play out?

      re: “The evidence at the Pentagon has the power to do what the WTC evidence cannot.” maybe, bit i don’t think it should be an either-or situation. the infowars need to be fought on many fronts. agreed that the pentagon evidence leads right to people with access to the pentagon and personally i find the existing pentagon evidence to be beyond-reasonable-doubt convincing on that score. as do many of us here. so should anyone who is paying honest attention. but how many more people are needed to be so convinced to bring about the real change you (and i) seek? and exactly how can we make that happen? by arguing ad-infinitum and ad-nauseum over theories and what the evidence does or does not show? i don’t think so. at some point, enough is enough.

      like in many threads on this site and elsewhere, including this thread, a good story is written, some good comments are made, but soon the bickering begins, and then goes on and on and on, usually off-topic. once things sink to that level, as they did in this thread, you can count me out. again, that’s all i’m saying. you want to continue on with it, i wish you the best.

      different strokes for different folks.

      –d

      1. @Dennis
        You mention there that while you were in law school you worked as an assistant DA prosecuting cases so ,as someone with a legal background, I wonder what your opinion is about the case made in National Security Alert about what happened at the Pentagon. Do you think it’s the proven incontrovertible case that CIT say it is, and have been saying for years?

      2. AW,
        not sure exactly which “proven incontrovertible” statements you mean but. . .

        on its website, at http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/evidence.html, CIT says that National Security Alert is a concise presentation of “the key evidence we have uncovered proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane [a Boeing 757] did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11/01.” i would agree with that statement.

        at http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-alleged_impact_witnesses.html, CIT says that there is “conclusive evidence that the plane flew over the Navy Annex and then banked to its right on the north side of the Citgo gas station.” i would not characterize CIT’s flyover theory as “conclusive evidence,” but see it more as a reasonable inference to draw, and one possible explanation.

        in court, if one party (here, the government) has evidence in its possession (here, the security videos) that would prove its position, and/or disprove the case made by the other side (here CIT), but fails or refuses to produce that evidence, the failure or refusal to produce that evidence can be held against that (first) party (here, the government). as i see it, the government’s failure and refusal to release the videos that would likely show one way or another what happened at the pentagon on 9/11, completely undermines the government’s case. this, combined with all the other evidence, establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that AA Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, in my view.

        –d

      3. Dennis

        Talking about the information war and A Wright shows up as a case in point! He claims that the official story is solid. Watertight. In fact, he is a wholesale government loyalist and apologist by his very avoidance of all points brought up on non 9/11 related incidents (JFK, TWA 800, OKC bombing, etc) whereby the authors of any “official stories” have been shown to be proven liars and have covered up mass murder repeatedly for decades, if not the whole of the 20th century. He disputes nothing from these people! Nothing!

        But he denies the validity of the alleged FDR data (as it were released to the public), he denies the validity of the alleged imact time released by the NTSB, the officially released RADES data, a Boeing 757’s limitations, the low and level gatecam footage, etc

        On the other hand he denies all of the NOC witnesses yet still can’t find a witness who counters the trajectory described by these people. Nor a witness to the lightpoles being struck.

        He, in fact is no different to Honegger, Deets or any other entity who strays off of the “official story” versus independently verified evidence path.

        If you look at WTC7, NIST claims that “office fires and office fires alone” brought it down.

        The fires weren’t hot enough. Nor did they burn long enough. Remembering that it’s simply an unfounded, unprecedented presumption that fires could even bring a steel structure down.

        The Pentagon issue regarding the operation itself boils down to physical evidence, eyewitness testimony and aerodynamics.

        The directional damage itself, before reaching the facade, starting from lightpoles 1 and 2, through the generator trailer, coupled with the alleged FDR data and gatecam, have narrowed the parameters of the official story down to within feet and inches. Made necessary that the speed is between 540-580mph. The lightpole damage demands that the aircraft was in level flight in the final seconds. As does the FDR.

        Government loyalists who stray off of this path (no pun intended) aren’t defending the official narrative. They are inventing a subplot to tie up loose ends and soak up the body punches that the NOC evidence has given to the OCT. Because the Pentagon OCT is so definitive.

        Even worse, those who pile on subplot upon (contradictory, unfounded) subplot (“two planes”, “flyover plus impact”) and claim to be on the side of “truth” are aiding, if not part and parcel of, this government loyalist sponge.

        What’s needed is an arena of moderated debate. If people can make any claim they want and never have to answer for what they say, or never have their feet held to the fire, yea, you’re going to get a lot of yammering and bickering.

        @Dwain

        Dwain Deets has just reappeared to say that he’s “busy” when in the time it took him to write this, he could have answered a couple of very straightforward questions I’ve repeatedly put to him.

      4. That was nicely put..yes…nicely stated Dennis.

        I agree with what you say there as far as ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ as applied to the cumulative CIT evidence. I would also add that this evidence has been buttressed by many others, by analytic reasoning as well as complimentary technical studies.

        \\][//

      5. @Dennis
        Does CIT present their logical argument in National Security Alert? It is the same logical argument they have been repeating for years all over their website, in every forum, interview etc.
        In NSA it says :
        ” In the following presentation we will expose to you independent verifiable evidence , proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the 9/11 attack was a state sponsored false- flag operation , involving a carefully planned, skillfully executed deception at the Pentagon.”
        They are telling people that they are going to prove something to them beyond a reasonable doubt. They present their evidence, they present their logical argument and they present their conclusion. They put the conclusion up there in black and white. ‘The plane did not hit the Pentagon’. Where in reaching that verdict was the evidence addressed that the plane did hit the building? The DVD is divided into a number of sections – which one deals with the evidence that the plane hit the building? How can a verdict be reached about an event , beyond a reasonable doubt, without addressing all of the evidence, specifically the evidence contradicting that verdict? The logic of the CIT’s argument does not address that evidence. This means their argument is not logical. The logical flaws in it are obvious when it is examined. In terms of a court case, it is like the prosecution presenting their evidence and the judge then telling the jury to reach their verdict.
        You point out the FAQ about the witnesses – there are 150 witnesses! Shouldn’t their evidence be heard before a verdict is reached? This is all the evidence they ignore while reaching their conclusions. Shouldn’t people who are being told they are going have something proven to them beyond a reasonable doubt be presented with all the evidence before they reach a verdict?
        That Craig Ranke’s seems to find it difficult to understand why everyone doesn’t agree with his definitive proven findings is a tell-tale sign of flawed logic- this cabal of dishonest liars with their bogus talking points, like evaluating all the available evidence before reaching a verdict , and even reading CIT’s FAQ’s and not agreeing with the answers.

        1. Mr. Wright,

          Your arguments are empty and without substance. They did research, essential primary research, and showed that the flight path claimed in the official story is impossible. That means that the plane never hit the building. If you have a compelling reason to say why their facts are wrong, then bring it forward. But it’s not a court case, and they are not obligated to bring ever piece of evidence forward. They have shown that the official story is false, and they have shown that in multiple ways. And not just false, but falsified. A faked plane crash.

          By the way, you clearly are unclear on what “logical” means.

          If you want to comment on this thread you will have to be capable of debating actual facts about the evidence. Your comment contains none.

        2. AW,
          thanks but, i’m not inclined to get into a discussion of the finer points of NSA with you, or anyone, really. in sum, i thought the movie was very well done. what i like most is that while so many of us ponder “what to do” about what really happened on 9/11, these guys went out and did something about it–and produced an excellent film in the process, by “taking it to the streets” in a truly courageous, original, and remarkable way.
          –d

      6. Hi Craig,

        thanks for keeping that comment in moderation—I was operating under some delusions, but those have been cleared up. Good luck with your blog.

        David Glynn

      7. A Wright says

        You point out the FAQ about the witnesses – there are 150 witnesses! Shouldn’t their evidence be heard before a verdict is reached? This is all the evidence they ignore while reaching their conclusions.

        Now this is the typical MO of A Wright. Not only is he wrong but the figures blurted out by him are also wrong.

        Hope you don’t mind Craig, but I’m going to bring the main points over here.

        All alleged and verified eyewitness testimony on record within the area has been collected:

        http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863

        There are 239 alleged recorded witnesses:

        http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008854

        A breakdown:

        239 alleged witnesses

        48 of which were inside the Pentagon during the event

        35 of which arrived after the event or weren’t there at all

        Total of people listed on various sites who neither witnessed the aircraft, it’s flightpath nor alleged impact:

        = 83

        239 – 83

        = 156

        31 of which could not physically see Pentagon at all

        156 – 31

        = 125

        20 of which are on record as saying that they didn’t/couldn’t see alleged impact:

        125 – 20

        = 105

        7 of which are anonymous:

        105 – 7 (1 of which is “Skarlet”)

        = 98

        7 of which are completely second/third hand accounts:

        98 – 7

        = 91

        9 of which inferred that they didn’t/couldn’t see, are totally void of detail regarding or described “feeling/hearing” the alleged impact or seeing “fireball/smoke”:

        91 – 9

        = 82

        20 of which are void of detail on, don’t mention or the media is guilty of embellishing/falsifying details of, alleged impact “testimonies” (6 of which are completely irrelevant phrases that the media has built its own story around):

        82 – 20

        = 62

        21 of which were allegedly within view of the Pentagon, but not the alleged impact area, whose POVs aren’t known or alleged witnesses who have never had their alleged testimony verified independently:

        62 – 21

        = 41 alleged impact accounts.

        To be contd…..(not that A Wright got this far)

      8. @Craig McKee
        “Your arguments are empty and without substance. They did research, essential primary research, and showed that the flight path claimed in the official story is impossible. That means that the plane never hit the building. If you have a compelling reason to say why their facts are wrong, then bring it forward. But it’s not a court case, and they are not obligated to bring ever piece of evidence forward. They have shown that the official story is false, and they have shown that in multiple ways. And not just false, but falsified. A faked plane crash.”
        If someone says they have proven something beyond a reasonable doubt then they are obligated to bring every piece of evidence forward. If they say that beyond a reasonable doubt a plane did not hit the Pentagon without addressing the evidence that the plane did hit the Pentagon then they don’t know what the concept of reasonable doubt is. They also don’t grasp the concept of the logical assessment of evidence or how to conduct an investigation. Arriving at a conclusion without addressing the evidence against that conclusion has as much credibility as a verdict in a court case where the jury are only presented with the prosecution case. I’m afraid it is your logic that is faulty Mr. McKee. Unfortunately CIT have gone on presenting this illogical case without anyone presenting any serious debate on the central issue i.e the logic of it.

        1. What evidence that a plane did hit the Pentagon? The onus is on those who claim a plane did hit to provide evidence to that effect. Who has done that? All I’ve seen is people like Kevin Ryan and David Chandler telling people not to look at the Pentagon. No one has remotely made the case. Also, if you look at ALL of the evidence that CIT and Pilots for 9//11 Truth bring forward, they do indeed show how the plane could not have hit. They have the north path witnesses and a lot more.

      9. You know A Wright,

        Your circular reasoning based again on gross generalities is such obvious bullshit to everyone here.

        In presenting definitive evidence that it is impossible for an event to occur as presented by the other side — IS addressing ALL the counter evidence that the other side has presented. And that is exactly what the case is we face here. It is physically impossible for the official story to be true. This impossibility has been proven by physical evidence, eyewitness testimony and aerodynamics.

        Now you have been challenged to bring forth any evidence; physical, eyewitness testimony or aerodynamic, and have failed to do so. You have provided nothing but rhetorical nonsense.

        There is no other conclusion to come to after all of this other than you are a shill looking to waste our time. You have proven that over and over for more than a year now. Your entertainment value has reached zero.

        \\][//

  50. Does anyone here know who Scott Creighton is? He has a blog called Everyman and posts as willyloman there. I have tried to get him over for part of the debate on this thread. This is what he said to me about CIT:
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    >”oh, I don’t know.. let me see… they came along and interviewed 15 or so Pentagon / Dept of the Army employees, with the blessings of the Pentagon mind you, and they came up with some people standing around saying “I saw it North of the Citgo and then it hit the Pentagon” and from that these two guys produced a video about how the plane FLEW OVER the Pentagon rather than hitting it.

    They claim their Pentagon employee “witnesses” are the most compelling SCIENTIFIC evidence there is, yet MOST if not ALL of their “witnesses” claim they saw the plane HIT THE BUILDING and on that little detail, they blow off their own “witnesses’” statements. they simply disregard that part of their “scientific” evidence.
    is that about the size of it so far?

    So let me get this straight… the big plan with the Pentagon was to get the plane to fly real low, making sure it was seen by everyone stuck in traffic on that major roadway into DC at prime rush hour in the morning on a clear day… theyplanned this now, remember that… and then they set off a massive explosion to make EVERYONE IN THE CARS LOOK RIGHT AT THE PENTAGON…. and then.. this was their big plannow… they flew the massive 757 through the smoke, right above the rooftop of the Pentagon for all to see….
    … and then they told everyone the plane hit the building.
    And no one saw the massive 757 fly over the pentagon.

    hmmm…

    oh yeah, the two guys who came up with this brilliant theory both act like complete assholes pretty much all the time and if anyone dares ask them about how utterly stupid their little “fly over” theory is, they attack them viciously, even creating an “Enemies List” on their website.
    they are in short classic spoilers, and in fact, they’re not even very good at it. they’re pretty obvious when you think about it. kinda like Jon Gold. You a fan of his as well? and you don’t have to think long.

    strange someone as educated as you seem to be can’t see through something that ridiculous.”~Scott Creighton
    http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/sneak-peak-revised-demolition-theory-hypothesis/#comment-72901

    \\][//

    1. Willy

      Creighton’s entire premise for rejecting the NOC testimony is based on incredulity. The same incredulity that GLs use while rejecting CD. “Why would they do that?”

      He basically says that it “makes no sense” to do this but he hasn’t a clue about the topography of the area. He believes that the view of people sitting in cars (with their own blind spots never mind other vehicles blocking any clear view) is no different to viewing the area on Google street view. Void of traffic. Watching from 1 meter above the car. Having all the time in the world to focus in on a specific area.

      I’ve coincidentally just posted a review of the “reaction” of people within the immediate area and a reality check on what the OCT actually is.

      He claims that “something” must have hit but no airborne object was seen on the directional damage path. The video he linked to does an excellent breakdown on how a 757 could not have caused the damage! (But then goes on with the same flawed logic that Creighton spouts – “something” hit)

      What’s really hypocritical is that he argues from incredulity on the Pentagon and the danger of a flyover being seen yet sees no problem whatsoever with the scenario whereby CD was carried out in Manhattan with millions watching it on their TV screens!

      On Manhattan, I really liked the theory of how CD was carried out at this link – read from here onwards:

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22395&view=findpost&p=10809514

      1. OSS,

        What I take away from Creighton’s sarcastic void-of-substance rant is that he thinks that Ranke and Marque are irritating jerks, and misses the message because he is prejudiced against the messenger.

        Gross and flagrant hand waving can never be taken as a serious argument — turn the tables on him and give him that type of argument back on another subject and watch him bleat and piss himself.

        His main problem is in building a citadel blog, where he is master of the manor and demands fealty from the sycophants gathered into the fold. Simply put, if you disagree with any of Scott’s ideas there you are an asshole and too stupid to be regarded. That is the real reason he is afraid to leave his city’s gates and venture out alone without a palace guard to debate on other forums.

        I do have to say this in all fairness though, the issue he speaks to as the main heading having to do with the WTC destruction is a well made hypothesis. The only problem is getting him to recognize that until further testing of the WTC dust, it will remain a speculative argument. We see that in quite a few theories, wherein the theory may be very plausible in certain regards, it is nevertheless simply theory without substantiating evidence. There is one theory that is floated here {too often} that suffers these deficits; that regardless of how rhetorically elegant the theory is put there, is absolutely no physical evidence for a foundation.

        \\][//

  51. A Wright

    Contd…

    A breakdown of these 41 alleged witnesses

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008855

    Overall contradictions to the official impact scenario

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008856

    17 confirmed NOC witnesses

    – Aman
    – Boger
    – Brooks
    – Carter
    – Elgas
    – Hemphill
    – Lagasse
    – Leonard
    – Middleton
    – Morin
    – Prather
    – Paik
    – Riskus
    – Turcios
    – Stafford
    – Sepulveda
    – Stephens

    There are also multiple examples of contradictory accounts that need to be confirmed at that link.

    Nobody describes the official path in any way whatsoever.

    To be contd…

  52. A Wright (contd)

    Physical reaction described by witnesses and a reality check

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008858

    Physical Reaction

    Reality Check

    The official speed:

    540-580mph

    This video shows speeds of up to 500mph (80mph less than the OCT speed):

    The blastwave was allegedly felt up to 3.5km away:

    The fireball (fire report):

    http://www.haifire.com/Resources/presentat…%20Scenario.pdf

    The fireball allegedly lasted “5 seconds” and reached “200ft in diameter”

    The Pentagon lawn is 400ft in length:

    Route 27 is just over 400ft from the Pentagon facade.

    34 alleged witnesses who described “ducking/diving/physical reaction to the blast” (from within immediate area)

    – Anlauf, Deb and Jeff (“the whole hotel shook”)

    – Battle (“everything was shaking”)

    – Bauer (blast “rocked all of our cars”)

    – Bease (“felt a large crash”)

    – Boger (“I fell to the ground and covered my head”)

    – Bouchoux (“the car moved about a foot to the right”)

    – Cohen (“we were outside in a little construction trailer…the building shook, the ceiling tiles fell out of the ceiling”)

    – Cook (“the glass rattled and a dull boom shook the room”)

    – Donley (“it (the aircraft) got so loud I ducked”)

    – Hemphill (“I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up” and “”felt the shockwave…knocking me against the desk”)

    – Hammond (“We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running.”)

    – Mitch Mitchell (“We felt the intense heat of the fireball and felt the car shudder as we heard the thud of the impact.”)

    – Morin (“For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off roughly 1/2 mile in front of you.”)

    – McGraw (“There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact.”)

    – McAdams couple (second hand) (” they heard a big boom and felt the doors and windows of their three-story building shake”)

    – Munsey (“a ground shaking whomp”)

    – Owens (“I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head….Still gripping the wheel, I could feel both the car and my heart jolt at the moment of impact.”)

    – Peterson (“The car shook as the plane flew over”)

    – Probst (“I dove towards the ground”)

    – Plaisted (“Books on my shelves started tumbling to the floor”)

    – Perry (“windows shook”)

    – Renzi (Claims that the blast was so severe that “it kept all of us on the bridge down underneath our cars” (ducked))

    – Rains (“I jumped so hard I strained against the seat belt and shoulder harness and was thrown back into my seat”)

    – Sepulveda (“They (medics) said with the wallop I received, there’s no way that I wouldn’t have at least lost consciousness for a brief moment,”)

    – Scott (“felt and heard a terrible explosion”)

    – Snavel (“the truck rocked back and forth”)

    – Terronez (“- it is amazing how instinct takes over because I will never know how it is I kept my foot on the brake when I ducked at the same time.”)

    – Philip Thompson (“the blast hit us in a wave”)

    – Trapasso (“heard the loud explosion and felt the ground shaking.”)

    – Velasquez (“it was like an earthquake”)

    – Winslow (“it rattled my windows. I thought they were going to blow out”)

    – Alan Wallace (“dove underneath a van”)

    – Zakhem (“I fell to the ground…I was crying and scared”)

    Others interviewed by the Library of Congress

    Wagstaff, Reed — Navy Annex (“Everything rattled..we actually felt the pressure wave of the explosion…
    we found out later that the plane missed the Navy Annex by 10-15 feet”)

    Turner, Rob — Navy Annex (“but when I hear people say they were on the other side of the building and they didn’t even know what happened or that they didn’t hear anything I find it hard to believe…I felt the crash at the Navy Annex…it amazes me”)

    Most notably for me, some of those who are painted as the strongest alleged impact witnesses, also describe a physical reaction just before or just after the event. Most of which had between 0.5-1 second to assiimilate what was happening, yet give lucid descriptions of what they allegedly saw.

    — Donley (0.5 seconds)
    — Owens (0.5 seconds)
    — McGraw (0.5 seconds)
    — Probst (0.4 seconds max.)
    — Bouchoux (1 second)
    — Sepulveda (1 second)

    What’s ridiculous is the suggestion that those within the area closest to the explosion didn’t physically flinch during an event which took seconds. In some cases, a fraction of a second.

    And that some people don’t differentiate between sitting looking at a computer screen at Google streetview in the comfort of their own homes, focussed on a specific area with an unobstructed view through a still image taken from 1 meter above a vehicle to sitting in a car, in heavy traffic, unaware of what was about to unfold.

    We’re talking about a large aircraft bearing down on a basin of land, in an area where aircraft land and take off at regular intervals.

    To be contd….

  53. A Wright (contd)

    “Connections and control”

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008859

    Connections and Control

    No, this isn’t a section claiming that all of these people were “in on it”, although embellishment, peer pressure and cognitive dissonance play a major part.

    There have been cases of proven dishonesty and of obvious meshing of the official account with what many alleged witnesses are on record as witnessing that day. What stands out to me personally is the alleged witness pool.

    Whether by design or by connection (or both), what we have are the alleged testimonies of entire organizations and individuals blindly loyal to the government and/or their careers.

    Military brass and contractors.
    The media.
    People who actually influence foreign policy.
    People with connections to the “secret service”.
    People actually involved in government.
    People who were part and parcel of bolstering up the official story and the lies we were fed.

    The event did occur within a military zone, close to the Capitol, and the USA Today buildings were within driving distance. But, the overwhelming majority of alleged witnesses (on public record) are solely drawn from within the aforementioned areas.

    These witness media quotemines are controlled sources of information open to bias and a subtle form of manipulation. The lack of detail in questioning, unsourced quotes (read Patterson account), and second hand embellishment are more concerned with journalistic “license” and “headlines” rather than breaking down what was actually described in a methodical, investigative manner.

    The use of these media quotemines by some to determine what happened that day is flawed.

    Only when CIT asked the relevant questions from without the controlled public witness pool, did a different story start to emerge.

    Robert Turcios (a gas station attendant), 2 DPS Policemen and cemetery workers whose stories were buried and censored by the Center of Military History and ignored by “investigative journalists” corroboratively painted a different picture when asked details of what they saw. Details that the media lapdogs have no interest in.

    How about Roosevelt Roberts’ claim of seeing a “second aircraft” in the parking lot?

    How were alleged, ambiguous, unsourced snippets given precedence over witnesses with incredible vantage points underneath the path of the plane?

    What’s been unearthed so far points to a complete contradiction of the official narrative on all levels because CIT asked the questions that the media avoided.

    Even at first glance, before any one on one interviews were carried out, there is an apparent recurring theme among these alleged witness testimonies when details were actually given.

    1) Nobody describes the directional damage path

    2) The aircraft is repeatedly described as having been seen over Washington, contradicting the official “loop” shown by the RADES data and alleged (and proven manipulated) FDR data.

    Of those who actually claimed to witness the aircraft with connections to military/media or government

    Those who work for or have connections to the media

    – 19

    – Steve Anderson (USA Today)
    – Benedetto (Founding member of USA Today)
    – Carroll (media commentator)
    – Cissell (photojournalist working for institution founded by USAToday chief)
    – Donley (Gannett connections)
    – Dubill (Executive Editor USA Today)
    – Hernandez (AP video journalist)
    – Gaskins (National Editor USA Today)
    – Kopf (Director of Information Technology, USA Today)
    – Mitch Mitchell (CBS Military Consultant/Army Colonel)
    – Munsey (Navy Times reporter)
    – Narayanan (USA Today)
    – O’Keefe (Managing Editor American Lawyer Media)
    – Owens (Gannett News Service)
    – Sucherman (USA Today)
    – Van Sustern (CNN Legal Analyst and Anchor)
    – Walter (USA Today)
    – Winslow (AP Reporter)
    – Wright (USA Today)

    The media was and still is, guilty of proven embellishment, invention and manipulation of alleged witness testimonies (Cissell, Elgas, Campos, Winslow) through to journalists who were allegedly there actually lying themselves (Walter)

    The media censored information on the E4B witnessed over Washington and the C130 witnessed over Arlington, so the claim that the media as a whole doesn’t goosestep under the banner of “national security” doesn’t hold any water. A corporation is a corporation.

    Many of the alleged testimonies contradicted the official version, yet the same media stopped right there.

    Another factor to be weighed is that those journalists allegedly along Route 27 may very well have embellished their accounts for their own newspapers and publications (which has been proven). Some of their initial accounts of mayhem, confusion, seeing a “fireball”, etc, morphed into concise testimonies based on after the fact information in the days and weeks that followed.

    Those who are connected to the military/security forces

    – 31

    – Artman (Lt. Col)
    – Bouchoux (Retired Naval Officer)
    – Boger (Pentagon Tower Chief)
    – Brooks (DPS – Pentagon Police)
    – Bright (DPS – Pentagon Police)
    – Dobbs (Marine Corps officer)
    – Elliott (Col.)
    – Flyler (Navy contractor)
    – Hemphill (Missile Defence Agency Assistant Director for Agency Operations)
    – James (Navy Info Technician)
    – Kelly (Retired Commander US Navy)
    – Liebner (Executive Support Officer for Donald Rumsfeld)
    – Lagasse (DPS – Pentagon Police)
    – Mason (military contractor/Ex USAF)
    – Morin (Ex USMC Aviator)
    – Probst (Military Contractor/Ex Army Lieutenant Colonel)
    – O’Brien (USAF)
    – Ramey (DPS – Pentagon Police)
    – Roberts (DPS – Pentagon Police)
    – Darb Ryan (Vice Admiral Chief of Naval personnel)
    – Stanley (DPS – Pentagon Police)
    – Sheuerman (Associate General Counsel for the U.S. Air Force)
    – Sepulveda (Navy Master Sergeant)
    – Smith (Military Contractor/Ex Marine)
    – Snaman (Military Contractor for Lockheed Martin)
    – Snavel (Army Sergeant)
    – Thompson (ex Marine)
    – Turner (Deputy Chief Information Officer US Navy)
    – Vaughan (US Army Brigadier General)
    – Wallace (Hospital Corps/VietNam veteran)
    – Wheelhouse (US Army)

    The same standards can be set for military personnel as for the media, but from a different angle. Many alleged testimonies are from serving or former military personnel who weren’t even at the Pentagon that day but happened to be in the area.

    The military, particulary the brass, are trained to take orders and to conform.

    Again, I’m not targetting individuals as being complicit to what happened that day, but trying to demonstrate how the witness pool appears to be selective.

    Those who work for or have connections (in many cases highly connected) to the government

    – 16

    – Bauer (PNAC signatory)
    – Clem (Chief Information Officer/Deputy Director of Defence Intelligence Agency)
    – Eberle (GOPUSA founder)
    – Elgas (FDIC on Banking Committee)
    – Gerson (George Bush speechwriter)
    – Hey (Congressional Staff Attorney)
    – Lyman (Washington lobbyist)
    – McCusker (co-chair of the Coalition for National Security Research)
    – Pak (Russian Munitions Agency Director)
    – Rains (Director of Communications for Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems)
    – Regnery (Right Wing Publisher and American Foreign Policy Council)
    – Renzi (corrupt politician with connections to ManTech Corporation)
    – Robbins (Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council and National Review Online Editor)
    – Smiley (works in terrorist intelligence for the Federal Aviation Administration)
    – Taylor (Defence Intelligence Agency)
    – Trapasso (Political Appointee to the Clinton Administration)

    There are a lot of strange bedfellows mentioned above. Who among most of these people is not going to “do their bit” in the name of “national security”? How many of those listed would dare contradict their peers? Fear, blind loyalty and cognitive dissonance are major factors.

    Remember that 9/11 occurred just after a decade in which witnesses to the TWA800 shoot down and the Oklahoma Bombing created major problems for the state. What better way to control information than by letting the media puppets control the flow of that information? Or that the witness pool consists of people whose ambitions, careers and loyalty depend on the government?

    Last but not least “Media disinformation”:

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008857

    Cheers

    OSS

    1. Hey OSS,

      I know you addressed all this to Wright…but it is not in vain. It is great to have all of this spelled out clearly in one place like this.

      So Bravo champ. I am sure the rest of the regulars appreciate all the hard work and dedication that went into that knowledge base.

      I hope it’s okay to transfer it over to my blog. I’ll put it in the flight path thread.

      \\][//

      1. Willy

        Thanks mate. I sometimes feel like a spammer when I make such long posts. Do what you want with it. That’s what it’s there for.

        It’s crazy how many fronts the NOC evidence is attacked on and it still holds its ground. GLs OCT (plus subplots), Frank Legge (OCT plus lies), Dwain Deets (two planes plus impact plus “directional damage is irrelevant” plus “what aerodynamics?”), Honegger “violent event at helipad” (plus multiple subplots plus “south of the navy annex but the directional damage was staged”, Jeff Hill (OCT plus “I wish I could find an SOC/lightpole witness”), Chris Sarns (NOC impact) and good old Brian Good (NOC plus OCT plus fill blank)

        All of them on the “same page” according to John Bursill.

        @A Wright

        All of this info is posted at the CIT forum. And then some. CIT have censored none of their findings, whether witnesses claim to have seen an impact or not. They based their conclusions on the flightpath that’s constantly reported no matter who has done the interview. Ask Jeff Hill.

        See if you can find just one witness who saw the aircraft

        1) south of the Navy Annex
        2) south of Citgo
        3) through the lightpoles

        After that, point me to identified/documented aircraft parts/FDR.

        Then we can talk about the damage? The ASCE Report’s admission that it has no explanation for the lack of extremity damage to the facade. Or the contradictory claim that the fuel load was a factor re the internal damage yet AE Drive was unscorched nor drenched in fuel.

        Those are just off the top of my head, but if you want to get in to the nitty gritty, I’m all ears.

    2. @Onesliceshort
      That is a very comprehensive list of the eyewitness whose evidence CIT ignored in coming to their conclusion. Anyone who watched National Security Alert wouldn’t have a clue that they even existed, yet they are being told that the conclusion presented to them in this logical argument is definitive and beyond a reasonable doubt. Conclusions are arrived at by first addressing all of the evidence, and then arriving at a conclusion.

      1. A.Wright,

        You say:
        “That is a very comprehensive list of the eyewitness whose evidence CIT ignored in coming to their conclusion.”

        What do you mean they “ignored” them? It is infuriating reading your twisted ‘logic’.

        CIT did not mention anyone but who they themselves interviewed and verified on their own. They were not analyzing the whole [often bogus] witness pool. Their investigation turned up enough fresh and unique evidence to prove the airplane came on the North Path. That is ALL YOU NEED pal. That shoots the official story out of the water. And if you notice NOTHING has altered the CIT findings, but every closer look has verified their initial findings and conclusions as correct.

        Even you might grasp this if you would actually read the info OSS offered.

        \\][//

  54. Barbara Honegger
    OCTOBER 31, 2013 – 7:48 AM
    “I will be responding to this latest post of Craig’s,
    of which I’ve just been made aware, and to this
    comments thread in the near future.”
    ~Barbara Honegger

    Well…I hope the delay here is that she is reading up on all the points she has to counter.
    But I have an intuitive feeling that she has gotten cold feet, and is going to stand us up.

    So Barbara, even if it is just to make a start, or a “give me a while more”…anything.
    Stay in touch now y’hear?

    \\][//

  55. @Willy

    Yea, Creighton on the one hand paints the NOC witnesses as a group of cointel entities, then exaggerates the number of the same “cointel” NOC witnesses who claimed to actually witness an alleged impact. Yawn.

  56. Mr Ruff,

    I must point out that Señor uses what is a classic example of ‘Argumentum Verbosium’.
    This is one example of ‘Proof by intimidation’. Anyone who would like to look up the term for a greater understanding of this form of agitprop, can paste it into their browsers here.

    The results of this technique is finding one in an endless maze of funhouse mirrors.

    \\][//

  57. For the record,

    Over at the Pilots forum where Craig M. posted the link to this blog entry, I called Rob Balsamo out for being an arrogant prick towards Messrs. Ruff, Whitten, and McKee on both this blog and the Pilots thread. I told him that it’s hardly the first time I’ve sat and observed him alienate people who either support P4T’s work staunchly, or are at least potential allies.

    I told him I’ve seen him treat true enemies like Michael Wolsey (hard core impact promoter and venomous anti CIT character) with more respect than he did to McKee and co. just now.

    Rob really messed up by saying that McKee was the one who was alienating people.

    At any rate, he responded by calling me “two faced” and then publicized something I said to him privately on FB: Namely:

    I agree that his prolific posting at TS is much like the kid in class who sits in the front row and raises his hand all the time, trying to be the star of the class, or teacher’s pet or whatever…

    I was referring to HR1. However, in and of itself, there’s nothing wrong with being that kid who raises his hand and speaks a lot – I was once that kid myself – as long as his comments are of substance. I think 98.36% of HR1’s comments are on the money and well said. (Once in a while HR, you get a bit snarky and it undercuts your serious message of the moment…)
    …but I’m not being two faced, because I don’t think HR1 should stop posting here, nor should Craig not approve his comments.

    Anyway, after I called out Balsamo at his own forum and let him know his attitude sucked, he promptly had the last word (where he accused me of being two faced) and then locked the thread. As of now, he seems to have deleted it from public view. In addition to calling me “two faced,” he also said that I was succumbing to “group think” because I came to the defense of HR1, Ruff and McKee. Nope, no group think going on here Rob. I went back and re-read all the comments, just to make sure I was really being fair. Mr. Balsamo, you came in and took a dump on the blog and its participants.

    I also notice that Mr. Balsamo has tinkered with the settings of my account (his site, his right of course). With 122 posts, I was listed as a “Respected Member.” Now, in that spot, it instead says “Newbie.” I also don’t seem to have access to my private message folder. But whatever.

    What we’ve seen here is actually a clear pattern with Rob Balsamo. As much as I admire the work P4T has done, in particular the video presentations, I can’t stay silent on this issue, Rob, of you alienating people who you should see as allies. Since you yourself don’t have a problem with publicizing exchanges that were initially private, why don’t I give you a taste of your own medicine and show, for the T/S audience, a few instances of where you’ve alienated others in the past.

    First, David Griffin (9/2/11). He said:

    Rob,

    If you want to be able to discuss things frankly with people, they need to be able to trust you. This includes trusting that if you tell them something in confidence, they won’t see it
    blabbed on the Internet within a few days.

    And now you claim that I’ve lost my fight – I who shortly after almost dying worked night and day to get a book ready for the 10th anniversary.

    I have tried to defend you against your detractors. You are the reason why Pilots for 9/11 Truth is not respected by most of the other 9/11 organizations. The main complain against you is that you lash out at people with little evidence. And now you lash out at me with no evidence, simply because I pointed out that you should learn to keep confidences. I’m afraid that I will not be able to defend you any more.

    DG

    Now please don’t pull a Paul/911artists on me and tell me that I’m not providing the context. I think many readers here will realize the context is of little consequence since this is a clear pattern with you.

    Another example includes Ken Freeland of the 911telecon. What started as a friendly exchange, in which you had volunteered for your site to be host to a 911telecon message board, degenerated pretty quickly, simply because Ken had made the (in your eyes unforgivable) mistake of not seeing the link in the top corner to your forum.

    Ken,

    The subforum is set up.

    I recommend you spend a few days learning the forum so you are able to understand all it’s functions.

    Once you have mastered the basics, read our forum rules and Board Guidelines, including reading and clicking on the links and capabilities of our forum, I’m sure you will find this opportunity not to be squandered.

    I must be honest with you Ken, my patience is wearing thin with you. Especially considering the fact you didn’t even know our forum existed when it has been linked to the left margin of our home page since 2006.

    Please prove me wrong that you can learn the basics.

    Ken responded to you point by point:

    Ken,

    The subforum is set up.

    Yes, I know, we spent the afternoon together setting it up, remember?

    I recommend you spend a few days learning the forum so you are able to understand all it’s functions.

    I fully intend to do so. I think I made that clear in a previous message where I requested you keep your SKYPE on in case I have any questions the next couple of days.

    Once you have mastered the basics, read our forum rules and Board Guidelines, including reading and clicking on the links and capabilities of our forum, I’m sure you will find this opportunity not to be squandered.

    Yes, I hope that is true.

    I must be honest with you Ken, my patience is wearing thin with you. Especially considering the fact you didn’t even know our forum existed when it has been linked to the left margin of our home page since 2006.

    I cannot understand why you would say this, Rob. Considering the learning curve involved, I have been a relatively quick study. Remember, you have the experience with this software, I am a neophyte with it. Rome was not built in a day! Given my hour or so of quick tour, you should expect that it will take a bit of practice for me to get the full hang of it….

    Please prove me wrong that you can learn the basics.

    Rob, let’s be clear about something: I’m not investing all this time to prove something to you or to anyone. I’m trying to help the 9/11 Telecon folks develop an alternative communications venue to supplement the one we’ve outgrown. If this venue proves to be that vehicle (and kindly note that I have publicly thanked you twice for making it available), then that is all to the good. But it’s got to be user-friendly and welcoming, and your tone here is suddenly less than that. I hope this is only an aberration — we all have bad hair days from time to time J

    As to Pilots911Truth, while I have not previously subscribed to the forum, I have been well aware of the organization and its work, and have often linked to it in my efforts to educate the public. So I can hardly be said to be ignorant of its existence.

    I fully intend to learn the ropes “by doing” here, just as you suggest, and as time allows. At this point, it’s only a pilot project, but it would be nice if we could develop something that would attract the support of the Telecon and serve as our needed supplementary communications venue. I hope you can guide us in that spirit.

    Peace,

    Ken

    A very civil reply from Ken. Anyway, you then got even snippier and snarkier and escalated the hostility level of the encounter.

    “I cannot understand why you would say this, Rob. Considering the learning curve involved, I have been a relatively quick study. ”

    No Ken.. .you havent.

    What do you do for a living Ken?

    To give you an example of a “quick study”.

    I had no idea how to make a website in May 2006. All i knew was how to fly jets, i liked boats, boobs and bikes.. and not in that order.

    By the end of May 2006, I was running the Loose Change Forum in its heyday. 1000 people logged onto the forum at any given minute of the day.

    By Aug 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth was a reality.

    By Fed 2007, i produced my first film on 9/11.

    Today, i have produced over 7 films, have attracted hundreds of my peers (aviation professionals), have over 3000 forum members.

    And you still cannot find the link to our forum on our home page.

    How can you possibly understand the functions of our forum when you cannot even find the link to our forum on our home page?

    I’m sorry Ken… but you make me nervous.

    Again, what do you do for a living? What is your training? Any college education?

    I don’t even need to take up any more space with the remainder of that exchange, except to note that you got even nastier and the end result was that Ken Freeland wanted nothing to do with you and in the process, you tarnished your organization by associating it with your piss poor attitude, exactly as DRG described.

    Just for insurance, I’ll give one more example: Mark Graham, of AE911Truth. This had to do with the issue of Pilots and AE911Truth joining forces to confront the BBC re their support of the official 9/11 story, since several petition signers are British and the British media has a mandate by law to be fair and accurate in reporting. Mark started out:

    I am the Volunteer Team Leader for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I have been working with 3 of our petition signers in the UK (Peter Drew, Paul Warburton and Adrian Mallett) to support their campaign to pressure the BBC to make up for its previous biased and inaccurate reporting on the 9/11 attacks. Unlike every American TV network, the BBC is obligated by their Charter and Editorial Values to provide accurate and impartial (and there’s more) news. Their documentaries last September and one in 2007 failed to do this on several counts, including the issue of free fall of Building 7 for 2.25 seconds as admitted by NIST in November, 2008 in their final report.

    [snip]

    The reason I tell you about this and show you this is to ask for your help. If you could take similar measures on behalf of Pilots for 9/11 Truth it would add more voices and more credibility and more support to this campaign. If nothing else you could compose a letter sort of similar to Richard Gage’s letters but from a pilot’s point of view.

    You responded:

    Hi Mark,

    I apologize I was unable to get back to you sooner.

    If I understand you correctly, AE911Truth is asking for our help?

    If so, then why exactly is it that Richard Gage recommends confirmed disinformation instead of our work?

    Furthermore, why exactly are you a volunteer when AE911T makes over a quarter of a million dollars per year?

    Yes, I get it. You’re still bitter about Richard’s “complete withdrawal of support for CIT” in which Richard recommended the “work” of Frank Legge over the real legwork done by your organization. I share your bitterness toward Richard on that issue but I still promote the organization of AE and the evidence they promote whenever I can. No one is disputing the fact that on that particular occasion, Richard Gage fucked up. But you seem to not have the foggiest clue when to put aside differences and work together. Yes, Richard’s organization is infiltrated, that is to be expected. It’s AE911Truth, for God’s sake. Cass Sunstein’s pimps are not going to infiltrate Seamstresses for 9/11 Truth or Waitresses for 9/11 Truth. They’re going to infiltrate ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS! And Richard’s weak point is that he wants to be friends with everyone, so he felt he was making others happier and making things easier on himself by signing his name to that ignominious statement in February 2011. But you seem to have no clue when to put aside the intra-movement bullshit and work toward the common good about getting out the truth re 9/11.

    After Graham informed you that he was not up to speed on the friction between yourself and Gage over the CIT issue and had no interest in taking sides, you started pounding your chest about your accomplishments, much as you have done here in 2013 on this very thread. You also expressed sour grapes over the fact that AE911Truth raises so much more money than your organization.

    Mark,

    Have you EVER read our website?

    Click here first…

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon_lawsuit.html

    Tell us again how many lawsuits/affidavits AE911T filed?

    Oh.. that’s right… zero.

    Mark responded in part:

    Your last question is easy and I can give my educated guess. You asked, “I ask again, how many lawsuits or affidavits has AE911T or Richard himself filed in a Court Of Law?”

    As far as I know, zero. AE911Truth is not set up to do lawsuits. That would be uncharted territory for us.

    You replied, in which you once again pounded your chest as to what a true patriot you are versus what an insincere activist Gage is:

    Adam [Syed] says – “But Richard took these angry letters [from the anti-CIT cabal] seriously, since he wants to be friends with everyone in the room and doesn’t like being on bad terms with anyone. ”

    I submit Richard is in the wrong business if he joined this cause to create friends. After all, he is accusing some of the most powerful people in the world of being complicit in murder.

    I submit that when it gets bloody, Richard will be hiding in a hole somewhere…. far from a stage. He would be wise to make allies with those who are willing to actually get bloody in this battle. Willing to die for this war.

    When I created our organization in search of truth, before AE911T, I made the decision that I am willing to die for it. Is Richard?

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    I ask again, how many lawsuits or affidavits has AE911T or Richard himself filed in a Court Of Law?

    And at that point, Mark had had enough of your bluster, and responded in part:

    Rob,

    This has gone downhill quickly. Frankly I am no longer interested in working with you. Perhaps that’s where this was from the start.

    Perhaps there is a REASON you have never raised more than 25K a year.

    Bottom line, yet another potential alliance was squandered.

    I don’t think I need to dig up the FB exchange where you alienated Rusty Aimer. But it was pretty true to form.

    Let me reiterate what David Ray Griffin said to you:

    This includes trusting that if you tell them something in confidence, they won’t see it
    blabbed on the Internet within a few days.

    Indeed. And now I’ve experienced this betrayal of confidence first hand. You publicized a comment I made to you on a private FB message (the comment about Whitten being the kid who always raises his hand and speaks), initially without revealing my name, and saying you “respect” me. Then, I called you out on your form and told you to rein in your attitude and apologize to those you’d been rude to. Then, you lash back by revealing publicly that it was me who made the private comment about Whitten.

    Wasn’t it Hemingway who said No Man Is An Island? But you’re doing a damned good job at contending to be the first.

  58. Also, Mr. Balsamo, at this time yesterday, this blog entry had 12 votes and an average of 5 stars. Now we’re up to 45 votes and an average of 2 stars. Rarely does anything McKee writes get more than 10 votes (probably because most see the stars system as pretty pointless). All those votes in under a day was obviously done by someone who wanted to attack. Who else but you would choose, at this specific point in time, to engage in this attack?

    1. Adam,

      While we have no proof that it is Mr. Balsamo who is behind this flurry of negative reviews, the evidence certainly points squarely in his direction. It is absolutely unprecedented that someone would orchestrate a campaign to drive the rating of a given article down this way, and it only occurred after Balsamo’s public flame-out on this blog and the Pilots thread, which he closed after getting in the last word. Frankly, any authentic truther who would do such a thing is using the very tactics you’d expect to see from the other side. I seriously hope that Balsamo did not do this, and that it is just a wacky coincidence, but I’m not a big believer in coincidences.

      1. WOW! this RB thing has gotten insane. isn’t it a sunstein tactic to create infighting this way?

        WTF is going on? has RB been effectively threatened/gotten to? is he hitting the bottle too much? has he been at this 9/11 Truth jazz too long? does he simply need a vacation, or a weekend alone with the love of his life? or is he right?

        if cass is reading all this, or at least getting a report, is there any doubt that he is smiling?

        adam s,
        thanks for your input, which provides perspective.

        craig,
        i have a psychic friend who says “there are no coincidences.” i wouldn’t go that far, but i distrust coincidence entirely.

        all,
        submitted for your consideration, a theory: the powers that be have noticed some free and independent thinkers at the T&S site, who have their fingers on the pulse of what really happened on 9/11, and thereby pose a threat to disseminating those truisms. thus, T&S has been targeted to be disrupted, with alliances severed or destroyed.

        –rod serling

      2. “submitted for your consideration, a theory: the powers that be have noticed some free and independent thinkers at the T&S site, who have their fingers on the pulse of what really happened on 9/11, and thereby pose a threat to disseminating those truisms. thus, T&S has been targeted to be disrupted, with alliances severed or destroyed.”~Dennis

        I posted a comment outlining this very theory earlier. The series of coincidence and weird disruption blasts here – especially this particular thread has been very eye opening in a lot of ways.
        … … … …
        To Adam Syed, I read that quote of “the kid at the head of the class” w/out you being referenced as author… now that Balslamo has fingered you, I have to say it doesn’t bother me at all. You have said up front to me that you think I get too snarky at times. I can deal with constructive criticism, and even appreciate it {on my better days} – so don’t feel weird about it. Robs the jerk that needs some counselling, a wake-up call, or…maybe he has been gotten to[?] in-which case him hitting the schnapps too often might be understood.

        But we seem to be holding together pretty well under fire here. As they say, “that which doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”

        I think those of us who keep our wits under fire here are showing our true colors.
        I don’t know about being “willing to die” for a cause, but I have certainly been willing to live for this cause – thus my often maligned “excessive output” in the comments section here.

        So “One for All and All for One” I say.

        \\][//

  59. Yes Mr Syed,
    yep…
    The P4T thread of Balslamo’s ego-blasting rant is apparently down the memory hole.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22471

    [Current Message] “Sorry, an error occurred. If you are unsure on how to use a feature, or don’t know why you got this error message, try looking through the help files for more information.
    The error returned was:
    Sorry, some required files are missing, if you intended to view a topic, it’s possible that it’s been moved or deleted. Please go back and try again.”

    This is another technique that always turns me off; talk a lot of shit about someone, group or thing, and then go back and make it disappear as if it never happened. Well everyone one here KNOWS it happened…and will certainly never forget it.

    \\][//

  60. The fact is that I have taken the nukes at WTC story apart point by point, and in the end, Mr Ruff’s assertion that “No radiation = No nukes” does indeed turn out to be the bottom line.

    \\][//

  61. Mr. Balsamo,

    I will not publish your new, repetitive, and predictably nasty comment here. You’ve said it all before. But I will address the one new(ish) thing you did say. You offered a link to a web site that indicates that this blog gets 49 visitors per day. THIS IS FALSE. Not that it’s any of your business, but my worst day is many times greater than that. The first day of my Boston bombing article in May received 5,443 views on the first day.

    Did you notice that your source says my average daily page views is 0? Does that seem accurate to you? 49 visitors and 0 page views? Hmm.

    If you don’t believe me about anything I’m saying, I’d be happy to have someone that we both trust independently confirm it by viewing my stats page. Well, not happy, but I’d love to see you admit you were wrong.

    The only reason I even respond is that you are bound to mention this on your own forum, where no one can stop you from spreading lies. It’s actually incredible that you’d go to the trouble of trying to find out how many people read my blog so you could point your finger and taunt. If I were a member of your group, I’d be urging you to stop acting like a mentally unstable asshole. Despite your inexplicable behavior, I continue to support Pilots and to salute the excellent research the group has done.

    But you need to take your own advice and move on…

    1. As far as Balslamo pounding his chest, I will quote a Shooter Jennings song here:

      “Fuck you I’m famous”

      I have been a special effects artist in films, working on a dozen or more blockbuster hits, and went on to a career in fine art gaining world wide notoriety there as well. For sci-fi movie fans I was very well known, and the same for the art world as a sculptor.

      So as Shooter says, fuck you I’m famous.

      And you know what pal, all in all it don’t mean shit.

      \\][//

  62. Well, now that the Barbara Honegger Show has turned into the Balsamo Comedy Show,
    what are we going to do? Just wait it out and hope the Queen of Hearts shows up someday?

    \\][//

  63. Mr. Balsamo is posting the same lie on his forum that he posted here – that I get 49 visitors and 0 page views per day on this blog (he actually argues that a 0 daily average is possible). I challenge him to take this ridiculous claim back. I offered him the chance to have someone we both trust look at my page stats to confirm that this is false, and he has ignored the offer. He attacks, then locks the Pilots thread and tells me to “move on,” and then he opens the thread to make more comments. It’s now locked AGAIN. And he sets himself up as the standard for moderating a forum. I hate having to address this when we should be talking about the Pentagon, but I feel I have to. Rob, take back your claim. Show some integrity and stop embarrassing yourself.

  64. What appears to have taken place on this thread is, successful sabotage. This sudden abrupt end, like driving down a road and finding the bridge blown down, and no way to get over to the other side.

    I think this situation is in no way by happenstance, but was in fact accomplished by coordinated planning and application of that plan. Both Dennis and I have put this idea forward earlier, above.

    So to build some pontoons, attempt to get over to the other side, and continue, we might discuss in more detail what we might see as the signs and implications of who might want to shut down the discussion here and what the motives were.

    We might look at language, such as, who would address someone in such a way as this:
    “Mr. Dennis”, knowing that Dennis is his first name? Is this suppose to be some kind of proper etiquette? Is this a passive form of patronizing? Whatever it strikes me as contrived and disingenuous.

    Dennis on NOVEMBER 4, 2013 – 3:46 PM:
    “submitted for your consideration, a theory: the powers that be have noticed some free and independent thinkers at the T&S site, who have their fingers on the pulse of what really happened on 9/11, and thereby pose a threat to disseminating those truisms. thus, T&S has been targeted to be disrupted, with alliances severed or destroyed.”

    I had made a similar proposition on NOVEMBER 3, 2013 – 12:04 AM, pointing to the sudden burlesque of Deets and Balsamo showing up to have a ‘Great Battle’. In that comment I mentioned Honegger and SEO as possible additional provocateurs due to the timing and nature of their remarks.

    Of course the person I would like to see address these points is Ms Honegger, as well as her addressing the issues confronting her hypothesis of the ‘drone explosion’ near the heliport. All of these issues combine now, if she is to make a full explanation of herself.

    \\][//

    1. I would like Barbara to engage in a discussion here as well, and I believe that will happen. But I also feel that we have to refrain from unnecessary personal attacks for that to be in any way productive. I allowed one particularly nasty one from Rob Balsamo to Dwain Deets and regretted it afterwards. It has since been removed. So when Barbara appears, as promised, we will stick to the facts and the evidence. That doesn’t mean not being as critical as the facts justify, of course.

      I do want to thank those who have had supportive things to say about me and the blog on this thread. With your encouragement and input, I hope I can find ways to make it better in the weeks and months ahead. It’s unfortunate that this thread was sabotaged by one individual who thinks that honesty and co-operation should take a back seat to ego and mean-spiritedness. But I’ve wasted enough time stewing about it; let’s get back to the subject at hand. If there are more worthwhile points from the conference to discuss, let’s discuss them. If not, we can wait for Barbara to make herself available for a discussion of her presentation.

      I am currently working on a piece about the new Free Mind Films documentary State of Mind. The article will feature a fascinating interview with the film’s writer, Richard Grove.

      1. By the way, I am excited to read your Grove interview. As I mentioned, I spoke to Grove by phone years ago when he was first on the radio show…late 2007 or early 2008. I can’t recall the name of the woman who had him on the show. He gave out his phone number, and I was intrigued. We spoke two or three times, and he explained a little more detail to me personally.

        I also got a copy of the DVD, STATE OF MIND. I think it is an important contribution to truth.

        \\][//

    2. “Cheney, I believe, or the Secret Service, ordered the destruction of the white plane,” ~Honegger

      Which was also accompanied by the remark; “so it’s not true that Cheney did not attempt to defend the building..” {she may have said “he” rather than his name as an exact quote}.

      This is one of the things that especially caught my attention, as I am sure you recall Craig.
      I find this seeming attempt to defend Cheney as one of the most bizarre elements of this whole affair. It seems one of those orbiter dicta moments, that might have been a very subtle PR seed that may be important to the defense, if Cheney were ever to face charges for his part in the 9/11 events.

      \\][//

  65. I know it may be seen as heresy [even here] but I thought I would do some checking around as far as this Pilot’s actual mathematical skills, by…well looking for a real mathematician who had published his take on Balsamo’s math…

    http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html#original

    “Balsamo has drawn his own favorite flight path to scale. Any measurements or calculations based on that drawing will apply only to Balsamo’s favorite flight path. They will not apply to more plausible flight paths.

    Without giving any reason, Balsamo assumes his favorite flight path is well approximated by a circular arc. His software won’t tell him any different, so long as the three points he picks aren’t all in a straight line, because any three non-collinear points lie on some circle. Balsamo should have checked his assumption by adding a fourth point. If that fourth point lies on or near the circle, then the circle may be a good approximation. If the fourth point does not lie on or near the circle, however, then the circle is a bad approximation and any calculations based on it will be misleading. Apparently Balsamo did not perform that basic check.

    Given the video’s resolution, I cannot see Balsamo’s favorite flight path clearly enough to discern its shape in the region of his three points. With a piece wise linear flight path, with a distinct bend where two linear pieces are joined, a calculating practitioner can come up with an arbitrarily small radius by placing one of his three points at the bend and the other two on opposite sides of the bend, as close as necessary to achieve the desired radius. Hence curve-fitting on curves of dubious provenance is an inherently suspect enterprise.

    Balsamo came up with a radius of 2085 feet, which is less than 10% of the radius I calculated for a genuinely circular arc that connects the top of the VDOT antenna to level flight at the base of the Pentagon. My calculations are correct, so Balsamo either made a mistake in his measurement, or chose a flight path whose acceleration is ten times the acceleration required for a genuinely circular arc.

    After adding 1 g for earth’s gravity, Balsamo gets a total of 10.14 g. As shown above, the correct value for a circular arc that passes above the VDOT antenna and ends in level flight at the base of the Pentagon is 1.9 g. Balsamo’s “corrected” calculation is off by a factor of 5.

    The video amounts to an argument from authority. The self-assuredness of Balsamo’s video monologue, combined with his sneering contempt for critics, is designed to convince viewers that he really does understand the physics and mathematics, while his detractors do not. In reality, Rob Balsamo is a former airline pilot with no discernible skills in mathematics or physics and a history of making outrageous mistakes in his calculations.”~William D Clinger, PhD (MIT, 1981, mathematics)
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Of course even if we accept Mr Clinger’s position as per the math. We still have the problem of trajectory–that of flying over the Navy Annex –most reasonable path according to Clinger — rather than over the VDOT. The trajectory remains the ground proof of the impossibility of the Pentagon being struck by the plane.

    \\][//

      1. Yes Dwain,

        That is all well and good. But that math error is the basis for his famous, or infamous [take your pick] video going through the radius and arc presentations.
        So, has Balsamo taken that video down? Has he left it up even though he recognizes that the mathematical basis for the whole presentation is in error?

        \\][//

    1. Willy

      This spat with Rob has been blown out of all proportion if you’re going to quote that lying rat Clinger. The math that Rob admitted getting wrong is still on the site (Dwain) and hasn’t been taken down. Clinger is another GL subplotter. Just as devious and evasive as Honegger. The “critics” Clinger is referring to are housed at that swamp JREF. And Frank Legge.

      Fair enough, tempers boiled over and I’d have reacted the same way as Craig but if we’ve now got to the point where his work is now the target, I’m outta here. The guy has broken his nuts exposing the bullshit lies of 9/11.

      I know his (and Aldo and Craig R.’s) personal skills sometimes leave a lot to be desired but they’ve been under the spotlight and a non stop campaign of vilification for 7 years. Again, I’m not making excuses but I do know that when misunderstandings or insults make their way on to the net, they snowball. Just look at our first conversation Willy.

      Peace

      OSS

      1. OSS,

        I can’t check the math for myself. Can you? Have you? I am not in the position to claim that Clinger is right or wrong. But I just found another site with him on it awhile ago, and damned if you aren’t right, it was a JREF thread.
        I suppose that is reason enough to drop Clinger. But I am still curious as to the math aspect.

        So I must ask, has a real mathematician checked and stands behind Balsamo’s work?

        \\][//

      2. Here is a link to a discussion on the Pilots forum about this Clinger thing. Rob sent it as part of another attacking comment otherwise I would have let him post the link himself:

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18336

        OSS, you’re right when you say CIT and Pilots have been vilified, but you’re also right when you say this is no excuse for Rob’s behavior. In fact, it’s apples and oranges. I support both groups and I support Rob’s work. We’re not going down a road of attacking that. But I don’t deserve what he is doing. I actually don’t even believe it’s a case of tempers boiling over. He has been very calm and seemingly pleased with himself as he has done his attacking (and sabotaging if you include 57 down votes on this article). I am angry at what he is doing but I have not lost my temper; I’m more saddened if anything. If I were a member of Pilots I would tell him to stop because it does not reflect well on him or the group.

        I really just want to get away from talking about this.

      3. OSS, HR, Craig,

        I want to get away from talking about all this too. In fact, this will almost certainly be my last comment pertaining to all this.

        I know his (and Aldo and Craig R.’s) personal skills sometimes leave a lot to be desired but they’ve been under the spotlight and a non stop campaign of vilification for 7 years.

        I agree with this, but personally, I am hesitant to include Craig Ranke in the mix here. The issue here has to do with when people lash out at others publicly, or at least semi-publicly (group emails). I largely (with one or two exceptions, such as Ruff’s grievance against CraigR’s tone over the Dakota report) regard CraigR as being in a different category than either Balsamo or Aldo Marquis. While myself and one or two others have had a few differences privately with Ranke (mostly over tactics of strategy/promotion), those are private and no one’s business. But 98% of the time, I think Ranke has been very professional in the way he’s handled himself on blogs, forums, etc. Don’t get me wrong; I’ve definitely seen him bluntly call out bullshit disinfo from detractors when he’s seen it. And I’ve seen him question the motives of those who continue to promote it even after they’re corrected. But he never got personal.

        However, both Aldo and Balsamo have essentially melted down (multiple times) in public fashions in ways that make their supporters cringe. (I don’t have the time, space or patience right now to dig up the specific examples, but others reading will know what I’m talking about. Once, I brought Aldo into an email circulation among Cincinnati truthers, since his knowledge of the eyewitnesses was more encyclopedic than mine. The general conclusion after it was all over: “Aldo is a jackass!”).

        But Ranke, while he may be forthright and even blunt with people, does not engage in the obviously childish antics that we’ve seen here. In fact, Ranke has barely spoken a word on public forums for 4 years now, instead limiting himself to formal statements a few times a year. You would never find Ranke sabotaging a blog by bombing the vote system. You would never find Ranke leaving derogatory comments on peoples’ FB photos. (Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve seen Aldo do those either, though I’ve seen him get excessively snarky with people who could at least be potential allies.)

        I say this only because, in addition to any genuine personality flaws that anyone may have, there has been the Sunsteinian effort to paint BOTH Craig and Aldo as rude, disruptive jerks (and [not-so-]subtly imply they’re agents). I regard this as unfair; I see a multitude of differences between Craig and Aldo as far as online temperament. As such, I think it’s not wise, as people who support their work and who are not Sunstein infiltrators, to lump the two personalities together.

        I also concur that I am not in a position to judge the “math” from either Balsamo or a detractor. However, if William Clinger is cut from the same cloth as Legge as well as the JREFers, that tells me all I need to know. And, I may add, if the anti-P4T arguments are on a par with the anti-CIT arguments, then they don’t have a “legge” to stand on.

        Regarding the actual, professional disinformation campaign that has been leveled at Pilots and CIT: Yes, it’s one of the most brutal disinfo campaigns in history. I can imagine it’s taken its emotional toll on Ranke, Marquis and Balsamo. But it’s no excuse for the behavior we’ve seen by Balsamo here, toward people who are NOT agents and who ARE on his side re the evidence.

        Balsamo trying to boast about his own site stats etc. and belittle other peoples’ stats, as well as how long he’s been in the movement, how much he’s done for the cause, etc. is exactly the kind of behavior I came to except from a man named Jon Gold. And, his vote-bombing here as well as the remarks he made on my FB are exactly the kinds of tactics one would expect from the Other Side. However, none of this makes me suspect Balsamo of being an agent; rather just merely someone who’s rather socially inept.

        Let me also conclude by saying, categorically, that those of us who are continuing to receive emails from Rob, in which he simply continues the temper tantrum that he started here, are NOT going to respond to them. Such a childish meltdown deserves to be greeted with deafening silence. I will just say: Mr. Balsamo, PLEASE, for the benefit of the truth movement (and hence the human race), recuse yourself publicly and take a break from “the movement”, take some anger management classes or whatever the hell you need to do to get your life in order, calm down, reflect, and perhaps return one day with a fresh perspective along with a sincere apology to those who you’ve belittled.

        There. I think I’ve said about all I need to say on this topic.

      4. I would retract that comment about Clinger, now that I have found he is a JREF smugnut.

        All the other stuff I said about checking the math – besides that point.

        \\][//

      5. OSS,
        The calculations resulting in 10.14g may be on the website, but I suspect they are hidden from the search engines. Here is Rob’s comment on the calculations on the forum:
        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21025

        Specifically, says Rob on Jan 25, 2011 (8:08 PM):

        “I have them on the forum somewhere, but it’s been awhile so dont remember where they are.. search if you like,, i think they are here in the debate section. If i recall correctly, the G loads were somewhere around 2.5-3 G.”

      6. Willy

        Yes, Shelton Lankford actually pointed out the flaw in the math, which Rob openly admitted.

        The formula used can be seen here (@6:00mins in)

        I can sort of follow the math but I’m more of a “perspective” person. I need to see the “picture”

        GLs claim that there was an “easier” path. That Rob’s descent is too “straight” and a “dive”. Then they add their own parameters, ignore the topography (steep incline), speed, g forces recorded on the alleged FDR and the physical damage itself!

        For perspective, the Navy Annex is 69ft tall. Sitting on a hill 145ft ASL. The aircraft was allegedly, according to the discredited RADALT readings, to be 183ft AGL when passing the Navy Annex. That’s about 110ft above this building!

        According to the RADALT, the aircraft had to descend 138ft in one second at 800fps.
        Here’s an object that’s 124ft tall:

        Remember, cruise speed, 1 second, 138ft descent.

        The descent had to be in a dive!

        I’m sure Honegger and her team are loving this shit. Not to mention their JREF friends. I’ll comment more when Barbara or Dwain show their faces.

      7. OSS,

        My real bottom line is that using either NTSB data, FDR data, RADALT readings or any other government source, is to twine ones work into an ambiguity. None of the evidence offered by the authorities have a specified chain of possession, all are tainted as inadmissible by, not only standards of law, but accepting those standards are anchored to those of critical analysis.

        But that is not to say that the circumstantial case built by such analysis isn’t a strong corollary to be considered as well. I however do not feel qualified to judge on the issue. I still hold that it is the witness testimony – trajectory – and the aerodynamics involved to those specifically that is the strongest most close to absolute certain case.

        So if I hold judgment in this please have sympathy with my honest reasons for doing so.

        \\][//

  66. Balsamo is no longer welcome to post anything at Truth and Shadows. He continues to use a LOCKED thread on the Pilots forum to repeat the same arrogant and condescending attacks against me and others who participate here. Now he has posted a private email on the Pilots forum that I wrote telling him I no longer wanted any interaction with him. I’ve told him to stop sending comments here but he hasn’t the decency to go away.

    He claimed that I have 49 visitors and day and 0 page views over the past three months; when I told him that was impossible, he said he meant “new” visitors. But he sticks to the 0 page views. That’s a daily average. It’s a lie but he keeps repeating it. He also hasn’t denied being responsible for the 57 negative votes on this article, so I’ll assume he arranged for those. It’s sad and embarrassing.

    1. He has been blocked from my FB account now too. Late last night (about 3 a.m. when I was asleep and obviously not monitoring my FB), he left a series of derogatory comments on a bunch of my photos. This, just because I called him out for being uncivil towards others. He could have reflected on my words, chilled out (sobered up?), and realized I was right… but instead, his ego got further bruised, and he started taking pot shots at me, a person who just 4 days ago claimed he “respect[ed].” And he chose to take the sour grapes OUTSIDE the arena of 9/11 truth and over into my general life, where the comments can be seen by friends, family, non-9/11 people, etc. etc. etc.

      What if Richard Gage were to become a mentally unstable jerk towards most he knew? Wouldn’t legions of AE supporters start calling on him to step down, get his own life in order, and call for a more stable person to assume the helm?

  67. Just a note.
    CIT not being at the conference seems to be key to the life of this new 2plane theory.
    The Initial email exchanges between the organisers as posted certainly alienated CIT and Pilots into non attendance from the very beginning.
    And I have NEVER heard Craig Ranke bettered by anyone in a one-to-one on Pentagon evidence, anywhere, anytime; so his presence at the conference would have powerfully contested the Honegger presentation.
    And that defines the Honegger theory.
    That It is unlikely to have survived open debate with CIT.

  68. CIT not being at the conference is key to the life of this new 2plane theory.
    The Initial email exchanges between the organisers as posted appear to purposely alienate CIT and Pilots into non attendance from the very beginning.
    And I have NEVER heard Craig Ranke bettered by anyone in a one-to-one on Pentagon evidence, anywhere, anytime; so his presence at the conference would have powerfully contested the Honegger presentation.
    That defines the Honegger theory.
    That It is unlikely to have survived open debate with CIT.

    1. “That defines the Honegger theory.
      That It is unlikely to have survived open debate with CIT.”~Fremo

      You nailed it there. I do see it that way, that the organizers conspired to taunt Ranke while making the appearance of ‘inviting him’ and even using him for their promotional materials, knowing that he is not the type to put up with bullshit like using his name unapproved.

      It was skillful enough psyops on the part of Honegger’s crew, in that it accomplished all those goals. But blatant enough to see through in hindsight…although many here were predicting this all along, and even prior to the event.

      I think this is why we won’t see Honegger making any comments here. She has a lot to attempt to untangle. I don’t think she has the confidence that she can bully her way through here on this thread.

      \\][//

  69. “11 years and no flyover witnesses, and no release of the raw unedited CIT interview videos”~A W Smith
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=202200&page=3

    Yea? And 12 years and no videos of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon despite all the video cams aimed at it. All confiscated by the FBI and hidden in the cellar.
    Yes indeed these cretins at “the Amazing” Randi’s forums sure like to deal in hypocrisy.

    \\][//

    1. Willy

      I actually pulled AWSmith up on the issue of the “raw unedited CIT interviews” horsecrap (I post at JREF under the name “Mudlark”)

      What could CIT have “edited”? All witnesses interviewed describe the entire scenario from seeing the aircraft appearing on the scene through to the explosion or what they believed to be an impact. These dickheads even try to spin the “in it to sell DVDs” horseshit even though all of the videos are and have been online for free from release.

      And this coming from a site that begs for money to keep Amazing Randi afloat.

      My real bottom line is that using either NTSB data, FDR data, RADALT readings or any other government source, is to twine ones work into an ambiguity. None of the evidence offered by the authorities have a specified chain of possession, all are tainted as inadmissible by, not only standards of law, but accepting those standards are anchored to those of critical analysis.

      All of the above are what government loyalists are supposedly tied down to. They are what they must defend, not as separate evidence sets, but as a single evidence set that must correlate. There are no “just off” the directional damage paths, no left banks, no variance on the speed, angle of descent, g forces, alleged time of impact. Guess what? Government loyalists and the likes of Frank Legge fiddle with all of the official evidence sets. All of them.

      No witness described any of the directional damage path. The likes of Dwain Deets had to invent another aircraft in the area, ignore the directional damage before the facade and contradict his expertise in aerodynamics to make an aircraft “fit” into the building!

      I don’t trust any of the official garbage for the reasons you cited but it is the official narrative. Everything else put forward that doesn’t correlate with the so called “physical evidence” as a unit is irrelevant. The fact that the “pre-facade” damage is made out to be a “non issue” by some shows their real intentions. Marginalize the NOC evidence.

      If it weren’t, the likes of Honegger would be shouting from the rooftops about the staging of the directional damage as proof of an inside job.

      1. Willy

        Trying to get the JREF muppets to commit to the directional damage path and all other aspects of the official narrative in writing is a sight to behold. I remember being trolled to hell at both JREF and ATS (Snowcrash and other JREF socks) on Terry Morin’s testimony. They were all citing his first online account and claiming that the aircraft went over the edge of and in their words, “south” of the Navy Annex or on Columbia Pike.

        It was me who had to lay out exactly what the official narrative was to beat them back on to it! Here’s my layman breakdown of it all. It’s amateurish but you’ll get the gist.

        http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1228&view=findpost&p=2404268

      2. Thank you OSS,

        We are actually in agreement with all of this. The government source is inadmissible, PLUS the lackeys, moles and agents twist the source material on top of it’s inadmissibility. A doubling of errors, all to the point of purposely sowing confusion.
        I think expositions showing this are indeed critical.

        You do accept that I have disavowed the Clinger material on further reflection?

        \\][//

  70. I agree that what we all should do is drop this bickering and let it go. I really screwed the pooch by engaging with Balsamo and SEO and by allowing myself to become snotty and rude to them and to Dwain as well as towards Honegger. If we are to have any kind of productive discussions that kind of behavior needs to stop. That having been said I still strongly disagree with all of the above on various issues, my admission of fault has to do with my own bad attitude and general rude behavior. I will endeavor to stop behaving that way in the future and I offer no excuses for it here.

    I would like to have an actual productive discussion of the topic at hand but at this point that rests on the willingness of Barbara Honegger to address the issue with us. I honestly do not think she will address these issues in a meaningful way because I don’t think she can really. She has painted herself into a corner now. We will see what happens.

    I intend to learn from this experience and grow from it which requires self reflection and a willingness to face my own shortcomings. My apologies to everyone I was rude to. I hope no one mistakes this apology for a change of position on the various issues. I am apologizing for my rudeness and attitude not for my positions.

    1. That’s a very refreshing comment, Adam. I have often thought you sometimes get a bit too snarky (though nowhere near Balsamo’s condescension), much like HR1 has done, but I haven’t thought to call you on it because we’re on the same side re the evidence, and because I know you on the phone to be a very friendly person; also perhaps I was too timid to talk about it with you privately perhaps out of fear that you might feel “ego bruising,” much as is the actual case with Balsamo. (Perhaps my weak point, rather than rudeness, is a tendency to be too chicken and not call allies out on various things, out of a fear of disrupting the “friendship.” Of course, I realize that true friendship should be able to withstand these things and not be a case of “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours.” So yes, a weakness on my point that I need to strengthen.)

      Your comment just now has raised my (already pretty high) respect of you greatly.

      Thank you.

      1. Adam S,

        By all means say so when you think I am out of line. I try to accept criticism as best I can yet I do not always succeed in that effort obviously. The last thing in the world I want is to be the kind of person who cannot accept criticism. Barrie Zwicker gave me a good dose of constructive criticism on my paper I plan to release soon and although it stung at the time I have to admit that it was well deserved and it did improve my paper a great deal. So thanks Barrie and thanks Adam for saying what you did above. My respect has grown for you as well.

        My father was a wise man and he told me, warned me actually, about the ego. He said that ego is the roadblock to learning and growing and that I should treat it like a dangerous adversary. He beat me over and over again… at chess. He beat me so much in fact that my mother asked him at one point to let me win a game or two. My dad refused and said to her that you don’t learn anything when you win, you only learn when you lose. He was right and for 14 years I played him many many games a week until finally when I was 17 I won my first game. I knew I earned it and I knew that all those losses taught me what I needed to know to finally win against him. He was a brilliant chess player but what he really taught me was how to learn.

        Ego is dangerous indeed and it has gotten the better of many people who would otherwise be great had they kept theirs in check..

    2. I have learned every year at some time long or shortly after New Year, just how hard it is to keep in mind certain types of resolutions.

      And although I congratulate Mr Ruff on his herein stated resolution, I will gladly join in that effort. However, knowing myself as well as I do — I expect that is the caveat it sounds.

      \\][//

    3. Dear Mr. Ruff, you wrote :

      [2013-11-06 – 9:14 pm ] I really screwed the pooch by engaging with Balsamo and SEO and by allowing myself to become snotty and rude to them and to Dwain as well as towards Honegger. … That having been said I still strongly disagree with all of the above on various issues, my admission of fault has to do with my own bad attitude and general rude behavior. … [2013-11-07 – 3:31 am] By all means say so when you think I am out of line. … The last thing in the world I want is to be the kind of person who cannot accept criticism.

      Okay, as long as you appear to be open to criticism…

      You cannot field the winning side of the debate if you skip over and do not read (a) your debate opponent’s [non-insulting] comments, or (b) the materials that they use to substantiate their opinions. Any boasting of such willful ignorance — an act you’ve been caught in several times — only reflects negatively on your objectivity, exposes a major weakness, and will be used against you.

      “Know your enemy”, a saying derived from Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War,” applies very much to these online debates, but not in the sense that you have to know personal details about them. What you have to know is where are they getting the information that supports their position. If that foundation can be legitimately cracked point by point, that constitutes possibly new information that would allow your debate opponent to change their position and come into agreement with you. What you can’t crack, you build upon as potentially valid.

      It isn’t all or nothing! In this 9/11 realm of disinformation flowing freely by lots of sources including the government, invalidating a point or two does not take the whole work out of further consideration. It merely raises the flag that the work (and maybe its source) can be viewed with a healthy dose of distrust and should be vetted case-by-case. The flip-side of this is that you have to acknowledge valid points from your opponents and their sources, and you have to integrate those valid points into your own position if applicable. Failure to do so will be reflective of a closed-mind and stubborness that, like any weakness, will be used against you.

      When an isolated scuffle with a “troll” has you brain-storming ways or rules to “prevent it in the future,” think it through and be prepared to apply it to yourself. The situation with Ms. Honegger was a good example. You suggested that if she was going to be promoting a certain position (e.g., multiple aircraft at the Pentagon), she should be willing to substantiate and defend it.

      Turnabout is fairplay. Mr. Ruff, you’ve made many off-hand, flippant, negative, hypnotic statements of the nature that DEW and nukes are supposedly thoroughly debunked. For how these premises were presented and substantiated in the past, even I was attacking their (deliberate) weaknesses then. New insights, information, correlations, and deviations from their original (stilted) instantiations have presented themselves, which ought to give pause for rational thinkers to re-evaluate the situation. [Neutron nuclear DEW is a pretty radical deviation.]

      This is version two of my response. Version one was much heavier into tearing down your very simplified and unsubstantiated premise “No Radiation = No Nukes” and taking you to task for not defending it here or under a neutron nuclear DEW article, where I’ve tried to re-direct the discussion. Version one, I was on your case that you can and should be held to your same proclaimed standards of what constitutes reasonable debate that you were promoting. You stated it; you defend it [e.g., “No Radiation”].

      But this is version two where I’ve spared you the brow-beating (here). In following my own “know your enemy” advice, I did some further research into documentation [the Paul Lioy characterization of the Dust/Smoke] that Mr. Rogue brought up in past discussions, and that presumeably you would bring up to make the “No Radiation” case. Pretty quickly, I’ve spotted some of its weaknesses.

      This has led to a changing of my opinion on an internal matter with regards to my deviant neutron nuclear DEW. It has also brought to light how the erroneous “No Radiation” belief came about. These I’ll be writing about this in new comments at the bottom of a neutron nuclear DEW article [not there yet], so as not to distract from the Honegger gang pile-on that you hope for here, were she to make an appearance. I thank you for being the catalyst for bringing me to this greater understanding.

      Meanwhile, I suppose you could ponder a rule for the forum participants regarding the negative PR hynotic language and its frequency that an opponent is permitted to make on a theme [e.g., DEW, Dr. Wood’s work, nuclear devices, neutron nuclear DEW, etc.] that they are strongly in disagreement about but are unwilling or unable to defend point-by-point with substantiation and proper analysis.

      //

      1. “Turnabout is fairplay. Mr. Ruff, you’ve made many off-hand, flippant, negative, hypnotic statements of the nature that DEW and nukes are supposedly thoroughly debunked.”~Señor El Once

        This is only partially true. Pointing out these off-hand remarks and characterizing them as, “flippant, negative, hypnotic statements” is in itself a flippant, negative, and hypnotic statement — due to the fact that these arguments have been made in much fuller extent in the close-to two year history of these things being hashed out on this very blog, and extended to yet other venues. So if the “off-hand” remarks are now defined as “flippant”, this can only be said by ignoring {hiding} the well known fact of the excruciatingly long and convoluted debate that has already taken place.

        Which brings us to the present moment – wherein it is shown once again, that your real agenda here is to persistently hijack practically each and every thread to promote your Dew-Nuke theories, relying on the agitprop technique of claiming that the issue has been ignored by your detractors – it has not. And whether you like it or not, you may not and shall not take it upon yourself to claim a victorious position in this argument. Your proclamations that you have decisively won the debate is without merit or proper standing. Outside parties must judge for themselves. And they have been given plenty of sources to go to in order to make such judgments.

        I for one have grown most weary with this sales pitch Señor, and that is in truth the essence of your post to Mr Ruff above.

        Enough.

        \\][//

        1. This thread has had too many detours already. From now on (and particularly until I get the next post up), we stick to the Pentagon, the DC conference or other directly related subjects.

  71. Dwain

    How’s about quoting that snippet in full for context, huh? I’ve bolded the key portion of what you left out in your last post:

    If i recall correctly, the G loads were somewhere around 2.5-3 G for the aircraft which impacted the South Tower coming out of the 10,000 foot dive into the turn to line up with the South Tower…. according to radar.

    Rob Balsamo

    He wasn’t discussing the 10.14g calculations at all. How you “missed” (and actually snipped) what you quoted is beyond me.

    I see you’ve found some spare time. Any chance of answering my repeated straightforward questions to you on this so called “second plane”?

    1. Dwain

      For further clarification on your claim that the g force calculations error is “hidden”. The actual piece is in the Pilotsfor911Truth portal:

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html

      “Beware the Ides of March”

      Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

      By Rob Balsamo, Pilots For 9/11 Truth

      Update – 12/12/08

      It appears some are still confused regarding the corrections of the below article and still do not understand that the video presented which contain the proper formula’s as determined by Aeronautical Engineers is a “correction” to our article below. This update is to inform those who are still confused that the presentation of “9/11: Attack On The Pentagon” and the “G Forces” clip below offered for free, is the correction to our admitted math errors from our original article. For most this is not in question. For those who make excuse for the govt story, apparently they are still confused and still quote the 11.2 G’s of the original article wondering when we are going to “correct” our mistakes, yet anyone who actually views the video presentation will readily realize such errors have been corrected.

      Those who do make excuse for the govt story feel we should delete our errors in the original article below. We disagree. We show our errors and work through them. To date, this is the only article on this site which we have made mistakes and have since corrected the errors as shown in the video presentation directly below this update. Thank you for your understanding and we apologize for any confusion.

      Update – 09/15/08

      03/20/08 – Update: For those who have been following the thread linked in the right margin, this will be redundant. The calculations below used for the purpose of this article are in error. We are currently reviewing the calculations and will publish a revision with the proper formula(s)/calculations consistent with the premise of this article. We apologize for any confusion and thank you for your understanding.

      And if you’d bothered to watch the video posted at the very link you posted you’d see at about 40 seconds in the same admission:

      Correction: I quoted Shelton Lankford as being the pilot who alerted Rob Balsamo to the calculation error when in fact it was Jeff Latas.

      Now, of all of the hardheads (definitely including myself) who blow off steam and sometimes go way overboard ranting here or anywhere else (especially me, AdamR, Willy and SEO), I guarantee that some of us cringe when we read back some of the things we’ve said, heartfelt though it may have been at the time. But, what I find more of a blatant insult and slap in the face to all, are those who hide, lie, duck and dive, and cherrypick what they decide to post in response to legitimate questions. And who never acknowledge, retract or refine what they slap on to a keyboard using intentional cold, calculating wordplay.

      Dwain, a retraction, explanation and answers please.

      Also, tell us about this “second plane”.

      1. Did it cause the directional damage?
      2. Was it a “757”?
      3. Why did you change your stance on the capabilities of a “757” flying at cruise speed at low altitude coupled with the pilot controlability issue?
      4. Who saw it?

  72. I must have missed this…

    1. “Alleged internal damage that defies the notion that an aircraft caused the damage to MULTIPLE columns.” I am not considering internal damage, as the ASCE could have been selective in which columns were included in their report.

    Dwain Deets

    That was your response to my post:

    Check out the alleged internal damage that defies the notion that an aircraft caused the damage to multiple columns (some at points where the aircraft dimensions would have it not having fully penetrated yet)

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807823

    Ha!

    I’ve actually shown where the ASCE Report has exaggerated and lied about the internal damage, but I’ve also shown, through images, where columns were still standing on the alleged directional damage path through the building. Some at points where the aircraft wouldn’t yet have fully penetrated the building

    http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/cademartatu/image-187_zps9be6c32a.jpg~original

    Look at Columns 7D and 7G

    http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/cademartatu/image-187_zps7ee94688.jpg~original

    Column 3H (just below 3G) in the above image is where the aircraft was supposed to have completely desintegrated. 160ft into the building. The length of a 757.

    We’re meant to believe that a 757 completely penetrated the building, leaving no discernible wreckage on the exterior while the heavier parts (the engines) desintegrated a few feet beyond the facade? And that the cockpit, fuselage, cargo area (including the aisle that separates it from the fuselage), landing gear, seats, fuel tank and frame entered the building on the narrowest of trajectories, between Columns 7D and 7G without marking them?

    And before you (lazily) dismiss this, I’ve uncovered an image which shows these two columns. Both were marked as “green” by the ASCE Report when in fact they were at most fire damaged (yellow):

    http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u422/cademartatu/image-148.jpg~original

    By the way, I thought that that image of the damage legend that you gave to Barbara was to show how the C Ring hole couldn’t have been caused by debris? It’s based on the same ASCE Report alleged column damage that you now “don’t consider”, isn’t it?

    1. OSS,

      You apparently haven’t watched my presentation at DC 911 Conference, or read the written version. I don’t say a 757 completely penetrated the building.

      As to the consideration of the standing columns reported by ASCE, in relation to the C Ring hole, my figure which Barbara used was a standalone, with no narrative attached. If I had attached a narrative, I would have said something like, “according to the official account of column damage within the Pentagon, as documented in the ASCE Report.”

      For the analysis of damage to the exterior wall, as it related to the type aircraft that may have impacted that wall, I only considered the exterior wall column damage, as contained in the ASCE report. This was for a different topic than the C Ring hole. I see no reason to keep my assumptions on the interior columns the same for the two topics.

      1. Mr Deets,
        I still see these rather direct questions put to you by OSS are dangling:

        “second plane”.

        1. Did it cause the directional damage?
        2. Was it a “757″?
        3. Why did you change your stance on the capabilities of a “757″ flying at cruise speed at low altitude coupled with the pilot controlability issue?
        4. Who saw it?”

        \\][//

        1. Re: Your four questions.

          1. I don’t know which was the “second plane,” as I don’t know what plane entered the basin first. I answered the question about 757 and Boeing on Nov. 4.

          2. I didn’t investigate damage inside the Pentagon. However, I used two approach angles relative to a perpendicular to the Pentagon’s face. 41 and 31 degrees.

          3. I didn’t consider the airspeed issue in my presentation or written verstion. However, my thinking on it was at the time I addressed the issue, and still is, that I don’t take the official airspeed as a given. I think the plane was flown as fast as the planners determined they could do so successfully. They may have done a short envelope expansion flight test to see how fast it could go, monitoring thins like flutter as they increased the speed. As I explained in the presentation, I think it was flown through advanced automation. No manually flying at all.

          4. Who saw it? I don’t know. The fact that we know of no eyewitnesses to the upstream portion of the approach is not a fatal flaw. Plenty of eyewitness of the impact, although none I would call solid.

      2. Dwain says:

        I don’t say a 757 completely penetrated the building.

        What a waste of time.

        Do I have to drag your “theory” out of you inch by inch or are you making this up as you go along?

        I mean, I’ve shown you photographic evidence (there’s much more at that link) of columns still standing and damage caused to others that were more likely caused by heat within 60 feet of the facade.

        At what point did this, whatever it was, desintegrate? At the facade? It left virtually no debris on the outside and didn’t penetrate fully. Is that it? I’ve spent half an hour just trying to word this question because you’re purposely being vague and evasive.

        You say a “negative witnessed second” __fill blank__ followed a __fill blank__ path, and did/didn’t cause the directional damage. That the __fill blank__ caused the damage to the facade and that it didn’t fully penetrate nor leave substantial debris outside.

        Stop insulting our intelligence Dwain.

        And whether or not the diagram you gave to Barbara was “stand alone” or not, you drew lines depicting the hypothetical paths of the aircraft sections stopping at columns that the ASCE Report had marked as undamaged, did you not?

        Dwain not only wants to remove the witnesses from the equation, but most of the “physical evidence” too.

      3. Dwain

        I had started to read your pdf and already I can see contradictions and ducking and diving based on wordsmithery and language that allows wiggle room whichever way any debate goes.

        I’m not going to be suckered in to a long drawn out appraisal of your theory as I did with Barbara Honegger’s. Why? Judging by your “responses” so far, you’re going to cherrypick and be, at best, vague, if you were ever to get in to the nitty gritty.

        The “second aircraft” and ambiguity on the visual damage before the facade and beyond it are good examples.

        You reject the fact that nobody saw this “second plane” and cling on to a crash test that you reference to simply avoid having to discuss the bizarre and contradictory internal damage.

        From the (one and only witnessed) aircraft that entered the basin, through the directional damage both outside and inside the building, you want to chop and change to “fit” your theory instead of concentrating on the. official narrative and the evidence we have that proves an inside job. Instead we have you and Honegger blowing smoke from both ends.

        “Two planes”, staged external and internal damage, remote controlled aircraft and a flyover. Why not push on with these theories to prove an inside job? Why are these secondary to this “impact”? Dwain? Barbara?

  73. My only concern is that we all keep on giving this issue attention. Different interpretations of the available evidence are worthy of discussion and debate – some will have strong evidence and some will be weaker but they are important to examine nonetheless. Personally, I am happy that all conferences are taking place, faults and all. And assuming there are ‘disinformation agents’, their theories will eventually not stand up, but even this is worth having in the realm of public discussion. I am excited that the movement has this much emotion and excitement! It means it’s alive and kicking! We all need to examine all the evidence and views, reflect on what we’ve learned, and act to the best of our abilities to get to the truth of what happened on September 11, 2001, and what continues to happen because of it. The future generations depend on it.

    1. It is refreshing Ms LeBlanc,

      To receive a message grounded in pure enthusiasm. It is true that this effort carries on even now. I see this as an essential attitude to draw the energy to stay focused.
      It is said that by now the 9/11 event is in the same category as the JFK Assassination, as far as an awareness acknowledged by many, but moved on from as time has dimmed the urgency.

      But it is the persistence of that awareness in a certain portion of the population that maintains an important lever of balance in matters of the struggle against the quest for total dominance over us. As Orwell said, it is in remaining personally sane, and passing on some sanity to the following generations that is our responsibility

      Welcome, and thank you for your encouraging thoughts,

      \\][//

      1. Thank you very much. I take my responsibility towards the generations to follow very much to heart. I have a daughter in first year university, and she has recently become aware of the importance of combining critical thinking with humanistic values. My son, who is 11, has a keen sense of justice and fairness. I want my children to have a strong social conscience and to seek the truth, even when it’s exceedingly difficult. Above all, I want them to be accountable for their actions, and I believe we must ensure that those who represent us are also accountable for their actions. I see these qualities in all of the people who persist in seeking the truth of 9/11. They may not always agree and sometimes personalities can clash but they are still leading us to our ultimate goal.

      2. Ms LeBlanc,

        May I assume that you are the same Christine LeBlanc that is an elementary school teacher? I found information on the web that seems to indicate that.
        I will also assume that you know that my real name is Willy Whitten, as that is discussed in the commentary above.

        Whether you are the same or another, I would like to address this point you make in your second comment:

        “I believe we must ensure that those who represent us are also accountable for their actions.”

        What I want to ask is, do you believe that the so-called “government” is still a representative form? Call it a Republic or Democracy, do you believe this is still the ruling entity in the US?

        \\][//

  74. Just as an aside, in reading these posts, I chuckle as I get flashbacks to my daughter’s high school days when I would overhear the gang of teenagers at my place say things such as:

    – ‘She defriended me on facebook! What the hell? I’m going to post that and have all my friends defriend her back!’
    – ‘(So and so) is mad at me because I posted something she told me in confidence and won’t talk to me anymore!’ (followed by sobs of despair that make it clear the world has just come to an end)
    – ‘Can you believe that he changed his relationship status to single and never even told her! What an asshole!’
    – ‘She said this about me and it was totally not true. Well mostly not true. Anyway I am never going to forgive her or hang our with her again. EVER!’
    – ‘That jerk disliked my status! WTF? I thought we were friends! (back when there were dislikes on FB).
    – ‘We don’t hang out with that group, they’re not cool. OK so they may be nice, and smart, but still…’
    – ‘So he got a 10 out of 10 and had to make fun of my 9.5 out of 10. Whatever. He’s got issues.’

    Ladies and gentlemen, this may be human nature, but let’s keep moving forward here.

    1. Yes Christine,

      Alan Watts, a western Zen philosopher, once remarked on the jejune nature of human beings with the quip, “We are all two year old’s with long legs”

      But there are times when adults must make reasonable choices as to who to associate with.
      Aside from the certain knowledge of Sunsteinian type infiltration of such blogs as this, there is also a host of other specifics to consider; such as the myth of static consensus:

      It is well to keep perspective on the concept of ‘consensus’. It is a very fleeting thing in almost every instance. It is in the nature of communication to misinterpret aspects of any perceived agreement. “Oh, I never would have dreamed you meant that to mean”__fill in the blank. And there is the simple human right to change ones mind when one has discovered, or believes to have discovered that an agreement was actually due to being subtly coerced.
      A whole host of reasons will arise beginning almost as soon as an agreement is come to, 2nd thoughts simply due to the seeming finality of whatever agreement…it is a common emotional response, especially if the vote for an agreement was unsure to begin with.

      Finally, it is indeed human nature to look at others “bickering” and see it so clearly from the outside as juvenile, although one wouldn’t necessarily perceive this when one is in the thick of it personally.

      \\][//

  75. Christine,

    The way things can move forward at this point is if Barbara Honegger, the main focus of Craig’s article, comes here and defends her claims.

    And yes, some in this thread have indeed acted like ego-fragile adolescents, but I certainly hope you’re not lumping me in with that category. I simply documented and called out a person who was being exceedingly uncivil to multiple parties. At any rate, if this is your first comment thread at T/S that you’ve followed, I’m sorry you had to see some of this ridiculous infighting. (As an aside, I don’t recall Facebook EVER having a “dislike” button. I joined FB in the middle of 2008; don’t know if there was one before that.)

    Ms. Honegger, you said you were going to respond to this thread. You’ve had long enough now to read the blog as well as compose your thoughts.

    1. Yes Mr Syed,

      It becomes more of a certainty each passing day that we have been stood-up by Ms Honegger. If this continues to be the case, and finality of this, we should take that as meaning she has no answers and is simply going to hide from all of this.

      And if this is the case, it should be sung to the high heavens.

      \\][//

  76. This is for discussion among ourselves. I don’t care about Dwain Deets contribution. Nor Honegger’s. Bottom line is that the only theory that the evidence should be measured against is the official narrative. And that the official alleged impact begins from where the aircraft, allegedly Flight 77, a standard Boeing 757, flown by Hani Hanjur, entered the Pentagon basin, through the directional damage and exiting at C Ring.

    (Craig, I’m not sure if these image tags will work or not. Apologies if they don’t.)

    Column 11A is just beyond the facade. This is the point where it’s alleged that the left engine, left wing and left wing fuel tank, followed by the left horizontal stabilizer, ploughed through within a fraction of a second.

    Discussed here:

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807807

    Column 11A:

    Remember also that the building facade masonry and reinforced steel frame itself would have had to have come through this point.

    And that no sizeable debris was to be seen on the exterior.

    So how is the concrete largely intact on the upper end of this column?

    And the rebar still intact on the lower end?

    Quoted from the earlier link:

    Conclusion:

    1. The ASCE Report and the OCT trajectory would have us believe that this section of the facade was where the left engine weighing almost 12000lbs, the left half of the central fuel tank and of course the inner third of the left wing, smashed it’s way through this section of the facade yet caused no damage to the foundation. And somehow failed to completely sever not only this specific column (11A) but a row of columns within this proposed area along the same OCT trajectory (namely Columns 9A, 9B and 9C)

    Even the horizontal stabilizer is alleged to have passed through this point:

    2. The ASCE Report claimed that the cockpit “desintegrated essentially upon impact, but in the process opened up a hole allowing the trailing portions of the fuselage to pass into the building”.

    So, they are claiming that the entire 50ft of fuselage between the nosecone and wings had penetrated the facade at column 14 through to column 12. That the facade had been breached before reaching column 11A. That the 12,000lb left engine and inner third of wing and fuel within, travelling at the OCT 540mph somehow had less effect and had essentially desintegrated within several feet within a fraction of a second on an already breached, weakened facade.

    Note: this is the major contradiction to any claim where it’s suggested that an aircraft simply desintegrated as per the Sandia test – there is no proof whatsoever via external debris on the lawn of the 50-60 feet of fuselage. Nor the cockpit! For any alleged impact to have occurred, the cockpit had to have penetrated the facade within a fraction of a second of the remaining 145ft + of fuselage. That is, the facade would have had to have been breached instantly.

    3. What also has to be remembered is that not only is it being proposed that the aircraft wing, engine and horizontal stabilizer passed through these columns but the renovated section of the facade itself which was allegedly held together by a web of steel and kevlar had to have been pushed through the same area.

    The columns have had their concrete stripped but the rebar remains mainly intact on many within an area that was supposedly subject to a massive kinetic force. 11A specifically would require all of the above mentioned material (engine, wing, facade debris, etc) to have dematerialized within a fraction of a second. The damage is non conclusive as to an “impact” occurring. This is just an example of the inconsistencies to be found throughout the alleged damage path.

    Couple all of the above with the fact that the Pentagon lawn was virtually debris free within the context of an alleged Boeing 757 crash and complete penetration .

    1. Thank you for another fine exposition OSS,

      All of this combines to a totality that leads to the proposition that all of the damage at the Pentagon was caused by internal explosives. It is most reasonable to assume that shaped charges were placed in the newly ‘refurbished’ outer walls to blow out a simulation of the “plane impact”. I would posit that it was the north bound decoy jet that had a beamed beacon device that set the whole show off as it flew through the prepared smokescreen.
      That would take care of the timing sequence, as the plane and the explosions needed to be simultaneous to any observers.

      As far as I’m concerned, all of the evidence leads to this conclusion. Which brings us to the single point that I agree with Mr Deets on, when he says:

      “I think it was flown through advanced automation. No manually flying at all.”

      Which in fact has been my theory as well for quite a long time.

      \\][//

      1. Cheers Willy

        These links show evidence of internal explosives and a lack of aircraft penetration:

        “Left wing” damage

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807808

        Evidence of explosives

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807816

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807824

        Internal “directional damage” was really the product of heat and an unsupported four story block of building:

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807817

        Deets wants to actually paper over the ASCE Report admission that it can’t explain the lack of damage to the facade via the extremities of an aircraft:

        We’re talking about this:

        And there is precedent as per the WTC2 impact hole showing the lower section of the vertical stabilizer marking the building:

        Not to mention the visual proof that the facade wasn’t damaged as per the ASCE Report:

      2. Gotta disagree, HR, sorry.

        “As we saw in Gulf War I, the US bunker buster bombs tipped with DU (depleted uranium) were penetrating concrete shielding up to 10 feet thick. The bunker buster’s effectiveness is that it can penetrate and then explode—raising the destructiveness and a higher body count than convention bombs. Cruise missiles can penetrate deeper before the explosion happens.”

        The hole in the Pentagon was an entry hole, not a blast hole. All of the damage was internal, and the majority of it seemingly farther in than any of the photos from the exterior will show. The most logical explanation is a missile fired from the “generator”.

        Is this viable? I don’t know—I know very little about the delivery systems of cruise, or smaller, missiles. But it seems to account for the observed events more simply and more logically than any other scenario.

        But that’s just, like, my opinion.

      3. “Gotta disagree, HR, sorry.”~David Glynn

        There is no need to be sorry Mr Glynn. You certainly have the right to your own opinion.

        \\][//

    1. Dwain Deets says:

      1. I don’t know which was the “second plane,” as I don’t know what plane entered the basin first. I answered the question about 757 and Boeing on Nov. 4.

      You talk as if this “second plane” is a given. This is (just one of the reasons) why I refused to respond to your pdf/presentation.

      2. I didn’t investigate damage inside the Pentagon. However, I used two approach angles relative to a perpendicular to the Pentagon’s face. 41 and 31 degrees.

      Neither of those angles would correspond to the directional damage. One of them, the 31° trajectory would actually have the aircraft further south, in fact originating from the I395 motorway, over the VDOT cam south of the lightpoles and missing the generator trailer. The other, 41°, would still miss the directional damage, including the generator trailer. Both trajectories don’t line up with the damage to the facade.

      The directional damage would have the aircraft at 37-8° to the perpendicular to the facade:

      Just get that imaginary plane into the building, eh Dwain?

      No witnesses to two planes. Doesn’t matter.
      No witnesses to the official path. Pah!
      757 flying beyond its limitations. No comment.
      Directional damage. Who cares?
      NOC witnesses. Yeah, yeah, it flew over. But they are a side issue now. Me and Barbara got it covered.
      Internal damage. Dunno. Don’t care.
      Two invented trajectories that don’t line up with the damage to the facade. So what.

      1. OSS,

        “You talk as if this “second plane” is a given. This is (just one of the reasons) why I refused to respond to your pdf/presentation.”

        It may have passed you by, or possibly you forgot. I only give the “second plane” hypothesis a 20% likelihood of being true.

      2. “I only give the “second plane” hypothesis a 20% likelihood of being true.”

        Dwain, you know…from my perspective this whole ‘statisticians’ game you are playing is just jollyloaf horseshit. It reads as totally disingenuous from here. I still find it hard to believe you are serious.

        I keep falling back to you acting the ‘fall-guy’ for the Honegger spiel. I think this whole conference was a set up. And the more you prattle on here, the more I am convinced of it.

        If this were a court, I would charge you with contempt.

        \\][//

  77. Hi Adam,

    No I am not singling out any person, and I don’t mean any offence. I guess my point is that teenagers are emotional creatures, and that sometimes we, as adults, will revert back to that behaviour when we are dealing with a highly charged emotional issue. This happens to me daily working with other health care professionals, and I could have just as easily given an example of one of my co-workers saying something every similar, or even myself. I chuckle as I recall a few such statements even yesterday that fit in this category. We must, however, in a hospital, make sure we don’t loose sight of the ultimate goal – to restore our patients to health. Similarly, we must, in examining and exposing 9/11, make sure we don’t loose sight of the ultimate goal – to restore truth, justice, and sanity to the world.

    That is why I am in complete agreement with the statement that Barbara Honegger’s arguments must be challenged and examined as thoroughly as all other arguments. If she chooses not to do so in this forum, then we have a duty to do it ourselves to the best of our ability, and focus on the arguments, and it is clear that this forum is doing just that. I am thrilled with the vibrant discussion, it just reminded me, however, that now and again we need to make a conscious decision to ground ourselves.

    BTW there was, when Facebook first started, a thumbs down, or dislike option for comments. I remember it clearly. There were many misinterpretations as it could be ambiguous, especially when a statement was complex, such as “I had the flu all week, went to the doctor and she gave an antibiotic because it developed into pneumonia. Starting to feel better.’ Then the person who wants to respond would have to decide whether to like or dislike this statement – not so simple because you want a thumbs down for someone feeling horrible, and having pneumonia, but thumbs up for the fact that there were getting better. It was a nightmare and thankfully short lived.

    Peace to you all. And keep up with the demands for full accountability from everyone, no one should be exempt from a careful examination of their claims.

    Christine

  78. Hi Willy,

    No I am not an elementary school teacher. I was a radiation therapist, finished a Bachelor of Health Science, went on to almost complete my Master’s in Health Research while I was working in government as a researcher and policy advisor for cancer services. Then I simplified my life (read got separated), left my government job, which really was not a good fit for me, and now I work in a hospital for less money but much more happiness! And I am going to restart my thesis and may upgrade to the PhD program. In fact, I was thinking about examining the health related effects of 9/11 – all of them, including the wars. Kind of like a summary of health and years of life lost due to this event.

    As to the question ‘do you believe that the so-called “government” is still a representative form? Call it a Republic or Democracy, do you believe this is still the ruling entity in the US?’. No I don’t feel it is a representative form in anymore, and certainly not when you look at how the federal government is functioning as a whole. I feel there are elected representatives who are trying to represent their people but are severely restrained. And I believe that those who want fundamental and meaningful change have to put themselves at great personal and professional risk to do it. I used to wonder why Americans were always trying to kill their presidents. I realize with bit of examination that Americans are not doing this at all. It seems to be entirely a response from within government whenever those who have the power are threatened with meaningful change, like JFK. I hope exposing the lies of 9/11 will bring meaningful change for the US and the world because it will take something of this magnitude to do it. No doubt.

    So no NOT representative, and yes they are a ruling entity all right. But elected officials who really would ‘represent’ their people if given a chance are still alive in there, somewhere, maybe just waiting until the time is right.

    I don’t know, I guess we will have to see how it all plays out. In the meantime, dissecting the events of 9/11 is on my agenda for change.

    Christine

    1. Thank you Christine,

      For you very satisfactory answer. Also for clearing up my taking you for someone else.

      I agree with what you say above. I am a bit more cynical in that I think that those who would truly try to represent the whole of the people in their districts, are so marginalized and left to wither that it is futile to try to change the system from within. And remember the system does not only assassinate presidents. This is a threat to all and any within ‘government’ to toe a certain line.

      But in the end, I agree that it is ‘the people’ themselves that must awake to the predatory nature of the paradigm – the system they suffer under.

      \\][//

  79. In watching and listening to Dwain’s presentation fairly carefully, I think all he really said was that a 757 should not be ruled out as a possibility, not that it is a certainty, and that it would have not been just any old commercial 757, but an automated, and perhaps even modified one. I don’t see a problem with measuring that against the official story – which still doesn’t work on many, many levels. Faster speed/slower speed, one plane/two planes, north direction/south direction – in each set of choices only one of them is true but as a whole is a combination of many variables, and dissecting these variables is essential to find out just what the truth is. However, we have to rule out possibilities very thoroughly and diligently so we can get closer to the exact truth, and hopefully get some justice. I took his presentation to mean that we cannot rule out a modified 757 based on the things that he looked at and examined. It could be that on further examination, he, or someone else, will convincingly rule it out and we can move on. That evidence may already be in this forum thread. But no matter what, the official story just doesn’t work. Am I wrong?

    1. “It could be that on further examination, he, or someone else, will convincingly rule it out and we can move on.”~Christine

      I do think that any impact at the Pentagon has been convincingly ruled out. It is a matter of vector-trajectory, and the damage path. The plane has been proven to have flown in on the north path, beyond a reasonable doubt {to my mind – and the forum team here}.
      As such it is simply impossible for an impact to have occurred.

      I suppose, you will have to go through all of the arguments here, paying special and close attention to the presentations given by Onesliceshort, to get a thorough grasp on this.

      It is most generous of you to give Mr Deets the benefit of the doubt. I no longer can.

      \\][//

      1. Hi Willy,

        It’s not accurate to say I am giving Mr Deets the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I give no person the benefit of the doubt in matters such as these – it’s the theory or claim I am examining, and how well it is supported or refuted. I think perhaps in my discussion on human nature and the like you may have mistaken me for someone who evaluates the person when evaluating scientific claims. That isn’t the case. I am an experienced researcher who understand very well the logic and methodology of evaluating theories, hypotheses, and claims. I was in no way being generous, but I listened carefully to the presentation.

        In evaluating Mr Deets claim, I found no problems with his logic on what he considered ‘evidence’ for the purposes of this particular study. Further, he was very clear on the limitations of his work and on his assumptions. Yet he could very well be wrong on some, or maybe all, of the assumptions or technical aspects. But that’s the nature of the scientific method isn’t it? I find it exciting to discuss and debate 9/11 in this way and I would urge those with different views to not feel threatened (I get a sense this is partly what is going on in this forum). Instead those who are part of this forum should be thankful that they have the intelligence, education and knowledge to be able to debate this extremely important event at this level – I know I am. Further, if you are on this forum at all then you care deeply about righting the wrongs of 9/11, and I will assume your motives are positive, even if the arguments don’t all agree. But I won’t give you the benefit of the doubt, I will evaluate your claim for consistency and logic.

        I understand from your response Willy that you believe there are strong arguments that definitively contradict Mr Deets claim – I will review them carefully and do my best to understand them. I am simply stating that he has clearly defined the parameters of his claim. I don’t think we need to read any more than that into it. I feel his claim is internally consistent, but it could still be untrue or inaccurate. So I am looking forward to evaluating the claims in this forum and will apply the same standard to them.

        BTW I am thoroughly enjoying this forum and happy to be a part of it!

        Christine:)

      2. Christine,

        I will address this to you, and extend to the forum in general.

        I do think that the presentation Mr Deets has given is internally consistent in itself, and therefore reasonable from that standpoint — that is standing alone, without considering other information that is already in the equation.

        However, these points:

        After watching Deets’ presentation on video; I am baffled that there is no mention of 2 planes. This has been a major point of contention on the thread.

        The issue of 31 degree or 42 degree angle of impact is not so slight as one might assume from just ‘taking in’ the argument, because the angle of impact is determined by the vector and trajectory the craft, and would be prior to the point of impact. At high speed this trajectory would be determined quite far from the basin area.

        My third point is that Mr Deets gives no compelling reason for having once understood the CIT trajectory evidence, to now reject it simply because of the “new” information on automated flight control.
        Such “new” information has absolutely nothing to do with the central problem of trajectory – vector – and damage angle at the Pentagon. The craft Mr Deets discusses in his presentation had to have been on or near to the official south approach. It has already been determined that there is absolutely no evidence of such an approach, and overwhelming witness testimony of a north of Citgo approach.

        \\][//

        1. Hybridrogue1,

          I don’t know why you are baffled by the second plane possibility not being a part of the presentation. I took the approach of examining only physical evidence. I did, however, try to anticipate questions that may be raised from the audience. The second plane possibility at a different time than the first plane was part of the answer I would give if someones asked about the north path airplane.

          I didn’t reject the CIT plane trajectory. I just see it as a different plane at a different time.

          As to the inbound trajectory, I don’t consider FDR or radar data reliable. Secondly, as I said in the presentation, I assume the light poles were taken down in advance. That leaves sufficient leeway to for plausible upstream trajectories connect up with the two impact angles considered.

      3. One more thing Ms Christine LaBlanc,

        You say you are thoroughly enjoying this forum and happy to be a part of it. And I must respond that I am equally as happy that you have become part of the conversation here. You bring a level headed and even handed aspect that I greatly admire in a conversation of this sort.

        \\][//

      4. “I didn’t reject the CIT plane trajectory. I just see it as a different plane at a different time.”~Deets

        And I see your second plane as a lollipop for kids; A hinkroid for the naïve; a tale with no basis other than gross speculation. And a limp excuse for your “impact“analysis.
        \\][//

    2. You are precisely right on, Christine!

      The difference between you and some other quite vocal members here on the forum, is that you actually took the time to watch the presentation. Thank you very much.

      1. Faster speed/slower speed, one plane/two planes, north direction/south direction – in each set of choices only one of them is true but as a whole is a combination of many variables, and dissecting these variables is essential to find out just what the truth is. However, we have to rule out possibilities very thoroughly and diligently so we can get closer to the exact truth, and hopefully get some justice. I took his presentation to mean that we cannot rule out a modified 757 based on the things that he looked at and examined. It could be that on further examination, he, or someone else, will convincingly rule it out and we can move on.

        Christine, there is only one scenario that the “truth” should be measured against, and that is the official narrative. It’s a very specific scenario.

        Dwain Deets wants to introduce a “second plane” into his pitch. He wants to invent a new category of witness that didn’t see this “second plane” – “negative witnesses”.

        He wants to muddy the waters on the NOC witnesses – that we’re “not sure” what explosion they “actually” saw.

        That the NOC witnesses may be correct, in that there was a flyover. But that his (“20%” adherence) second plane, which he won’t admit needed to fly in simultaneously with the “first plane”, now becomes a 100% necessity.

        He wants to hop, skip and jump over the directional damage by sticking to two completely incompatible angles of trajectory — 31° and 42° to the perpendicular ,which don’t line up wth the lightpoles, generator trailer and facade damage.

        He won’t discuss the damage beyond the facade even though there are multiple photographic images which show the ridiculous scenario whereby a 757 ploughed into the building.

        Even when discussing the facade itself, he wants to actually dismiss the ASCE Report admission that it has no explanation for the lack of damage that should have been caused by the extremities.

        He wants to use the Sandia test even though, barring the dissimilarities between the two events, the 757 would have had to have immediately penetrated the facade. How else can the lack of cockpit and 60ft of fuselage, frame, seating, etc on the lawn be explained?

        In short, he wants to throw all evidence (and lack thereof from those who are sitting on it) that we do have at our disposal into the trash can. It would be a different matter he was to pursue just one of his subplots and push it as evidence of an inside job (staged directional damage, a second aircraft, the “other” plane that flew over, etc), but he’s more intent on pushing for impact.

        Dwain Deets has the same PR intentions as Barbara Honegger. Nothing but smoke and wordplay.

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809551

        The bottom line is, I’ve been able to show you that the official story at the Pentagon is false without even having to address the question of if there was a plane, what path the plane came in on….you don’t even need to address that controversy that still exists in the 9/11 truth movement.

        Barbara Honegger

        That’s all it is Christine. Breathing space for the official narrative.

      2. I’m listening to it right now while sweeping my kitchen, for the 6th time I think. I’ll be watching it a few more times. Then on to Barbara’s! That one will take longer. I have listened carefully to the other presenters too – there is a lot to consider in this conference! It’s going to take a while to get it all in.

        The one thing I think we agree on is that we must be thorough before crossing off possibilities once and for all. I appreciate that you are not married to any one position and are willing to consider and debate new information that leads in another direction, even if it proves later to not be what actually happened. You have been clear as to what your claim is, its limitations, and what assumptions you made.

        I would like to see less inflammatory language however, from some of the participants in the forum. It’s really not helpful. I have to wonder what is more important – to be right in your argument, or to use your argument to further the truth. I don’t want to be right for the sake of being right, I want the truth. And we get there by examining and reexamining the evidence and crossing out possibilities as they become implausible.

    3. @Christine LeBlanc
      I am not sure if you have watched CIT’s DVD ‘National Security Alert’ but I would be interested to hear your assessment of it.

      1. A Wright (now the trinity is complete)

        Why don’t you watch it!

        There have been more witnesses uncovered that describe the same path as the witnesses in that video.

        Mr Wright is the part time shy Tourettes kid here. Sudden unexpected outbursts and no replies.

  80. Dear OSS,

    I will do my best to evaluate what you are claiming as fact by comparing it with the available empirical evidence and admit you may very well be right. I am unclear, however, as to what your underlying argument or concern is – are you saying that if some technical elements of the official narrative are true that it weakens the whole argument that 9/11 was perpetrated by insiders? I guess if this is the case then I would use the legal system as an analogy – not every single element of a crime has to be solved nor does every single word that the suspect says have to be proven untrue to still be able to convincingly convict someone if it is clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they did it. It’s the summation of all the evidence, not just one particular piece, that generally carries the day.

  81. Christine says:

    are you saying that if some technical elements of the official narrative are true that it weakens the whole argument that 9/11 was perpetrated by insiders?

    In a word, no.

    I’m saying that if the official narrative or the accused has been backed in to a corner, where there is no room for manouevre, they must be kept in that corner. The directional damage and alleged FDR (but more so, the former) has the official story narrowed down to within feet and inches. A very tight corner.

    The NOC witness testimony makes this directional damage an impossibility. That’s the bottom line.

    It reminds me of another wordsmith arguing with me about WTC7. I collected all of the visual evidence I could from multiple angles at different chronological times, and witness testimony (firefighters, etc) to corroborate the fact that there was nowhere near enough heat to bring that building down. He replied that there “had to have been oil fires”. When I pointed out to him that NIST had officially denied this when it said that “office fires and office fires alone” were responsible, he insisted on an irrelevant debate about this.

    Why let them out of the corner they had painted themselves in to? Why create irrelevant subplots that can’t be proven and which give respite to the official narrative?

  82. If I may, I would like to make a point of theory here. This involves the great unlikelihood that the planners of the 9/11 event would take even a remote chance of actually submitting the Pentagon to an attack by missile, or plane, or any other external mechanism.

    My reasoning is simple, the planners were in residence at the Pentagon, at least a significant number of essential parties to the planning. I think anyone who was in residence there would have immediately rejected any plan that involved known unknowns. To put one’s own life on the line due to ‘calculations’ or ‘computer models’ is completely different than doing so when considering attacking an opponent.

    This is my ground floor argument against a plane impact at the Pentagon. There is of course the further detailed arguments involving vector, witness testimony, and physical evidence and lack thereof.

    One of those aspects of ‘lacking evidence’ is the video. It is my opinion that if a large aircraft of any kind had impacted the Pentagon, there would be video of this, and that this video would have been released…not only ‘by now’ but soon after the events. The fact of all the video from the building itself and on the grounds, as well as all videos from any conceivable position viewing the Pentagon was confiscated and put in a basement, is to my mind a profound point not to be dismissed.

    In my opinion, the above, combined with CIT and all the further extensions of their presentation leads to a case proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    \\][//

  83. Christine

    Case in point:

    Dwain Deets says

    I didn’t reject the CIT plane trajectory. I just see it as a different plane at a different time.

    As to the inbound trajectory, I don’t consider FDR or radar data reliable. Secondly, as I said in the presentation, I assume the light poles were taken down in advance. That leaves sufficient leeway to for plausible upstream trajectories connect up with the two impact angles considered.

    Yada, yada, yada.

    See the guy’s wordplay? The (NOC testimony) proof that the directional damage was staged is now a secondary issue. Let’s hop, skip and jump over this important issue to accomodate this “negative witnessed second plane”.

    There was only one aircraft witnessed within the Pentagon basin seconds before the single explosion and fireball:

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809504

    It’s incredible how obvious his and Barbara Honegger’s arguments interlock. Completely contradictory but complementary in their attitude towards the NOC witnesses. And an insult to our intelligence.

    1. In OSS’ last comment he says:

      “It’s incredible how obvious his and Barbara Honegger’s arguments interlock. Completely contradictory but complementary in their attitude towards the NOC witnesses. And an insult to our intelligence.”
      . . . . . . .
      I think this is the crux of the matter, as the two positions – that of Honegger and Deets, creates the classic dialectical: Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis.
      It is this synthesis that is a blunt instrument to disparage the NOC.

      And again I must assert that this is the entire agenda that was established in the Pentagon portion of the 2013 DC Conference.

      \\][//

      1. I am sorry, I find the expression ‘it is this synthesis that is a blunt instrument to disparage the NOC’ somewhat odd. It’s as if the NOC theory is being given some sort of personhood or is considered some sort of ‘good’ in and of itself instead of as a means to get to the truth of what happened and by whom, which is the ‘good’, and that to question NOC at all is to question it’s integrity (as if it had feelings) and those who came up with it. That’s just not how science works. Many a scientist has put a lifetime of work into one theory just to have it questioned constantly and MAYBE upheld (but more likely disproven) in the end. That is how science works.

        Having said this, is there a claim here that Dwayne Deets and Barbara Honegger’s only motives are to disparage the people who came up with the NOC theory in their analysis of the Pentagon? Or that they are not giving the theory the weight it deserves?

        Christine:)

      2. “Christine”

        If you look further up this thread, actually from the start, you’ll find multiple posts that deal with the actual evidence and counterarguments. In fact, if you go back to multiple previous blogs of Mr McKee’s where the Pentagon is discussed, you’ll find the same sourced, detailed posts. What you won’t find are responses from the likes of A Wright or other trolls (Brian Good, Snowcrash). Just lots of wordplay, disappearing acts and repitition of the same falsehoods.

        If you’ve seen something I’ve said re the evidence or rebuttals that you don’t agree with, please point them out before, as usually happens here, they get buried under a mountain of other posts. Just scroll up. Maybe you’ll see why I’m a bit tetchy.

        You’re talking a lot, “Christine” but you haven’t actually said anything.

      3. Ms LaBlanc,

        I am sorry, I find the expression, “It’s as if the NOC theory is being given some sort of personhood” to be more than a bit odd, and more of a leap to conclusions than critical thinking. If you don’t like allegorical language then you might as well give up attempts at communication.

        Do you want to play the game of ‘Who’s More Clever’ here? Is this forum now going to be taught the one true etiquette as pronounce by the school of the white and noble heart?

        On MO, ‘Persona’ and Ad Hominem:

        Intent is one of the most difficult aspects to discover in any situation. Without a full confession of intent, it can only be surmised indirectly. Circumstantial evidence may be all there is for indications thereof.

        As a long time student of classical argumentation, I have noticed some subtle misunderstandings when it comes to the ‘rules’ of critical analysis. One of these is the confusion over ‘ad hominem’ and the lack of recognition that there is a distinction drawn between ‘False Ad Hominem’ and ‘Justified Ad Hominem’.

        It is also well to understand the term ‘person’ as it relates to modern language and the term’s roots to ancient Greece. ‘Person’ is in fact separate from “the man” or hominem. The ‘Persona’ the proximate etymological term, has to do with the ‘social construction’ of the civil personality of the human being.

        A person is liable to ridicule when that person makes ridiculous claims or statements.

        Now, when dealing with and attempting discovery of Modus Operandi, it is entirely valid to investigate the make-up of the persona in an attempt at understanding Motive. This is where ‘ad hominem’ becomes justified – not as a substitute of substantive argumentation, but as an adjunct in understanding what motives may drive what is seen as spurious argument from a particular person.
        , , , , , , , , , ,
        You ask this further down in the comments:
        “Do the rest of you respect these insults? Is OSS trying to compensate for short comings…” while plying your own brand of insult: “… other than being one slice short?
        {clever but catty}.

        However you stand in ignorance of the long experience this blog has had with Mr A Wright, and you leap to conclusions as to just why OSS might have formed a negative opinion of Mr Wright, in fact alluding to the idea that all opinions are of equal weight regardless of how ridiculous some might be. And this might add to my sneaking suspicion that a form of collectivist thinking has entered your consciousness due to your attendance to mainstream academics and schooling.

        BUT, rather than turning this thread into a forum on proper etiquette, philosophy of proper scientific technique etc etc etc, why don’t we turn down the burners and see to the motes in our own eyes?

        \\][//

      4. Christine,

        I personally find the NOC evidence compelling and supported by numerous eye witnesses and strong items of evidence. Until you have given the NOC evidence a thorough hearing however you will not be in a position to evaluate what is really happening here with Dwayne and Barbara. Although you may not like a particular personality (such as mine or OSS’s) it doesn’t change the fact that Dwayne and Barbara have already suffered fatal hits to their respective theories. They have been debunked decisively however it will take you some time and research into the details of the NOC evidence and their respective presentations to realize that for yourself.

        It strains my credulity to see Dwayne Deets, who I regard as a very intelligent person, promoting such obvious nonsense (such as his second plane theory) which is not supported by any evidence. He previously championed the comprehensive and compelling NOC evidence which makes his about face on the subject very suspicious to me. I think Dwayne is too smart to have abandoned the solid evidence based NOC position in favor of his new position. I don’t know why he did it but he hasn’t articulated to me or anyone else I know of a valid evidence based reason for doing so. I think HR1 and OSS and perhaps others are simply expressing similar suspicions to my own in their comments you take exception to.

        Your point is well made about civility though and I for one am trying my best to be as civil and polite as possible. It is difficult for me to do that however when my deception sensors are blinking red as they are with Dwayne and Barbara. I feel that they are both being intentionally deceptive and evasive and I seriously question their motives. I am not being rude when I say that, I am telling you what I truly think.

        I wish you the best in your search for the truth Christine and I hope you choose to dig deeper into this particular issue because the truth about the pentagon will really change everything.

  84. I think that Deets and Honeggers theories have been effectively shown to be without supporting evidence and therefore speculative in nature. Speculation has it’s place when there is a lack of evidence but that is not the case at the Pentagon. We have in the case of the Pentagon very strong evidence that ONE plane came in North of the Citgo station (Disproving Deets) which proves conclusively that the damage was staged and the observed plane flew over the building and away (disproving Honegger). Those two facts lead to the inescapable conclusion that high level insiders within the Pentagon itself were in on 9/11. Evidence trumps speculation therefore we must consider Deets and Honeggers theories to be extremely weak compared with the NOC evidence. So weak and contradictory to the evidence in fact that they can and should be ruled out as viable possibilities.

    1. Ruffadam,

      This post comes across to me as if it was hollering. Hollering happens when there isn’t a good defense to allow normal communication–even more insistent that NoC flight path is of supreme importance, i.e., (disproving Deets). Meanwhile, I read a comment from A. Wright on my blog, chipsfalling (http://dwain-chipsfalling.blogspot.com/), and responded positively to his/her argument. Because of that, and a little because of the hollering defense here for NoC, I’m reducing my probability that NoC plus overflight is true from 60% to 50%.

      Now, if NoC plus overflight moves to 50%, then the second airplane scenario moves down to 10%. (NoC plus overflight at 50% and “757” at 60% being in direct conflict with each other, then adds to 110%. The second airplane scenario provides an explanation to deconflict, thus, the 10% brings the total down to the necessary 100%.)

      1. “Hollering”~Dwain Deets

        This characterization of Mr Ruff’s comment is such obvious self serving balderdash that it is embarrassing to read. Then to follow-up with such a load of double-talk throws the switch on the bullshit alarm.

        Mr Deets’ statistical jabberwocky is as absurdest as something from Lewis Carroll.

        Do you read me as “holloring” Mr Deets? Does frank confrontation to your spurious nonsense translate as being yelled at? That is simply Newspeak sir. Don’t try to tell me I don’t understand statistics, because it is too obvious to any who are even partially lucid that you are pulling all of this out of your butt, making the whole thing up as if it were based in some valid science.

        The bottom line is that it is ludicrous, it is a joke you play on yourself.

        \\][//

      2. Dwain,

        I did my best to say what I had to say in a respectful way (a change for me I admit) and I don’t think I was “hollering” at you or anyone. That having been said I have no idea whatsoever what sort of point you were attempting to make with your last comment. Because I sincerely do not know what you are saying in the above comment I can’t really respond to it. I will say though that you have not shown any supportive evidence for your second plane theory or explained how so many credible witnesses saw only one plane. I consider the second plane idea total speculation on your part which in my book doesn’t hold a candle to the NOC witnesses and evidence. I personally dismiss your theory based on lack of evidence.

        1. Adam,
          My second plane theory is not based on direct evidence. It is based on inference (where the evidence part is indirect). More importantly, I have little need for the second plane theory, as it comes into play in only 1 out of 10 situations, which I call 10% likelihood. (HB1 thinks I’m doing something with statistics, but I’m not. It is just a way of describing a subjective opinion as to the strength of a hypothesis.) With only 10% assigned to the two-plane hypothesis, I suggest you not spend time arguing why it couldn’t be true.

          I have previously assigned a 60% likelihood to the “757” hypothesis. This, because I know there are reasons why it might not be true. I identified the generator trailer position and damage as a reason to question the hypothesis.

          I am now assigning a 50% likelihood to the ‘NoC plus overflight’ hypothesis. This, because I think there are slightly more reasons it might not be true, as there are “757” might not be true.

          But, since “757” and ‘NoC plus overflight’ are in direct conflict with each other, one can almost say they couldn’t possibly both be true. That is where the two-plane hypothesis comes into it. The 10% is a computed number, allowing a small overlap of the 50% and 60% associated with the two primary hypotheses, such that these two don’t add up to more than 100%.

      3. Dwain,

        Where you come up with your figures I don’t know but assigning 50% to NOC and overflight is completely arbitrary and ignores the strength of the NOC witnesses. I see no reasonable way to dismiss or partially dismiss (as you have) these multiple witnesses who all corroborate each other. If you can articulate a reason you have assigned them all a 50% chance of being totally wrong or totally dishonest (as a whole group mind you) I would love to hear it. This 10% you assign to the second plane idea along with your admission that you are speculating tells me I am correct to dismiss your theory for lack of evidence. I have dismissed your theory Dwayne but if you can articulate a reason why the NOC witnesses seem to be only 50/50 to you I would like to hear it. I assign a very high probability that collectively they are telling the truth and they all saw the aircraft north of Citgo. In fact in a court of law I would say they prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t see any “reasonable” case for assigning them only 50% credibility as you have. Actually by assigning them only a 50% chance of being correct you are really saying we need to dismiss them altogether. Perhaps that is your true motive Dwain? Anyway, Dwain I see no valid basis for your change of heart regarding the NOC witnesses.

        1. Adam,

          I think the lack of solid witnesses to the overflight is a serious deficiency. There is one witness, Roosevelt Roberts, whom I consider very weak. In rough terms, I give that deficiency a minus 20%.

          I think there are serious questions with two of the NOC witnesses. Sgt. William Lagasse possibly went to the wrong gas pump to tell his story. As far as I can tell, the cameras at the CitGo station showed him, possibly, doing things inconsistent with someone who had just been surprised by a low-flying jet passing overhead. I don’t think these questions have been suitably resolved. The other NOC witness striking me as problematic is Terry Morin. He is shown later in a photo helping to carry a tarp-draped platform. Looks to me that he is part of the insiders moving parts around in semi secrecy in front of the Pentagon. I think it is reasonable to subtract 10% for each of these two.

          Just to clarify, there is nothing scientific about these numbers. It is just a means of indicating deficiencies I see in the NOC plus overflight hypothesis.

      4. Hey Deets,

        Surely you have Barbara Honegger’s contact numbers. Ja?

        Why don’t you skip the bla bla here and tell her she is looking like a coward for skipping out on us when she made a promise to address this forum almost two weeks ago.

        If she doesn’t show, you know she gets 100% fail. Adding to that your 90% fail, equals
        a 190% fail, which puts your team in a deficit category, the gory category for the authors of a spurious story.

        \\][//

      5. Dwain,

        You know very well that if you cannot dispute the NOC flight path you cannot dispute the flyover. The witnesses establish the NOC path beyond a reasonable doubt therefore the plane MUST have flown over the Pentagon. Your arbitrary deductions of 20% here and 10% there are meaningless considering that it is the totality of the NOC witnesses that matters as to establishing the flight path. Any one or two of them could be removed from the equation and the rest still establish the NOC path beyond reasonable doubt. I think you know that. The lack of flyover witnesses does not weaken the case for flyover at all because the NOC path forces the flyover as the only possibility for what happened to the observed aircraft. Again I think you know that. You appear to be attempting to muddy those clear waters Dwain and I don’t know why you would do that. Do you have a “reasonable” doubt about the NOC flight path having been established? I would like to hear what it is.

        1. The lack of a solid flyover witness or two is problematic to the NOC flight path theory. I don’t know of a better way to express it than docking the NOC-plus-overflight theory some amount. 20% seems a reasonable set back.

      6. Dwain, the NoC witnesses are all you need to know that the plane flew over the Pentagon. Regardless, Roosevelt Roberts is a witness. Erik Dihle’s co-workers were witnesses and others like the witnesses Dave Statter interviewed who said the plane “went to the side of the building and not directly in” and the pilot tried to “avert the building”.

        You are trying to use your authority to dissuade people from the flyover evidence. Namely by calling it a “theory”.

        It is so obvious that you are an infiltrator now. You are using the exact same disinfo that others have used to reduce the evidence to a “theory”, while lying and saying there were no witnesses to the flyover.

        Dwain Deets, do you agree that a north side flight path plane proves a conspiracy? IF you do, which you should, why are you not focusing on this? How come you haven’t contacted any of the witnesses?

        Are you trying to insinuate that a north side flight path plane can impact the Pentagon?

        Also, can you tell us which intelligence agency you are being compensated by to sow this disinformation?

  85. Hybridrogue1,

    Are you Willy Whitten? Is this your linkedin page?
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/willy-whitten/68/522/3a9

    And if so, have you made these statements on this blog?

    “…
    My real name is Willy Whitten, I am a retired special effects artist for cinema, professionally, and a child prodigy artist, and autodidact polymath.
    …”

    “…
    As far as reading, I have been studying the national security state since the late 60s. I am adept
    at intelligence analysis, deconstruction of language and frames, well versed in epistemology,
    sociopolitical issues, cultural anthropology,mass psychology, and deep history. I am also
    knowledgeable in theoretical and applied physics. So your advice on becoming a “well informed
    person” comes a bit late, I’ve been there done that and keep up with it.
    …”

    “…
    As a philosopher, I am very well acquainted with the theory of “Just War.” As a deconstructionist
    of language, I am also aware that this ‘theory’ is rhetorical nonsense.
    …”

    “…
    As an artist these are things I know well. Being a successful visual artist entails the ability to
    actually see what is in front of you. It takes much practice to make this acuity second nature, as in
    knowing what you are seeing and juxtaposing what may be said about it, and noting the
    contradiction consciously.
    …”

    “…
    As I understand it, I was born with this innate awareness, and merely strengthened it as I matured.
    A lot of people’s ego’s rebel at the idea that aptitude for this varies. They are especially hard to reach.
    …”

    “…
    I am not taking sides in this issue one way or the other. I have great difficulty with all of the theories
    involving the Pentagon strike, the government assertion, the Citco assertions, the no-plane at all
    assertions….none of it is satisfactory to my thinking.

    I am inclined to think that an auto-piloted military plane mocked up with the airlines livery flew
    into the Pentagon, first firing a missile seconds before the plane hit.
    …”

    If you have made the above statements, why are you not able to figure out a simple centripetal formula when OSS has provided it for you above?

    1. JustWonderingWhy,

      Before I answer you, I will just make this observation in the form of a rhetorical question, who the fuck are YOU?

      Now saying that, to the crux of the matter:

      Yes indeed I am that same Willy Whitten, although I haven’t checked my Linkedin page for quite some time, I suppose that could be mine.

      And yes this comment was made by myself on this very blog quite some time ago:

      “I am inclined to think that an auto-piloted military plane mocked up with the airlines livery flew into the Pentagon, first firing a missile seconds before the plane hit.”

      I was persuaded differently and had a change of mind, and it was not to long after making that comment that I did so. Have you ever been persuaded by overwhelming evidence and come to change your own mind about something? Did you have the courage to admit that you were wrong and become engaged in attempting to help others see the errors that you once held for what they are?

      So as you see my anonymous critic, even the best and most talented of us can make mistakes. So now, in all seriousness; Who are YOU? Where is the URL to your Linkedin page? When did you realize that 9/11 was a psyop? And what have you accomplished in your illustrious life?

      \\][//

    2. Oh, JustWanderingBy,

      I checked and that is indeed my Linkedin page.

      I see that in a troll like fashion you were just wandering by and have no response.
      c’est la vie…

      \\][//

    3. Deets

      Lagasse was 20 feet from the wrong pump, which he clarified. What difference does that make?? And his fellow cop, Chad Brooks was behind the Citgo and exactly corroborated the flight path Lagasse drew!

      Morin, like Boger, as your friend Mark has claimed, is one of the “bad guys” now for being photographed with a triage tent?

      Roosevelt Roberts claimed to see a “second aircraft in South parking” after the explosion.

      Let’s not forget that you have “negative witnesses” to an “SOC” aircraft. Not a single one.

  86. OSS writes – ‘Mr Wright is the part time shy Tourettes kid here. Sudden unexpected outbursts and no replies.’

    Do the rest of you respect these insults? Is OSS trying to compensate for short comings other than being one slice short? Must be that. Only someone with serious self esteem issues could be so blatantly rude and insulting to others for holding different points of view. But that’s just my theory, which matters little to the overall exercise in getting to the truth of 9/11.

    I will reserve judgement on NOC until I review all of what you have offered as evidence, but OSS, you are not doing your ‘side’ any favours. You risk making others think twice about a theory by sole virtue of the fact that you are associated with it. But despite your lack of respect for others, I will still give the NOC theory the consideration it deserves, not that my personal opinion matters any more than anyone else’s here.

  87. For whatever reason I have not been getting the thread on Barbara Honegger. Just peaked in and have to comment.

    Twelve angry men had it all figured out till they looked at all the evidence. Somehow a pile of junk ended up against the pentagon wall near the helipad with the heavier pieces closest to. Barbara Honegger said either there were two aircraft or the flyover plane looped around before being pulverized upon impact at the helipad. She has left the door open on this issue, she’s laid out a theory and is asking questions while many others have it all figured out. I have no choice but to accept much of what Barbara said. And yes we have to leave the door open to new interpretations.

    I, am certain two aircraft converged at the Annex before the magic act occurred at the pentagon that morning. We have to look at the evidence and speculate ahead, not fall backward. If a beefed up hellfire was slipped in through a window we would have directional damage in wedge one and the air-show talked about weeks ago. There could have been three aircraft there that morning, but a 757 did not plow into wedge one.

    When a jet iced up at Detroit Metro and hit a pole before plunging in, about twenty feet of wing tip came off at about 240 MPH. 5 poles would bring down a commercial airliner here and now. There will be no directional damage except on the ground and there is no reason to consider momentum. Tell me where I’m wrong here guys.

    Mr. William Middleton was almost as close to the NE corner of the Naval complex as Edward Paik was to the SW corner when an aircraft passed over low. Mr. Paik watched the jet fly over his business at the SW corner of the Naval Annex and Mr. Terry Morin looked up to glimpse it go over the inside S edge of the Naval complex at about 350 knots. He was half way down the length of the building about ten feet in from the edge and said the right wing may have hung over the S edge of the complex. In his opinion, the aircraft would have hit the Air Force Memorial if it were in place then.

    Mr. Middleton was on Patton Dr. north of Southgate St. just NE of the naval complex. He said he watched the aircraft fly right down the middle of Southgate St. He is the only witness to mention the heat off the engine thrust. In the CIT video, he motioned to where his street sweeper was. He was sitting down, looking toward the aircraft as it approached from Henderson Hall down the middle of Southgate St.! Mr. Middleton had a front row seat as did Mr. Paik and they both could not have seen the same aircraft. From his POV, Mr. Middleton could not have seen the jet Mr. Paik did till it cleared the edge of the E façade of the building. Flying only feet from the roof that plane couldn’t have banked till it passed the edge of the roof.

    I think all of the CIT interviewees prior to Mr. Paik said the aircraft came out of the south. It then passed over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo station. From his POV Darrel Stafford said the plane came directly over the Sheraton and barely cleared the roof of the Naval Annex before it exited over the NE corner of the Annex. However, in the CIT video, “ Flight 77 – The White Plane” Cindy Reyes, at 13:00 minutes in explained the height and path of the white plane significantly S of the Annex. In fact, looking out her bathroom window you can see the exact S side of the Sheraton. At 350 knots that aircraft could not have been anywhere near the north side of the Naval Annex. Some of the trajectories from the schematic of approach paths match Mr. Middleton and Mr. Stafford’s testimony. Both also said they heard two explosions upon presumed impact.

    Cognitive dissonance would have been rampant that morning and we all have a visual blind spot which could further confuse the subconscious. Most of the interviewees said they saw a white aircraft, it is entirely possible there were a pair of white aircraft side by side blending into their own confusion. There were explosions inside the Pentagon prior to any aircraft impact. There was also damage in A and B rings. If your life is on the line, you won’t see anything other than the immediate threat coming directly at you. A boxer rarely ever sees the knockout punch coming. It is very likely two white aircraft converged and flew in side by side. A pile of junk somehow ended up against the wall near the helipad.

    Interesting the Arlington employees were given a model of a Messerschmitt 262 missing rear wings to use as a prop to express their interpretation of that moment. I’m not sure if that was at the time just the most readily available prop to be found or if it was a facetious parallel with the Reichstag Fire Nazis. Or, was that a subliminal attempt to get witnesses to comment on a smaller aircraft. There were a number of people who reported a much smaller aircraft, some said it was a corporate jet crossing the expressway. Even Mr. Morin’s first fleeting impression was of a 737, a somewhat smaller aircraft with less fuselage than a 757.

    Bottom line, somehow a pile of junk ended up on the lawn north of the supposed impact site. I’m convinced Mr. Middleton and Mr. Paik saw two different aircraft. Some of those CIT witnesses don’t want to talk about it anymore knowing now what they didn‘t then. The moon roof lady may simply have common sense. As for the helicopter, who knows? Somehow Barbara Honegger came up with an air traffic control report of a helicopter near the pentagon at the time she mentioned. Is anyone suggesting she fabricated that report and is touting false evidence? Is it possible Sean Boger chose not to see a helicopter while his co-worker just happened to be in the bathroom? I mean after all he did work for the bad guys right?

    Barbara Honegger is moving the discussion forward. That conference had to happen at the Pentagon Sheraton. Glad I was there. I encourage everyone to watch Barbara Honegger’s, “Behind the Smoke Curtain”.

    1. “There will be no directional damage except on the ground and there is no reason to consider momentum. Tell me where I’m wrong here guys.”~Mark Farris

      Hahaha….that is a doozy….”There will be no directional damage except on the ground..”
      Yea…well considering GRAVITY that sort of stands to reason. Lol

      “there is no reason to consider momentum.”

      Any time one is confronted with a moving object there is every reason to consider momentum. Momentum and Crash Physics are forensically inseparable.

      \\][//

    2. Mark

      I’ve almost (anally, I admit) got a mental three dimensional image of what all witnesses who saw the aircraft describe.

      Nobody saw two planes

      You quoted Cindy Reyes as a “south of the Navy Annex witness” when of course the aircraft was south of the Annex as it was passing the Sheraton Hotel.

      Ed Paik placed the aircraft above his parking lot/roof of his buildings “heading towards the Navy Annex”

      Terry Morin placed it “over [his] head” at the edge of the Navy Annex where indeed he claims that, in his estimation, only the right wingtip was over the edge.

      Terry Morin also puts the aircraft on a trajectory towards the Memorial

      There’s also a potentially very important witness who was on Columbia Pike and saw the aircraft to his left corraborating Paik and Morin. Got that? One plane.

      http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8662506&postcount=305

      Sean Boger and William Middleton corroborate the aircraft flying NOC, past the ANC parking lot (Middleton’s POV is circled in cemetery)

      It came right over the parking lot.
      William Middleton

      Boger’s POV (aerial)

      William Middleton does place the aircraft furthest north but you have to take in to consideration his POV for the approach (to the right of this image):

      You also quote Darrel Stafford.

      Donald Carter, another NOC witness was standing talking to him at the time the aircraft appeared above the Navy Annex and placed it more to the centre.

      A: Me and Darrell were discussing something, um, a project over at section we were supposed to be going in for that day. And, um— So at the time, you know, all of a sudden, we seen a plane as far as over here, over the Naval Annex? Coming from over… So, actually, you know, we spotted him then he— The plane actually veered off, sort of like he swerved off, and then he caught… you know, got… got on track. And then he hit the Pentagon.

      […]

      Q: Would you say it was more on, on the north side of the Navy Annex over here? Or the south side on the far other end?

      A: It was more like, sort of like he was centered.

      […]

      A: We started runnin’. And then, at that time, you know, when we was runnin’, I looked… I sorta kinda looked back, you know, seen the explosion. As it exploded, you know, felt the heat. Felt the heat of the explosion.

      […]

      Q: So— I mean— Some people say that it was far on the other side of the Citgo.

      A: No.

      Q: What do you have to say about that?

      A: Well, they must didn’t see it. Cause I”m, I’m standin’— As a matter fact, I was standing right here, discussing, you know, like I was telling you.

      There are many more witnesses who bury this “two plane theory”. Hemphill, Brooks, Turcios, Elgas, etc. But how about Steve Riskus who was travelling South on Route 27? How the hell did he miss this “second plane”?

      http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1636&view=findpost&p=2450799

      And here’s the link to that (dusty old) thread tearing Honegger’s crap apart that you guys keep avoiding:

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392

  88. Barbara Honegger – OCTOBER 31, 2013 – 7:48 AM
    >“I will be responding to this latest post of Craig’s,
    of which I’ve just been made aware, and to this
    comments thread in the near future.”~Barbara Honegger
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    It is now November 13, 2013, and not a single word from Honegger.

    I think it is clear that Ms Honegger is standing-up the forum.

    Why do we have Deets there in lieu of Honegger?
    My answer is that he is running interference – and has been since the conference was conceived.

    Christine LaBlanc asked this above:

    “Having said this, is there a claim here that Dwayne Deets and Barbara Honegger’s only motives are to disparage the people who came up with the NOC theory in their analysis of the Pentagon?”

    I can only answer for myself personally. Yes I heavily suspect that Dwayne Deets and Barbara Honegger’s primary motives are to disparage the people who came up with the NOC theory in their/our analysis of the Pentagon. I think this is a matter of agitprop.

    Let us deconstruct what Mr Deets actually says in his comment to Mr Ruff on NOVEMBER 12, 2013 – 9:03 PM

    Because Deets had a pleasant exchange with Mr Wright, and they are both gentlemen, he is going to dock a certain number of points to NOC on his statistical scale.
    Then he adds that since Mr Ruff “hollered” at him, he is going to dock several more points from that statistical scale.

    What?!?!

    What kind of “logic” is that? It is obviously not logic at all. How anyone can take this kind of wankrood seriously is beyond me.

    As for Honegger herself:
    It is my firm conviction that Barbara Honegger is an agent of agitprop, having been sheep-dipped during the Iran-Contra Affair, doing a load of “expose’s” that amount to a modified limited hangout; and that these “expose’s” had utterly no effect whatsoever on the activities of the perps. Her background is in Military Intelligence as a PR operative, this is part of her open curriculum vitae.
    As this is exactly the kind of situation where close attention to the circumstantial evidence is the only mode of investigation, it remains in the realm of speculation. However I feel that such speculation is perfectly reasonable in this instance.

    \\][//

  89. Willie,

    You got me! I was being catty, most certainly. I am not a big fan of using health problems, especially those that are associated with a great deal of social isolation and suffereing, as insults. It’s also distracting from the argument and that’s my bigger point.

    I understand well your arguments and have also been trained in philosophy, but more importantly, in clinical ethics. Perhaps odd wasn’t the right word – I wasn’t referring to your statement as odd so much, and your use of language isn’t what caused me to pause, it’s the idea and the feeling that ‘NOC’ has been elevated almost to the status of person in this whole forum debate. I find that, well not odd maybe, but curious. But more than curious I wonder if it’s become unproductive. It could well be that the evidence behind NOC is rock solid but it’s getting increasingly difficult for us to get to really examine it. I am the audience – I don’t want to be disctracted by this stuff. I am trying to convince others of the rightness of questioning 9/11 and the Pentagon is so important in doing this effectively. I am also involved in independent filmmaking and would like to start working on something on this topic. I believe in this fight. Let’s get on with it.

    Like OSS has rightly said to me, I have talked alot but really said nothing as it has been difficult to actually examine all these arguments in the midst of this other stuff, but that’s what I am doing next. I am not going to respond to anything until I have done my best to understand everything that is on this forum. Then I will weigh in.

    Willie you may continue to refer to be as Ms LeBlanc if you wish, but I have no hard feelings here, and I can tell you love debate as much as I do, maybe more, so I would be pleased if you called me Chrisine.

    Christine🙂

    1. Okay Christine it is.

      No, no hard feelings at all.
      But it IS; ‘Willy’ with a “y” at the end, if you will.

      Yes do your study. Perhaps it will disabuse you of the ‘feeling’ that the NOC has been somehow “personified” or turned into a Golden Calf as it were.

      \\][//

      1. Let’s try this from a different approach.

        I’ve seen nothing relevant nor founded here to discredit the NOC witness testimony.

        I’ve also seen none of those who are proposing these nailed on theories state just exactly what they intend to do with them.

        In their insistence on an alleged impact or helipad destruction, Deets and Honegger have actually made claims to a far more convoluted operation carried out at the Pentagon on 9/11.

        Will they lay out exactly what their next step is.

        How will they convince people that an unmanned drone was used?

        How will they convince people of the staged directional damage when their alleged aircraft flew either along the directional damage path or within that area? That is “a south of the Navy Annex flightpath”.

        Which witnesses will they cite to support their “south of the Navy Annex” flightpath that missed the directional damage?

        How can they convince people that an aircraft more or less on a “south of the Navy Annex” flightpath actually missed the directional damage?

        Which pieces of (unidentified) debris will they point to as proof of

        a) the “white plane destruction on the helipad”

        b) the complete desintegration of a 757 as per the Sandia test

        Should the NOC witness testimony be disregarded? Honegger and Deets have both made a mockery of what they described – “flyover plus impact”; “confusion” over which explosion and fireball they experienced, etc.

        Should the entire official narrative be disregarded?

        a) should the alleged FDR be disregarded? Even though there are multiple problems with the data and we are waiting for a response from the NTSB to explain these irregularities?

        b) should the RADES data be disregarded even though the flightpaths of both the aircraft in question and C130 have been contradicted not only by witnesses but by ATCs and the C130 pilot himself?

        c) should the official speed be disregarded? Even though the alleged 757 was being flown well outside its limitations?

        d) should the alleged pilot Hani Hanjour be disregarded? Even though he couldn’t fly a Cessna? And the aforementioned official speed is a crucial aspect of the argument against any pilot, let alone a reject, flying a 757 at low altitude at cruise speed.

        What exactly is left of the official narrative that we can measure the truth against? That we can press the authorities on?

        What is the next step?

      2. My apologies, Willy it is. I just noticed I even mis-spelled my own name in that post. That’s what you get for getting wrapped up in these things at work…premature ‘post comment’-ing before someone else notices you are not working at all!

  90. OSS, those are excellent questions. And I think I see where you are coming from now. I will do my best to consider them. Thank you.

    1. Thanks Christine

      Unfortunately, they won’t be answered, in my opinion. Because if they are, you’re going to see just how weak and pointless their theories actually are in forwarding the debate. And in pushing for demands for answers from the powers that be.

      Did you watch National Security Alert?

      1. I said earlier

        How will they convince people that an unmanned drone was used?

        Let me expand on this.

        I don’t rule out an unmanned drone. I don’t rule out a pilot, that wasn’t Hani Hanjur, in the cockpit either.

        A main tenet of both Dwain Deets and Barbara Honegger’s theories is that a drone or aircraft painted to look like a 757 was used.

        In fact, Dwain Deets’ only claim as to the event at the Pentagon being a black op is his claim that an unmanned drone was used.

        Barbara Honegger’s theory is that a drone painted to look like a 757 was somehow destroyed at the helipad.

        Both claim that their drones came in from the south.

        Dwain Deets treats the directional damage as a secondary issue (31° and 42° trajectories) while Barbara Honegger dismisses the directional damage altogether (including the entire alleged impact zone) but has so far refused to pinpoint this “south of the Navy Annex path” that leads to the heliport.

        How do they both intend to push on with their drone theories? Based on what?

        1. Remember, OSS refuses to watch my presentation or read the pdf. His statement:
          “A main tenet of…Dwain Deets…theor[y] is that a drone or aircraft painted to look like a 757 was used” is simply untrue.

      2. “Remember, OSS refuses to watch my presentation or read the pdf. His statement:
        “A main tenet of…Dwain Deets…theor[y] is that a drone or aircraft painted to look like a 757 was used” is simply untrue.”~Deets

        I watched your presentation, and I consider this current splitting of participles as wiggling bullshit Dwain. You posit that an aircraft hit the Pentagon – you attempt to distinguish it as a 757 type of aircraft or maybe something else {?} – you posit that it was flown by sophisticated remote control. You do not mention the matter of livery, but it is no large mistake to assume that is part of your gambit, and such an assumption is in no way unreasonable, nor in fact here or there.. So you saying that what OSS says “is simply untrue,” is hardly the ‘simple’ characterization you give it.

        Trying to figure out exactly what you are saying now is like trying to read the number of wing-flaps of a horde of gnats buzzing around ones head.

        There’s no business like bullshit Dwain, and we are all adults who have grown to the point of recognizing bullshit when we see it. And as several of us have noted here, you are laying on piles of it, day after day.

        Where the frack is Barbara, Dwain? If we have to deal with bullshit, then bring on the main event.

        \\][//

      3. Dwain Deets says:

        Remember, OSS refuses to watch my presentation or read the pdf. His statement:
        “A main tenet of…Dwain Deets…theor[y] is that a drone or aircraft painted to look like a 757 was used” is simply untrue.

        That’s rich Dwain. Okay, an unmanned Boeing 757

        From Dwain Deets pdf

        the author’s assessment in that it creates a “leading suspect” in favor of a Boeing 757, the sister airplane type with identical systems as the 767. Consideration of this airplane type, one based on reasonability, becomes a factor in a cumulative assessment method.

        The questions still stand. A reminder:

        “In fact, Dwain Deets’ only claim as to the event at the Pentagon being a black op is his claim that an unmanned Boeing 757 was used.

        Barbara Honegger’s theory is that a drone painted to look like a 757 was somehow destroyed at the helipad.

        Both claim that their drone/Boeing 757 came in from the south.

        Dwain Deets treats the directional damage as a secondary issue (31° and 42° trajectories) while Barbara Honegger dismisses the directional damage altogether (including the entire alleged impact zone) but has so far refused to pinpoint this “south of the Navy Annex path” that leads to the heliport.

        How do they both intend to push on with their drone/Boeing 757 theories?

        Based on what?

  91. I just want to tell one more story to illustrate what I am facing here, before I delve into to all this research. One Sept 11th of this year, I was sitting with my workmates during coffee break. Someone said ‘ Does everyone remember what they were doing 12 years ago today?’ Then we all described exactly where we were at that moment. Then I mentioned how important it was to bring the actual perpetrators to justice, which was followed by ‘what do you mean, they know who did it.’ I said ‘you don’t really believe it was 19 muslims who did it do you?’ I got incredulous looks, which kind of took me off guard because I had been following 9/11 truth for awhile by then and kind of figured others were too. Then one of them said ‘Oh my God, YOU’RE one of those ‘flat’ earth creationist conspiracy theorists!’ Well I didn’t counter back, you mean ‘young’ earth creationist to that person, or the fact that I am a humanist a la Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, because these are my friends and I didn’t want to insult them. Further, I really don’t think they were trying to insult me – they were actually shocked! Up to that point I tended to be the ‘go-to’ person when someone had a question – ‘Go ask Christine, she probably knows’. But not this time. They did not believe a word I said.

    Anyway I am very passionate about this topic so I went on to explain about building 7 – ‘never heard of it, who cares’. Then on to the towers and how the laws of physics would have had to have been suspended in order for the official conspiracy to be true – ‘hate physics, never understood it, so what’. Wow, 0 for 2, then I said, ‘Ok do you really think that the Pentagon would have gotten attacked so easily given it is protected by the most sophisticated and expensive military in the world? That a plane can just fly towards it for many, many minutes after two planes had just hit the Trade Centre towers and just slam into it? Seriously?’. They all agreed that this indeed seemed strange. It is the PENTAGON after all. That is how I got them to even consider that 9/11 is not what we have been told – it may be the most important piece there is to get general public buy in. But the media has been so adept and keeping the Pentagon relatively low on the 9/11 list of tragedies that many just don’t even think about it. So it’s good to talk about it at this level, and I hope to be able to convince some of my circle of friends and family of that too by studying, and hopefully understanding, the arguments in this forum.

      1. I wish he was on board with this. I suppose he’d have to change all his presentations because blaming 9/11 on muslims has been good for the atheist movement. But making the persons responsible for 9/11 face justice is good for the human race, so he should be coming over to the 9/11 truth movement in my opinion even if it weakens his case. He is a scientist after all. There are plenty of other things that are compelling in the atheist movement he doesn’t need to perpetuate a lie in order to move it forward.

      2. Perhaps one day Christine, you and I can discuss Dawkins and the issue of ‘illusions’, certainly not on this thread…but some day.
        \\][//

      1. Willy – ‘Perhaps one day Christine, you and I can discuss Dawkins and the issue of ‘illusions’, certainly not on this thread…but some day.’

        That would be the coolest thing ever.

    1. Christine,

      Wow, 0 for 2, then I said, ‘Ok do you really think that the Pentagon would have gotten attacked so easily given it is protected by the most sophisticated and expensive military in the world? That a plane can just fly towards it for many, many minutes after two planes had just hit the Trade Centre towers and just slam into it? Seriously?’. They all agreed that this indeed seemed strange. It is the PENTAGON after all. That is how I got them to even consider that 9/11 is not what we have been told – it may be the most important piece there is to get general public buy in

      I agree Christine. As compelling as the WTC evidence is, it’s not for everyone! And I also fully agree, for many it is indeed the PENTAGON that gets people questioning 9/11 first. If not the “obvious lack of defense,” then certainly the photos showing a lack of plane. There are some who insist that the Pentagon is a honeypot and to not go there, and that we should focus exclusively on the WTC. That’s the mentality of many passionate supporters and volunteers for/of AE911Truth.

      As far as insults and snark go, I can understand why you might have had the impression from OSS and a few others as being that way; but at the same time, you’re new here and don’t know all the social dynamics… for example, you mentioned OSS being insulting towards “A. Wright.” This A. Wright character is an official story troll, and not just with 9/11 but with TWA 800, OKC and even I believe the JFK assassination. Are you familiar with the JREF 9/11 forum? (Google it if not, and peruse a few threads.) Or the Screw Loose Change blog? Wright is from that cloth. He has repeatedly shown himself to not debate in good faith; hence many of us tend to be more catty to him than to someone who does seem to be interested in sincere fact discussing and who does discuss (or even debate) in good faith. Much earlier in this thread, Rob Balsamo was exceedingly rude to sincere truthers who support his side of the evidence and even his own Pilots for Truth organization! He went so over the line that McKee had to bring down the “ban hammer,” something that McKee does only very rarely, since he is extremely tolerant with rhetoric and almost never disapproves a comment or bans someone.

      At any rate, I’d definitely find some time to plunge into CIT’s and OSS’s research and really start to learn the fine details of the evidence, then it will be much easier for you to see the SPIN and disinfo campaign that surrounds it. I’m sure it is all quite overwhelming at first.

      1. Hi Adam,

        Thanks!

        I just want to clarify that I was not taken aback by the insult to A Wright because I feel for him/her – I don’t know that person and as far as I am concerned if you are grown up enough to play in this forum then you should be able to take a few shots. I was upset by the use of a condition that is known to cause people significant social suffering as the vehicle of the insult. I don’t think insults are very productive but I think we need to watch our egos and suck it up and move on when we are insulted. I would caution, however, that those who would try to sabotage the movement could pick those insults as the only thing they emphasize to those we might otherwise be able to sway by the evidence. They are going to pick our worse traits and moments to highlight, and ignore or bury the excellent qualities and work.

        I have read through many of the posts so far, and am making a bit of a legend to help me with the acronyms as there are many. I realize I have seen the work by CIT several times, and my initial impressions, based on my experience as a researcher, is that it was well done from a methodological point of view, given the inherent problems with this kind of study. If I take the video at face value, and assume there was no ‘witness tampering’ (I have no reason to think there would be), the questioning of the witnesses was quite good, and having the witness draw on the map themselves is probably the best way to have done it. I would be inclinded to accept the conclusion of a NOC as valid, but only of that, I haven’t looked into any of the other claims as yet.

        Christine:)

      2. Hi Christine,

        My arc of discovery may be of help to you here, although I don’t want to ‘lead the witness’…

        As someone who was convinced the very morning of 9/11 that the PR machine was fabricating a PSYOP, I decided to disregard the entire official story as it developed.
        When I saw the first broadcast of the first tower explode, I jumped from my chair and said aloud to the TV ; “that’s bullshit! there is no way that the plane had anything to do with that…” To me it was obvious that the towers blew up.

        So when it came to the Pentagon, I took the same stance – that the official narrative was a lie. Later the ‘Hunt for the Boeing” thing from the Frenchman came out. It seemed convincing and reasonable. And even later the video ‘National Security Alert’ came out, and I watched it, and thought it was totally convincing. As time went by I became more of a WTC investigator, and just assumed that the official story of the Pentagon was a lie, and didn’t pursue it much. I read some of Hoffman’s stuff on the subject and always felt his take on it, that it was a ‘trap’ to posit no Boeing, that the videos would eventually be released showing the crash – was a spurious concept.

        As time went by I considered various scenarios, the ‘Global Hawk’ thing seemed to have some merit for me…for a time. But it was in the same time-frame as I discovered this forum that I began a long conversation by email with Frank Legge. In that I began to understand the controversy between his ‘a Boeing hit the Pentagon’ and the ‘CIT’ position of NOC/flyover. At some point some month or so after the Legge conversation was taking place that I began to see that Legge was making spurious arguments of circular rhetoric. At the same time I was getting somewhat heated input from both OSS and Adam Ruff. I began a ‘Devils Advocate’ position for some time…which infuriated my comrades to be sure. But as it ended up, I had already told Legge that I thought he is a mole and agent provocateur – but left that out of my dealings on the blog for awhile, to let OSS and Ruff give me the whole treatment…to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt. I was treated rather harshly in the meantime. But the bottom line is, they did convince me, with the information you now have at hand. So consider it well, I think it is a solid case and beyond a reasonable doubt.

        ~Willy – \\][//

      3. WW,

        I remember that when the 2nd edition of Loose Change exploded and went viral and coincided with the mass interest of 9/11 on the 5th anniversary (when anti-Bush and antiwar sentiment was at its peak) that it was around then that not just Jim Hoffman and the 911bloggerites, but also Alex Jones, started touting the idea that the Pentagon was a “honeypot” (Jones) and a “booby trap” (Hoffman). This idea then got a lot of traction in 2007. Dylan Avery took Jim Hoffman very seriously as a “responsible truther” and he also was highly influenced by Jones. Jones even directed LC Final Cut. From 2007 onwards Dylan joined the ranks of those who say that it just doesn’t “work” to talk about the Pentagon in public discourse.

        While Hoffman and Jones were parroting this idea prior to CIT coming on the scene, it was truly the NOC evidence which made the spinmeisters go into overdrive. Until the NOC evidence, I always felt that while I didn’t agree with Hoffman on the Pentagon, it was an honest difference of opinion and that Hoffman was still a sincere truther. It was when I saw him and his wife Victoria attacking the NOC evidence that I became convinced their intentions were not sincere, and that the “responsible truther” act was just a mask.

      4. adam syed,
        very interesting take on the 9/11 Truth history in your post of NOVEMBER 14, 2013 – 7:32 PM.

        re: “I always felt that while I didn’t agree with Hoffman on the Pentagon, it was an honest difference of opinion and that Hoffman was still a sincere truther. It was when I saw him and his wife Victoria attacking the NOC evidence that I became convinced their intentions were not sincere, and that the ‘responsible truther’ act was just a mask.”

        which begs the question: a mask for what? can we be direct and ask it here? are hoffman and victoria cognitive infiltraitors?

        –d

      5. Just one comment about AE911Truth – I am totally OK with them focusing on what they do best – the WTC towers. Having contributed to their campaign on several occasions and taken part in their letter writing campaigns, I respect that they are focused on the area that they think they can contribute to best. It’s probably the most effective use of the resources they have – their campaigns are specific, targeted, and timely, and they have the fact that they are architects and engineers on their side when discussing buildings. When I contribute money to them I always know exactly what it’s for. When I write a letter on their behalf to editors I am guided by them as to what the united front is and who we are targeting. They really spell everything out for you and make it easy to take part. But I think for them to focus too widely would spread them too thin. It is largely volunteers after all and private donations, so to be effective they must be highly efficient. Also, when they do a campaign, they use powerful visual aids that they have produced and know inside and out. Had I had the video of tower 7 disintegrating when I was trying to convince my workmates that 9/11 is not what they believe I may have made some headway. You need that when discussion demolition for it to really sink in.

        The same can happen with the Pentagon. You have Pilots, CIT, and many others. AE has been the leader on the public relations front and has shown all of us an effective way to market the truth. We should encourage the other groups to do the same. I think it would be cool to have advertising from Pilots in key areas, something like ‘did you know that a commercial 757 cannot fly at 500 mph at almost sea level without falling apart’ on cabs or something (I don’t know if I stated that exactly right but you get the picture). If it’s a fact, then it’s fair for advertising. Then enjoy the buzz.

      6. Christine,

        I agree in principle with what you say. But more than just stick to the towers, there have been several close volunteers of AE, as well as at least a couple of BoD members, who aggressively promote “impact” at the Pentagon. Worse, they have the ear of Richard Gage and managed to cognitively infiltrate his mind, convincing him that Pilots, CIT etc. were the disinfo guys and that Jim Hoffman, Frank Legge and co. were the good guys doing a noble service warding off the said disinfo. It ignominiously culminated in Richard Gage issuing a very public and very damaging statement in which he condemned CIT (and Pilots by association, since he recommended the “work” of Frank Legge over the REAL legwork done by Pilots). Richard caved to pressure, but also I think they were successful in at least partially cognitively infiltrating his mind. He used his leadership position to discourage people from looking at other peoples’ work.

        Dennis: speaking for myself alone: yes, I am of the persuasion that between Hoffman and Ashley, at least one of them, if not both, are cognitive infiltrators. Present bogus arguments under the guise of “credibility,” the assignment being to simply get truthers fighting amongst themselves, as well as the bigger picture of fanning the flames of truth about the Pentagon.

      7. AdamS

        Re the Pentagon “honey pot”.

        That term was first coined by Alex Jones in an interview with a leading member of Judicial Watch, an “ex” army psyops officer (can’t remember his name at the minute)
        This same guy said that he was meant to be on “Flight 77”

        Judicial Watch had the claim to fame of having the manipulated gatecam video released.

        Judicial Watch is sponsored by right wing think tank mogul Mellon/Scaife.

      8. thanks willy and adam. if i am recalling correctly (can’t do a “search inside the book” anymore on amazon, it seems), in “9/11 ten years later,” drg cites hoffman as a credible source on a number of occasions. which is disconcerting.
        –d

  92. “God runs electromagnetics on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday by wave theory, and the devil runs it by quantum theory on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday.” ~Sir Lawrence Bragg

    \\][//

  93. Just so we’re all on the same page, the 31° vs 42° angles that Dwain Deets proposes:

    The downed lightpoles are denoted by red stars. The 42° trajectory is cited from the ASCE Report. The 31° trajectory was cited from researcher Sami Yli-Karjanmaa well before the NOC testimony came to light.

    Both angles don’t line up with the directional damage (the directional damage is from between 37-8° from the perpendicular to the wall).

    Though it can’t be distinguished in the above image, there is a very tall VDOT traffic camera to the north (left) of lightpoles 1 and 2.

    To give an idea of the height of this camera, lightpoles 1 and 2 can be seen below it

  94. I just have one quick question as it’s a lot of info to go through. Is everyone in agreement that there was some combination of aircraft and explosives involved at the Pentagon?

      1. @Christine LeBlanc
        Can I just say I don’t think there were any explosives involved , just a plane, American Airlines flight 77, crashing into the building.

      2. Yes Christine,

        My personal opinion:
        A real airplane, likely a military 757 in commercial livery. NOC flightpath. No impact. All damage done by internal explosives.

        \\][//

    1. I think you’ll find that most of us do agree on that, including the CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth supporters as well as Barbara Honegger. We just don’t agree on the details, particularly concerning the plane. I can’t speak for Dwain on the subject of explosives. Perhaps he could clarify his position on that.

      1. i’ve been in and out with this thread but it seems clear that barbara, dwain, cit, pilots, and most of the regulars here all agree that there were explosives planted and used at the pentagon. so there is indeed [please pardon the expression] a consensus on that central point. isn’t that a good thing? could there be any more incriminating evidence that whatever really happened at the pentagon was an inside job? whether there were two planes, one plane, flyover, and/or a missile involved all seem secondary to me.
        my two cents,
        –d

      2. “a consensus on that central point. isn’t that a good thing? could there be any more incriminating evidence that whatever really happened at the pentagon was an inside job?”~Dennis

        Well. yes and no. How do you make that point, of explosives used to blow up the Pentagon, unless there is a narrative – or context within which to place that assertion?

        Now with this single “consensus point”, it is set within a complex multifaceted narrative, which has to present all of the conflicting theories as alternative contextual regimes as an honest representation of where this single consensus point derives.

        This is one of the reasons I am opposed to this partial gambit of ‘consensus’ declaration.
        What should be sought is not ‘consensus’ but ‘truth’, ONE truth expressed with a single cohesive narrative that makes a case beyond reasonable doubt.

        \\][//

        1. willy,
          thanks for the response. point well taken. however, i submit that a “ONE truth expressed with a single cohesive narrative that makes a case beyond reasonable doubt” is likely unachievable here, on this issue. for those who seek to achieve it, i wish you well.
          –d

      3. >”i submit that a “ONE truth expressed with a single cohesive narrative that makes a case beyond reasonable doubt” is likely unachievable here, on this issue.”~Dennis
        . . . . . . . .

        I disagree. I think that case has been made here. I am not talking about a consensus as to whether the case has been successfully made. I am saying that those who don’t see it are simply wrong. I don’t see a single valid challenge here to the case that has developed from the original CIT-NOC that has been developed further here.

        This isn’t to challenge your intellect Dennis, I respect you highly. But in this case I think your opinion is in error.

        \\][//

    2. Dear Ms. LeBlanc,

      I’m the weak link in this discussion, what with it not being my hobby-horse. I don’t rule out explosives. I support the ruse of the fly-over of the aircraft. My twist on it is that maybe they launched a missile or something from the generator trailer.

      If anything about the whole operation stands out as being insiders: thorough, coordinated, and redundant over-kill. I mean, just hitting one tower with a plane regardless of whether or not it got pulverized would have met the goals of most nefarious organizations with a bone to pick. Or just hitting the Pentagon. Or for that matter, just hijacking a plane and flying it around while having the passengers make cellphone calls (which I don’t think really happened) before planting it in the ground. Any single one of those would have achieved the goals. But four aircraft, two towers, the SEC/FBI/CIA building, the entire Office of Navel Intelligence investigating the missing $2.3 trillion, the whole WTC complex, the gold from under WTC-4, the SEC records from WTC-7, the stock transactions, the USA Patriot Act (written by L. Paul Bremer with an office in the towers and his later role in Bagdad), … By golly, that’s a whole lot of fortuitous coincidences going on. Thorough. Well-planned. Predicted by their PNAC road-map.

      So, yeah. Taking out the ONI at the Pentagon and its records was a checklist item that they probably didn’t want to leave to trailer launched missiles and flyover planes. Make sure the back-up plan was back-up. Explosives at the Pentagon.

      //

      1. SEO

        So, yeah. Taking out the ONI at the Pentagon and its records was a checklist item that they probably didn’t want to leave to trailer launched missiles and flyover planes. Make sure the back-up plan was back-up. Explosives at the Pentagon.

        Bingo.

        There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that an aircraft alone, unmanned or piloted, and no matter how technologically advanced any drone system was, that they would take the chance of it smacking one of the many obstacles, manouevring down a very steep incline and pulling up to hit a low level target like the Pentagon. What, leave evidence open to scrutiny sprayed over the area? Especially in an area where military personnel could ID debris and parts, particularly engine and electronic systems? An aircraft void of people?? The latter is the most important.

        No way. It had to be a controlled, ground based operation that took out all targets and witnesses. Internal explosions to carve the damage and kill all in its path. And external explosives for visual effect, facade damage and debris dispersal.

      2. SEO, that’s the thing, when you put it all in context, the official conspiracy is just soooo ludicrous. Just like really, really far out there. The generations to come are going to ask how we could have EVER attributed all those different ‘over the top’ events to coincidence in favour of those in power. I feel foolish that I ever ALMOST believed any of it. Now on to proving it.

    1. @ A.Wright

      Thanks for that. I have been researching 9/11 for awhile and I will be shocked if there is any compelling evidence that it was American Airlines 77, and I feel the evidence for explosives is pretty strong to the extent I have looked at it. I will be objective though, even though I feel such a scenario puts us squarely in the twilight zone…

      1. Christine, it has been my experience that the only people who believe it was Flight 77 and that it crashed are people who have not looked at any of the evidence or who don’t want to know the truth. Oh, and then there are the ones who know full well that Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon but who lie about it.

  95. Usual form I see. Questions being buried and forgotten (Dwain and Barbara)

    Part One:

    Let’s try this from a different approach.

    I’ve seen nothing relevant nor founded here to discredit the NOC witness testimony.

    I’ve also seen none of those who are proposing these nailed on theories state just exactly what they intend to do with them.

    In their insistence on an alleged impact or helipad destruction, Deets and Honegger have actually made claims to a far more convoluted operation carried out at the Pentagon on 9/11.

    Will they lay out exactly what their next step is?

    How will they convince people that an unmanned drone cum “757” was used?

    How will they convince people of the staged directional damage when their alleged aircraft flew either along the directional damage path or within that area? That is “a south of the Navy Annex flightpath”.

    Which witnesses will they cite to support their “south of the Navy Annex” flightpath that missed the directional damage?

    How can they convince people that an aircraft more or less on a “south of the Navy Annex” flightpath actually missed the directional damage?

    Which pieces of (unidentified) debris will they point to as proof of

    a) the “white plane destruction on the helipad”

    b) the complete desintegration of a “757” as per the Sandia test

    Should the NOC witness testimony be disregarded?

    Honegger and Deets have both made a mockery of what they described – “flyover plus impact”; “confusion” over which explosion and fireball they experienced, etc.

    Should the entire official narrative be disregarded?

    I know it’s a crock, but what do we use to gauge the truth (or at least highlight the falsehoods) if the OCT becomes a secondary issue to theories that can’t be proven, fall apart in detail and offer no further means of investigation whatsoever to keep the pressure on?

    a) should the alleged FDR be disregarded?

    Even though there are multiple problems with the data (apart from the fact that it is like the alleged debris — unidentified) and we are waiting for a response from the NTSB to explain these irregularities?

    b) should the RADES data be disregarded?

    Even though the flightpaths of both the aircraft in question and C130 have been contradicted not only by witnesses but by ATCs and the C130 pilot himself?

    c) Should the official speed be disregarded?

    Even though the alleged 757 was being flown well outside its limitations?

    d) should the alleged pilot Hani Hanjour be disregarded?

    Even though he couldn’t fly a Cessna? And the aforementioned official speed is a crucial aspect of the argument against any pilot, let alone a reject, flying a 757 at low altitude at cruise speed.

    What exactly is left of the official narrative that we can measure the truth against? That we can press the authorities on? Dwain? Barbara?

    Part Two (get the ball rolling):

    The questions still stand. A reminder:

    “In fact, Dwain Deets’ only claim as to the event at the Pentagon being a black op is his claim that an unmanned Boeing 757 was used.

    Barbara Honegger’s theory is that a drone painted to look like a 757 was somehow destroyed at the helipad.

    Both claim that their drone/Boeing 757 came in from the south.

    Dwain Deets treats the directional damage as a secondary issue (31° and 42° trajectories) while Barbara Honegger dismisses the directional damage altogether (including the entire alleged impact zone) but has so far refused to pinpoint this “south of the Navy Annex path” that leads to the heliport.

    How do they both intend to push on with their drone/Boeing 757 theories?

    Based on what?

    Those questions are the crux of the matter.

  96. I know why Dwain Deets and Barbara Honegger won’t go down this road of questioning. Does anybody else?

    On a sidenote, Dwain Deets points to a 31° and 42° trajectory for his 757 impact and also claims that the directional damage was staged. Look at these two angles again:

    Notice that both go partially through the lightpoles. Was the lightpole damage half staged or did the aiircraft fly over them?

  97. “I know why Dwain Deets and Barbara Honegger won’t go down this road of questioning. Does anybody else?”~OSS

    Yes; It is because it is obvious to anyone with two neurons to click together that their so called ‘theories’ have been obliterated in their entirety here.

    \\][//

    1. Willy

      Yes, that too, but picture them trying to convince others. Like Albert.

      Barbara and Dwain: The directional damage was staged.

      Albert: Really? The aircraft didn’t go through that area?

      Barbara and Dwain: Well, yes, it flew south of the Navy Annex

      Dwain: Actually, I propose that it followed one of two trajectories which would have the aircraft cause half of the damage to the lightpoles and doesn’t line up with the generator trailer damage.

      Barbara: I propose that it simply followed a path south of the Navy Annex that doesn’t go through the directional damage. It couldn’t have caused the lightpole damage as the aircraft would have blown up.

      Albert: Dwain, one of thise trajectories would have the aircraft arriving from waayy south, over the I395 motorway and over the very tall VDOT traffic cam mast beside the lightpoles, no?

      Dwain: Well, yess, but…

      Albert: And Barbara? Are you saying that the aircraft actually flew over still standing lightpoles?

      Barbara: Well, it could have flown through the already downed lightpoles…

      Albert: And somehow reach the helipad? It wouldn’t line up, would it?

      Barbara: Let me get back to you on that…

      Albert: What is your south of the Navy Annex flightpath actually based on Barbara?

      Barbara: A second hand media snippet and a witness I interpreted.

      Albert: And you Dwain?

      Dwain: Well, I don’t lend too much weight to eyewitness testimony but I like to refer to what I call “negative witnesses”

      Albert: Oh really? When would you label somebody a “negative witness”?

      Dwain: Well, there are confirmed witnesses on record who unanimously place the aircraft on a northern trajectory away from the directional damage altogether.

      Albert: Say what now? Yeah, but there must be a far greater number who saw it south of the Navy Annex, yeah?

      Dwain: Well, this is where the “negative witnesses” come in to the picture.

      Albert: You mean, “negative witnesses” saw the aircraft on the south of the Navy Annex path and living, breathing witnesses saw it on the opposite trajectory?

      Dwain: Yes. But the living, breathing ones must have seen a second plane.

      Albert: How so? They must have seen the aircraft and not the explosion and fireball, huh? It had either exploded already when they saw that aircraft, yeah?

      Dwain: As I said, I don’t really put too much faith in witnesses. I give the second plane theory a 10% chance of being so but I’ve had to stretch and pull at these guys’ testimonies.

      Albert: Barbara? Where are you going? What do you say about these northern path witnesses?

      Barbara: Oh, they saw an aircraft that flew over the building, circled around and was blown up by a helicopter as it reached the helipad.

      Albert: Wow. They said this?

      Barbara: Well, it’s been claimed that they saw the aircraft and the explosion within seconds but I think that they either saw the aircraft and the first internal explosions, that people right beside the facade missed. Or that it circled round and the helicopter blew it up 5 minutes later.

      Albert: So these witnesses were pretty confused, huh? Ummm….Dwain, so what are you basing your 757 impact on? Surely not the negative witnesses?

      Dwain: I’m basing it on the physical evidence. The damage.

      Albert: The half directional damage through the lightpoles? The contradictory damage to the generator trailer? One of those trajectories would have the nose plough through the corner of the generator trailer…

      Dwain: Yeah, I’ve still to iron that out….

      Albert: Get back to me when you do. Both of you. I’ve many more questions. Bye bye now…

      1. Dwain

        Please point out where I haven’t stuck to what you’ve outlined in your pdf or have stated here on this blog.

        The “31° or 42°” trajectories? You mention the inconsistencies with the generator trailer but don’t mention the VDOT traffic camera bang in the middle of one of those trajectories.

        The “negative witnesses” to the “second plane”? You claim to give only a 10% chance to this baseless hypothesis but you’re prepared to crap over the entire pool of witnesses.

        “I didn’t reject the CIT plane trajectory. I just see it as a different plane at a different time.”

        “Yes, I say there were two aircraft, but not in the basin simultaneously. I accept the testimony of the NOC witnesses regarding an airplanes path”

        “Who saw it? I don’t know. The fact that we know of no eyewitnesses to the upstream portion of the approach is not a fatal flaw”

        “I don’t know if what the witnesses described as the explosion was due to this particular airplane strike, due to inside explosives, or something else.”

        “I don’t think the airplane that came in over the Navy Annex is the same as the one that hit the Pentagon.”

        “Recently, I’ve taken a more careful look at many of the issues, and have gradually shifted my thinking toward an airplane impacting the Pentagon. One shift was deciding the north-path airplane was more likely not time correlated with the explosive event at the Pentagon face.
        Dwain Deets (blog)

        That’s a lot of decisive statements and verbal dancing for a “10%” probability.

        Now, can you answer my basic questions? What’s your next step with your theories? What can you actually point to as proof of an inside job from the operation itself as you see it? That is, an unmanned 757 striking the Pentagon.

      2. Dwain,

        Even at ‘Chips Falling’ I see no link to your PDF. However have did read:
        ‘A Shift in Reasoning: 757, Pentagon, and heliport debris’ and ‘Treachery in Wedge One’.

        So what is OSS saying that you find so shockingly unrepresentative of your case?
        I think he characterizes it rather well in his allegorical dialog above.

        \\][//

      3. “Shockingly over representative”_Deets

        You mean he makes your case stronger than you do. I think so to. And in so doing shows how ridiculous it is.

        Now am I to assume that you are saying indirectly, by not responding to the request, that you are not in contact with Barbara Honegger? Have you two talked about what is taking place on this forum? Has she said anything as to why she refuses to debate the forum here?
        I find it incomprehensible that you wouldn’t be in contact with her.

        \\][//

        1. Barbara and I are independent researchers. We occasionally communicate with each other. We haven’t made any effort to coordinate our research, other than I offered that one figure which she uses showing the lack of clear paths between the standing columns.

          As far as encouraging her to participate on this forum, I will leave it to her to decide on her own. Keep in mind, this forum is quite unfriendly to anyone who is less than 100% supportive of CIT.

  98. Above I say:
    ‘It is because it is obvious to anyone with two neurons to click together that their so called ‘theories’ have been obliterated in their entirety here.’

    But this is just a metaphor that may cut too deep. So let me amend that thought with these:

    I do think that case has been made by, let me call it the CIT-E, or the CIT-Enhanced case, the one made by combination of CIT, P4T, and T&S, as presented on this forum. It is a somewhat intensely dense case, as far as integers, but it is straightforward as well. The thing that most complicates this case is the seemingly plausible counter arguments. And those who are not intimately familiar with the entire case made by CIT-E can be confused by, what I must say is the junk set up as cognitive roadblocks.
    But again, this is not to say that I think there is some absolute consensus on every minor point, even here amongst the team here arguing for that case. I have some points that I consider as dwelling in the area of ‘maybe – maybe not’. But these are not make or break issues.

    \\][//

  99. Willy Whitten asks, “Who are you?”

    My reply to Willy is – I am someone who can figure out a simple centripetal formula, and then some. I am just wondering why you are unable to figure out such simple math when you have claimed to have a background in theoretical and applied physics? Specifically you said on November 6, 2013 – 10:45 am, “I can’t check the math for myself.” regarding this video posted by OSS above.

    Willy/hybridrougue1, why are you not able to figure out the math in the above video? Have you never come across a=v^2/r? If not, how can you possibly claim to have a background in Physics of any discipline? Does anyone here know who “Willy Whitten” really is?

    1. “Willy Whitten asks, “Who are you?”
      My reply to Willy is – I am someone who can figure out a simple centripetal formula..” ~JustWonderingWhy
      ………

      This anonymous Wonderer says that he/she/it can figure out “a=v^2/r”. However this ‘person’ doesn’t know the difference between ‘Who’ and ‘What’ a person is.
      So which is the more elementary concept?

      Yes, I have read the physics of circular motion, and know the formula, ‘a=v^2/r’. I can conceive of it theoretically quite well. I could even use a web based calculator to extend my reach into higher math. Which I have done with the crash physics involved in the WTC towers. However, I am not that interested in this aspect of the Pentagon. I think the problem of vector and momentum for a NOC plane approach is adequate to disprove the impact scenario.

      Does anyone here know who JustWonderingWhy really is? Could ‘his’ initials perhaps be T.W.? Is ‘he’ perhaps infamous as a bullying Internet stalker? If not, perhaps this anonymous ‘person’ has the rocks to identify itself. Otherwise this spurious garbage as to “who” I am is a lame hypocritical gambit.

      \\][//

    2. Let’s get some things straight here WonderWart,

      YOU tell me why you have singled me out on the topic of not being up on the math for the physics of centripetal force, while several other commentators have expressed the same thing. Perhaps because I said I am familiar with physics…well, I clearly do not claim to be a physicist by any long shot, certainly no degrees in the subject, just my own studies.

      Furthermore, even Balsamo made errors on this with his first shot at using a calculator. He had to be corrected. So where is your harsh critique of Balsamo? If it is such a simple thing why did he get it wrong the first shot?

      Now, as far as you wondering about in the shadows in your fog of anonymity taking shots at me, at the same time asking the loaded accusatory question of, “WHO is Willy Whitten?” – As far as I’m concerned you can fade into your mist and drift away.

      Capeche?

      \\][//

  100. Again, both 757-angle candidates are given a check for this issue, that is, the light pole peculiarities, whether brought about as part of a deception, or by actually being knocked down, are not a significant issue challenging the leaning toward a B-757 as the primary airplane type.

    Dwain Deets

    Was I wrong when I said that Deets and Honegger were trying to minimalize the directional damage and marginalize the NOC testimony?

    This completes the assessment of a B-757 as the primary airplane. A 31° path relative to the Pentagon face is more plausible than the 42° angle because of the fence and generator issue.

    And that is where Deets’ game is up.

    Additionally, the 31° angle would create some upstream problems, in that light poles that would have been knocked down remained standing. To get around this problem, Yli-Karjanmaa proposes a turning skid into the 31° to just avoid poles that would otherwise be in the way. A diagram is shown in Fig. 12. The blue path situated between the two straight paths would avoid the standing light poles.

    A “turning skid”?

    What you talking about Willis?

    Not only would the generator be missed given this angle but Deets also raises the aircraft by a meter of the official height:

    The height of the airplane fuselage top as stated in the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Report is about 20 feet above the ground. Yli-Karjanmaa analyzes that height with respect to the spools height and underbody clearance, with a nose-in drawing depicting the implications. As it appears the ASCE reasoning was based on the need to have the highest engine slip under the 2nd-floor slab, the author questions that criteria. The engine core is the only part of the engine dense enough to break through the wall, therefore the engine could have been higher by approximately 3 feet.

    […]

    The two candidate approach angles yield similar results for this issue. Thus, both 757 angle candidates are given a check for this issue, that is, cable spools are not an issue.

    No different from Frank Legge. Quote bits and pieces of the official story and chop and change when need be.

    Totally irrelevant.

    So now that we have the Dwain Deets subplot on the official story, what’s the next step? How do you propose to convince anybody that the Pentagon op was an inside job Dwain?

    1. OSS,

      Dwain is off on his tangent – literally, from a physics aspect.

      He is attempting to ignore vector. A trajectory that is impossible from NOC, or his wafflings on the SOC.

      And now: Dwain, one more time; are you in contact with Honegger? What’s the scoop daddio? That Dodger’s baseball cap is fraying…

      \\][//

  101. I am going to weigh in a bit with my thinking so far. First, for me, it’s important to organize my ideas, and I am going to use a method I am familiar with in health care research and modify it. My conceptual framework goes like this:

    I am going to rate each piece of evidence it terms of reliability first. That is, I am assessing the likeliness that it represents the truth and can be relied upon as such. In making the assessment, I consider primarily the following factors: The source of the evidence, the methodology strength and weaknesses, and the timeliness or temporal aspect of the evidence.

    I envision 5 categories in terms of how likely the evidence is to be reliable in telling us the truth about what happened (it’s a likert scale):

    1) Highly likely to be reliable (pretty solid evidence)
    2) Likely to be reliable
    3) Unable to determine reliability
    4) Unlikely to be reliable (or likely to be unreliable)
    5) Highly unlikely to be reliable (Highly likely to be unreliable – very dubious reliability).

    Then I am going to do something similar in terms of strength of the evidence in proving what happened at the Pentagon. Probably 3 scales for that in terms of importance:

    1) Strong or highly important in proving the case
    2) Unclear or ambiguous importance
    3) Likely unimportant in proving the case.

    So with this framework you can have evidence that is very reliable but likely unimportant in proving what happened, and vice versa. I think it would be helpful in the following way:

    – Areas of high importance, but low reliable evidence, gives us a direction to focus our efforts on in terms of trying to find reliable evidence.

    – Areas of low importance we may not need to spend so much time on.

    – Areas of highly reliable evidence but questionable importance may give us clues as to where we can look for weak spots in the narrative where we could use this evidence effectively.

    I think that this is what the members of this forum are trying to do, and I think this conceptual framework may help. It will help me anyway. So my next step is to classify the evidence:

    – So far I would tend to give the NOC CIT a 2 for reliability. I haven’t assessed importance yet.
    – I would give the witness testimonies of bombs a 1 or 2 reliability (have to look into it a bit more), but a definite 1 in importance in proving the case. I actually think evidence of bombs is fatal to the official story for the Pentagon in and of itself (less so for the towers).

    A couple of other things – Maybe Dennis can comment on this – I am less worried about the official story and how to knock it down because I see a clear link to the legal system – you don’t always get a statement from the accused because they are warned that anything they say can be used against them. It’s nice if you have something but I don’t think it’s a fatal flaw if you don’t. Here we do have a statement but I don’t think it’s imperative to disprove every single word of it – it likely has both truths and lies in it. It’s of no value as actual evidence, although it is of value in highlighting that lies were told and maybe by whom, but I don’t think it’s essential to getting these guys. If we have good evidence of bombs it’s really game over in my view. I mean, how could there ever be a satisfactory answer for bombs in the PENTAGON that doesn’t involve insiders. Hard to imagine.

    Also, I am not worried about infiltrators at all really. They may be able to influence some people some of the time, but we cannot control the mind of others nor can we censor what infiltrators are saying. In time their stories will be tested against more reliable evidence and more viable explanations of what happened. I say bring them on – if anything they make those of us who are really seeking the truth work harder to tighten up our own evidence and theories. That way by the time justice is finally served, or at least involved, the truth will be much more impenetrable to the opposing views. We have to remember that even the accused is entitled to a defence. That’s how I see this – infiltrators are a weak attempt at a defence on behalf of the perpetrators. We are lucky actually – we are now going through a bit of a ‘discovery’ exercise which will allow us to strengthen our cases for when the real thing comes.

    Christine:)

    1. christine,

      re: “A couple of other things – Maybe Dennis can comment on this . . . Here we do have a statement but I don’t think it’s imperative to disprove every single word of it – it likely has both truths and lies in it…”

      sorry, but i do not know what statement it is you are focusing on? the official lies, perhaps?

      re: “…If we have good evidence of bombs it’s really game over in my view. I mean, how could there ever be a satisfactory answer for bombs in the PENTAGON that doesn’t involve insiders. Hard to imagine.”

      i agree, hard to imagine. i do think we have that evidence, but others here more knowledgable than i can speak to that.

      as for “getting these guys,” the question for me always is, what forum? i have no answer to that, which is ultimately frustrating. as i see it, there is more of a chance in nyc if we can involve local officials, somehow. thus far, this too has been unavailing. if you’re going to go after pentagon officials, who will be carrying that torch, and where will the light be shed? in the halls of congress or the meeting rooms at the white house? not likely. they are all complicit. this is why the “calls for an investigation” ring so f***ing hollow to me. if someone has PRACTICAL answers, i’d love to hear them. or as john lennon sang in Revolution, “well, you know, we’d love to see the plan.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH9zG28GQEg

      re: “If we have good evidence of bombs it’s really game over in my view.” yes, i would agree in terms of internet debate, like the one raging here. and i think we do have that evidence. (others more versed in the pentagon than i am can speak to what that evidence is.) but, again, “game over” in terms of what else? the ultimate masterminds (and the dozens/hundreds/thousands? who assisted) are still out there having fun. they have not been brought to justice. will they ever be? i hope {a dirty term post-obama} so, but am not optimistic.

      ultimately, in a psychological/spiritual sense, it is important to know who you are, and i submit, where you are. knowing what went down on 9/11 is key to these insights, in my view. if you don’t care, you are nowhere, it saddens me to say because many of those i love–family and friends–could care less.

      nevertheless, speaking truth not only to power, but also among the powerless, is still a noble enterprise, as has been discussed here before. but when the debate rages over one plane or two planes or no planes or missiles or flyover, “don’t you know that you can count me out.” as you say, proof of explosives is “game over.” the rest is secondary, in my view, as previously noted.

      –d

      1. Thanks for that Dennis! I think I mean statements in a general sense – like an alibi a suspect might give that would have some truth it, and of course the official storyline I guess, whatever that is.

        Were there any non-US citizens who died as a result of the Pentagon attack? This may present an avenue for an international case, as unsatisfying as that would be as compared to one that would take place in DC, but it would be better than nothing. I think for the Towers this may be an avenue that other countries are looking into…?