Doctored Pentagon video proves 9/11 cover-up and inside job


 

pentagon-video-frames

From the frames released in 2002: notice the wrong date and the helpful descriptions so you know what you’re seeing.

June 13, 2014

By Craig McKee

A single frame gives it away.

All but one frame of two sets of surveillance videos purporting to show the impact of Flight 77 into the western face of the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 appear to show the same thing. But it’s that one frame that tells the tale. It shows that evidence was falsified and that a deliberate plan was carried out to fool the public into thinking that a plane hit the building when it did not.

This, combined with other key evidence (including the nature of the damage to the building, the lack of debris outside the building, and the on-camera accounts of credible witnesses who put the plane on a different flight path that the one required to produce the damage path), proves that the Pentagon was the scene of a faked plane crash and that 9/11 was an inside job.

The falsifying of the video evidence is explained in the impressively comprehensive 2013 documentary film September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, produced and directed by Italian filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco. The video analysis itself was originally carried out by researcher Pier Paolo Murru, who has worked with both Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Citizen Investigation Team.

In 2002, the Department of Defense released five frames of video that it claimed showed a 757 flying just above ground level across the Pentagon lawn followed by an explosion that appeared to have been caused by the plane hitting the building. The camera that recorded the image was located in a parking booth located to the north of the alleged impact zone, and it was pointed south offering a view across the Pentagon western f ace and lawn.

In the image, we see what appears to be the dark tail of a plane sticking up, but most of what would be the plane is blocked from view by a concrete barrier at the entrance to the parking area, just a few feet from the camera. The alleged shape of the plane is followed by a white trail, generally believed to be smoke from the plane. The following frame shows a large fireball and black smoke billowing from the facade of the building; we don’t actually see any impact at all.

In the response to a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI and Department of Defense for all video footage that may have shown the impact of Flight 77, we learned that there were 85 videos that could “potentially” have met this criterion. But the response to the request also stated that only one of those videos actually showed the crash. This was, of course, the famous five frames we had already seen.

It would take until 2006 before we would find out that this wasn’t true. That’s when the Department of Defense released a second set of frames from almost the exact same angle along with an extended version of the first set of frames. It turned out there was another camera in the very concrete parking barrier that blocked us from seeing the whole plane in the 2002 footage. Without a barrier to block the view of the plane, the second video should have given us a clear and definitive view of it.

But it didn’t.

As explained in the Mazzucco film, the two sets of videos, which recorded images at roughly one-second intervals, were synchronized using a centralized system called multiplexer or TLR so that the frames could be matched to each other with precision. This was easy to determine by comparing the shape of the large, billowing smoke clouds in each. Although the 2006 video begins a few frames before the one released in 2002 (and ends a few frames sooner), it is possible to perfectly synchronize all the equivalent frames – about 100 in all.

Except one.

The one that shows the plane. Or at least the one the government claims shows a plane.

Frame 23 in the film’s comparative analysis is clearly and irreconcilably different. In the second video sequence, with the concrete barrier no longer blocking the view of the alleged plane, we now see that the shape that appeared to be the plane’s tail is simply gone, and now the white “smoke” trail is what appears to be the plane just coming into frame.

In fact, the analysis shows that the white blur in the second video is actually present in the first one, but it appears a whole section has been added to it. I know this is not easy to picture, so I strongly recommend that you watch this section of Mazzucco’s film – the section on the Pentagon surveillance videos starts at the 17-minute mark of DVD 2.

So, 100 frames in each of two angles are perfectly synchronized – and just one frame doesn’t match. How could this possibly be explained by anything other than tampering with the video?

Of course, the issue could easily be cleared up if the 85 other videos were released, but the government has refused to do this. There’s also the issue of the confiscated tapes from area businesses. Attendant José Velasquez from the former Citgo gas station across the street from the Pentagon has stated that the FBI arrived within minutes of the alleged impact and confiscated footage from the station’s surveillance camera. Velasquez was quoted as saying that the footage would have shown the alleged impact. In 2006, footage taken at the station was released showing nothing conclusive.

Other video footage was confiscated from the nearby Sheraton National Hotel, the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, Va., and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Doubletree tape was later released. It showed the explosion but no airliner. And who knows what we might learn from cameras places inside the Pentagon.

If a plane had actually hit the Pentagon it would be impossible to believe that none of the video cameras in and around the building on 9/11 would have shown this. And if the videos did show the crash, then it would make no sense that the government would withhold them.

And if, as the evidence shows, the video frames that were released were falsified, then there can only be one conclusion: there was no plane impact, and this was just one more deception on a day filled with deceptions.  

529 comments

  1. Hot doggy Craig, I was just explaining this to a friend on my blog yesterday, pointing out that the date/time stamps are missing and that the frame of the video is obviously been ‘re-framed’ – and as such in itself is inadmissible as evidence.

    Thank you for the further revelations from the Mazzucco film and the analysis by Pier Paolo Murru.

    Another great article and another solid brick in the wall of evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon. Bravo.
    \\][//

    1. No, probably not. But a lot of the credibility that the CP gets is based on the idea that the points are a work in progress and being added to regularly. That credibility will be fatally damaged, however, if they don’t address the strongest Pentagon evidence at some point – and sooner rather than later. You’re right to keep pressing this point – we all have to continue doing this. As far as I’m concerned, adding Jon Cole to the Panel virtually ensured we would not being seeing points showing no 757 impact. The Panel has to deal with this situation or lose credibility in many people’s eyes (not just those of us committed to the North of Citgo evidence).

  2. Fine job, Mr. McKee.

    Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
    ~Michael Crichton

    //

  3. If you look at the frame where the plane is supposedly missing , the plane can be seen to the right. It is surprising to say the least that video experts who must have spent many hours examining it could fail to see that. The video analysis of the expert they use even indicates it by pointing out that the smoke trail matches the smoke trail in the other video – did it not occur to him that his own analysis might be right and this was the smoke trail. I would like to know what the logic is in saying the plane has been photoshopped out of the image , when if it was photoshopped out , then it must have been there in the first place, to be removed. And this is supposedly being done to try to make people think a plane did crash into the Pentagon.

    1. You better watch it again. Your assessment is completely full of shit. For one thing, it doesn’t say the smoke trail is the same in both, it says that what passes for the front of the plane in the second video is actually part of the supposed smoke trail in the first. If you look at these two frames and conclude that they show the exact same thing, then you are being deliberately obtuse.

      1. The New Pearl Harbor @2:17:45
        “The expert has then proceeded to analyse the two frames with the most sophisticated digital tools and has obtained some astonishing results. A series of boolean subtractions reveals that a small part of the image is actually present in both frames. What is said to be the nose of the airplane in camera 2, is also present as part of the smoke trail in camera 1. It seems in fact as if someone has re-touched this area of the frame by means of cut and paste in order to cover the plane while he has kept the end of the smoke trail to make it look like the nose of the plane entering frame.”

        It isn’t the nose of the plane in camera 2 , it is the smoke trail , as his analysis is telling him. The plane is to the left of the smoke trail in the camera 2 image, it hasn’t been removed.

        1. The plane is to the left of the smoke trail in the camera 2 image, it hasn’t been removed.

          Come again?????

          Craig, A. Wright is deliberately obtuse. I also am now convinced that part of his M.O. is to spout nonsense in the hope that people won’t actually watch the section of MM’s film that you highlighted.

          1. @Adam Syed
            In the video it is @21:13 where they put the big yellow ring and say it doesn’t show the plane, just to the right of the ? is the nose of the plane , with the rear of the fuselage extending beyond the right-hand edge of the yellow ring. The video in it’s original format is better quality than they have used in this film. It can be seen in this Youtube video.

            1. Wow, Wright. Just wow. I will give you credit: you have given me a laugh for the day. I’ve been in 9/11 truth for 9 years and have seen a lot of whoppers from your side (and infiltrators pretending to be on ours, thyself not included), and what you just posted is about the dumbest attempt at a “debunk” I’ve ever seen. There’s a small grey spot on my white-painted living room wall here. Should I take that as evidence that a grey elephant was in the room? Nice to see that people can see through such absurd bullshit; 275 likes vs. 585 dislikes.

            2. But Wright, we have been over this video before. It is not the original video, it is an enhanced video by an unknown party, that could have any amount of manipulation done to it.

              In the official government release:
              The fact is that what frame 0.23 shows in video [1] is “said to be” the tail of the plane. What is shown in frame 0.23 shows in video [2] is part what is “said to be” the smoke trail in video [1] and is now claimed to be the nose of the aircraft — Now, if you STILL do not get the problem is that the “aircraft” in video [1] is simply not in frame in video [2] – it is now claimed that this shape is the “nose”; which simply cannot be if the “tail” was far to the left in video [1].

              If you do not understand this you are a dolt. But I am of the opinion that you understand this very well and are doing a fartdance here to fog reality. You simply cannot be as stupid as you are letting on and still have a job and the ability to tie your own shoes, etc, etc, etc.

              But further Wright, this is only one portion of a mass of other firm evidence proving there was no plane impact at the Pentagon. But you will milk each issue with spurious rhetorical spin and jive as a diversion from what is clearly a fraudulent official narrative.

              There is no plane in video [2] exactly where it should be according to video [1] – it is as simple as that.
              \\][//

              1. @HR1
                “In the official government release:
                The fact is that what frame 0.23 shows in video [1] is “said to be” the tail of the plane.
                What is shown in frame 0.23 shows in video [2] is part what is “said to be” the smoke trail in video [1] and is now claimed to be the nose of the aircraft
                Now, if you STILL do not get the problem is that the “aircraft” in video [1] is simply not in frame in video [2] – it is now claimed that this shape is the “nose”; which simply cannot be if the “tail” was far to the left in video [1].”

                What is said to be the nose of the plane is not the nose of the plane. As confirmed by the video expert in this film , it is part of the smoke trail. If you look to the left of the smoke trail you can see, where the plane would be, ahead of the smoke trail, the image of the plane.

                1. “If you look to the left of the smoke trail you can see, where the plane would be, ahead of the smoke trail, the image of the plane.”~Wright

                  Yes, “where the plane would be..” but there is no “image of the plane”.

                  Wright, if you do not see that this whole thing is fabricated bullshit, you have got to be as crazy as a shit-house rat. The military claims that there were 80 something videos that could have potentially captured images of the plane.
                  We are offered two versions of ONE FRAME out of all the potential images that would have been captured if a plane had actually hit the Pentagon.

                  This is simply preposterous.

                  Certainly you can’t seriously be trying to convince me of this bullshit. That would be crazier than believing the preposterous story in the first place!
                  \\][//

                  1. Mr Ruff,

                    Do you have the software FFT Filter for Photoshop CS4 – RetouchPRO?
                    Or a similar FFT filter?

                    You can use this app, not only for ‘smoothing’ and blowing up pics beyond their normal pixel resolution, but for analyzing other images for the tell-tale signs of such smoothing. {Transpose codes are embedded in such work in “History”}

                    [FFT stands for Fast Fourier Transform and is a mathematical algorithm used to calculate a Discrete Fourier Transform.]

                    \\][//

    2. “I would like to know what the logic is in saying the plane has been photoshopped out of the image , when if it was photoshopped out , then it must have been there in the first place, to be removed.”~A Wright

      Where do you read that anyone is saying that a plane has been photoshopped out of the image Wright? Pull that out of the article in quote marks and paste it into your next comment.
      \\][//

      1. He’s deliberately ignoring the fact that if the two frames are different, then at least one of them has to have been tampered with. Maybe both were. The most obvious things is that there was NO PLANE.

      2. @HR1

        The New Pearl Harbor @2:17:45
        “The expert has then proceeded to analyse the two frames with the most sophisticated digital tools and has obtained some astonishing results. A series of boolean subtractions reveals that a small part of the image is actually present in both frames. What is said to be the nose of the airplane in camera 2, is also present as part of the smoke trail in camera 1. It seems in fact as if someone has re-touched this area of the frame by means of cut and paste in order to cover the plane while he has kept the end of the smoke trail to make it look like the nose of the plane entering frame.”

        1. “What is said to be the nose of the airplane in camera 2” ~The New Pearl Harbor @2:17:45

          This is a key sentence Wright. “What is said to be..”

          But what is more important overall is that the video was tampered with. It is tainted evidence. The fact that the narrative didn’t continue to emphasize the characterization of “What is said to be..” in what would be a clumsy and redundant manner, becomes irrelevant to the central issue that the video is tampered with. Do you truly not get this fact?

          Seriously, if there was an airplane in this video, do you really believe that the authorities would have edited it out?
          \\][//

          1. @HR1
            What is said to be the nose of the plane isn’t- this expert analysis is showing that it is part of the smoke trail and not the nose of the plane. There is no evidence that the video was tampered with. If it was tampered with as the commentary suggests, to cover that plane then that would mean there was a plane there to cover in the first place , and would have hit the building.
            “Seriously, if there was an airplane in this video, do you really believe that the authorities would have edited it out?” – that’s what he is saying. That’s why I said it was illogical.

            1. “There is no evidence that the video was tampered with.”~Wright

              WTF? These are both government issued images Wright. They conflict with one another. That in itself is evidence that the video is tampered with. Whether one or the other or both: Tainted Evidence, is evidence of malfeasance and a crime in itself.

              What this manipulation was attempting to achieve is up for speculation. Perhaps the timing of the hit in the first images released didn’t jibe with the timing of the second attempt so the “plane” was moved back.

              Notice the asserted time on the two frames above. The same exact time and moment, one with the explosion, the other without. This on top of no actual time stamps and the time being the next day.

              This video is useless as evidence in any way whatsoever.
              \\][//

              1. @HR1
                The frames were sychronised using the explosion.
                If there were time stamps would you say they were legitimate, because there was a time stamp on them? Did this happen on the 12th Sept.? Was a big explosion in front of the Pentagon the day after 9/11?
                The images don’t conflict with one another. One shows the tail of the plane with the fuselage hidden behind the pillar and the other shows the plane.

                “Add to this; if the part of the image “said to be the nose of the plane” in the original image, is still in the same frame in the second image, and both are within what is “said to be” a smoke trail, you have a compound problem.
                The problem is that the “smoke trail” cannot be a “trail” if it is before the nose of the plane. This would indicate that not only is the part of the image “said to be the nose of the plane” an added artifact, but the part of the image said to be a smoke trail is an added artifact itself.”

                The smoke trail is not before the nose of the plane, it is behind the plane. The plane is to the left of the smoke trail.

            2. Add to this; if the part of the image “said to be the nose of the plane” in the original image, is still in the same frame in the second image, and both are within what is “said to be” a smoke trail, you have a compound problem.

              Quick Wright, what is it? What is the problem? Ahh, too late.

              The problem is that the “smoke trail” cannot be a “trail” if it is before the nose of the plane. This would indicate that not only is the part of the image “said to be the nose of the plane” an added artifact, but the part of the image said to be a smoke trail is an added artifact itself.

              This video is theatrics, and very poor theater as well. It is bullshit burlesque and you are dying to catch a glimpse of the panties of a rubber ducky.
              \\][//

  4. Thanks for writing this, Craig. I’m in a public place at the moment but will soon re-watch that section of Mazzucco’s film that you linked to.

    With apologies to those who saw this in the previous thread, I’d like to replicate a comment I made there (for more people to see, since it’ll be close to the top), since it’s more on topic for this one. From here forth is copy-pasta:
    _____________________

    Indeed, the disinfo trio of Frank Legge, John Wyndham and David Chandler, as recently as this past October, wrote a “joint letter” to Mazzucco, though based on the writing style I’d say 99-100% of it was written by Legge; it reeks of his octogenarian flatulence.

    http://scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Mazzucco_letter_Oct2013.pdf

    They lament that he made the case for the non-impact, and how unfortunate it is that Mazzucco hadn’t been alerted to the excellent academic papers of Dr. Frank Legge, Ph.D. BEFORE putting out his film. Oh, if only he had, he would have been enlightened to the fact that indeed the plane DID hit!!! And of course, this academic paper from the Ph.D. professor cites the amazing work of such RESPONSIBLE truthers as Vic Ashley and Arabesque.

    In conclusion, rather than point out here the many other problems with the film’s Pentagon
    segment, we offer to work with you to bring the Pentagon segment into a state where it can
    receive the respect of other scientists. We invite your thoughtful response.

    Sincerely yours,

    David Chandler, B.S. (Physics), MS (Mathematics) Email: davidchaler@gmail.com
    Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) Email: flegge@iinet.net.au
    John D. Wyndham, PhD (Physics) Email: jcwyndham@myfairpoint.net

    Anyway, my curiosity was piqued as far as what the joint letter to Mazzucco might have had on him, so I wrote Mazzucco, asking him what he thought of the people/arguments claiming that AA77 (or at least a large jetliner) did hit. He wrote a brief reply, partly saying he doesn’t want to talk about this because he’s burned out on 9/11. But he did answer my question:

    Yes, Legge wrote to me, but I find his arguments unsustainable. The very arabesque list of witnesses is unsourced, thus essentially worthless.

    Sorry, “propaganda team,” you failed to score one with Mazzucco like you did with Gage.

  5. One thing that both camera angles do not capture is a Boeing 757.

    Kevin Ryan’s proposition doesn’t appear to be happening either:

    “These witness accounts suggest that explosives were placed in the building in such a way that, when triggered, they created an opening to absorb and destroy the body of the aircraft.” – Another Nineteen, pp. 171-2

  6. @Adam Syed
    I think both videos do capture the image of the Boeing 757 , one where just the tail is visible, and the fuselage hidden behind the pillar, and the other the entire plane. The cameras were synchronised with the same multiplex system so the image would be in both frames.

    1. “The cameras were synchronised with the same multiplex system so the image would be in both frames.”~Wright

      That’s right Wright, and the plane clearly isn’t in either frame. Frame 0.23 in both instances is a manipulated image. There is clearly no plane in video [2] nothing at all. You are hallucinating if you think you see one.
      \\][//

      1. Willy, I have been a truther for exactly nine years now, and I’ve never seen as comical an attempt to defend the official story as what Wright has been offering up in this thread. He has the advantage of hiding his face behind his computer screen, which is a good thing, because I can’t imagine any non-hallucinating human being putting forth his argument with a straight face.

        1. @Adam Syed
          Why don’t you make a close-up view of the area in question and post it on Facebook? You could also take a close-up view of the frame immediately before it and then compare the two so that you could see was there a difference between the two frames.
          I don’t ‘want you to believe’ anything, what I would like to see is a bit of intellectual honesty from you to actually examine it, rather than just dismiss and ridicule it – even before you had examined it – and call me or anyone else a liar for just pointing it out.

  7. JUST TO REALLY DRIVE THE POINT HOME, now that I’ve take the initiative to open Paint and smear a bit of professor’s red ink on the image:

    Wright insists we can see a plane here:

    1. Adam good to see you more active lately my friend.

      It just so happens that I am fairly adept at photoshop and photography and videography so I captured the image you linked above in highest possible resolution, which is not very high to begin with, and examined it down to the pixel level. There is no way that image in that resolution shows anything definable as either a plane or a smoke trail. There are some whitish pixels and some blackish pixels around them. The image is simply too low a resolution to say with any authority whatsoever what is in it. I think it is intentionally so in order to hide the very obvious fact that the images have been manipulated. The fact that the two images show something different from each other while the frames around frame 23 in each video are identical is the compelling factor here. It is proof that one image or both have been altered.

      For A.Wright to claim there is a plane there is ridiculous or for anyone to claim it is definitely a smoke trail is ridiculous. The resolution is way too low. All you can see are a few pixels, some whitish some blackish in that area of the picture. It is intentionally thus. HR1 is correct the 5 frames in both videos are useless as evidence in one respect while in another respect the 5 frames are damning evidence that the pentagon has released fraudulent video frames. It is a parlor game they are playing here but does anyone know exactly what the parlor game is that the troll A.Wright in cooperation with the pentagon is playing?

      Well to end the suspense and answer my own question. A.Wright is not stupid nor is he/she/it oblivious to the argument we have been making. He/she/it knows full well what the analysis of the two videos proves. It proves one video or both have been altered. Here is what he/she/it is trying to do with the little game he/she/it is playing by arguing about what the frames show or do not show. He/she/it is trying to control us by controlling what we talk about. So long as we are arguing about what the frames show or do not show he/she/it wins. Do you see why he/she/it wins if we engage in an argument about what the frames show or don’t show? He/she/it wins BECAUSE we are talking about and arguing about what is a red herring to begin with. The frames do not show ANYTHING identifiable. They can claim it is a plane, a smoke trail, a missile, a UFO, a flock of birds, a fast moving insect near the camera, ANYTHING! That is the point THEY can claim it as anything they want to claim it as and as long as they can keep us arguing with their agents such as A.Wright about what is or isn’t in the frames we will not be focusing on what the two videos do prove, video manipulation!

      The two videos are another nail in the coffin lid of the official propaganda that is for sure. A.Wright wants us talking about what the frames show or don’t show, I want us talking about the fact that frame 23 has been altered in at least one of the official videos released by the pentagon. Each person can decide for themselves if they want to play A.Wrights disgusting little game or not. I am not playing that despicable game. The question I have for A.Wright is simply this:

      How can you explain the fact that frames 22 and 24 in both videos are identical yet frame 23 is different in each video? How can you explain that without admitting frame 23 has been manipulated in at least one of the videos?

      Don’t bother saying anything to divert from or dodge the question A.Wright because I will not take the bait. Either answer the direct question I asked the exact way I asked it or don’t bother saying anything. Bear in mind that frame 23 is demonstrably different in the two videos and each frame has been examined down to the pixel level. In frame 23 Pixels are present in video 1 that are not present in video 2. You are a liar to say otherwise.

      I look forward to laughing at your slippery, slimy, dodgy, contorted, diversionary, Bagdad Bob inspired pseudo-answer A.Wright. I plan to move on to talking with genuine truth seekers immediately following my brief chuckle at your antics so don’t get your hopes up about my biting on the bait you are about to drop.

      1. Mr Ruff,

        I asked this above earlier, but should have placed it here:

        Do you have the software FFT Filter for Photoshop CS4 – RetouchPRO?
        Or a similar FFT filter?
        \\][//

        1. No I don’t have RetouchPRO but you can use a low pass filter for the same sort of thing. I have CS5.1 but I tend to use Corel’s Photopaint rather than Photoshop from Adobe since I know the program better.

      2. @Adam Ruff
        Ignoring the juvenile insults and dealing with your questions.

        Quote AR: “He/she/it is trying to control us by controlling what we talk about. So long as we are arguing about what the frames show or do not show he/she/it wins. Do you see why he/she/it wins if we engage in an argument about what the frames show or don’t show? ”
        “A.Wright wants us talking about what the frames show or don’t show, I want us talking about the fact that frame 23 has been altered in at least one of the official videos released by the pentagon. Each person can decide for themselves if they want to play A.Wrights disgusting little game or not. I am not playing that despicable game. ”

        That’s an interesting accusation since what is or isn’t in these video images is the topic being discussed here on this thread. It is the subject dealt with in this film , about the video images at the Pentagon and it is the subject of Mr. McKee’s article. Now it’s a ‘red herring’ to discuss it? Do you not want to discuss it? Do you just want everyone to look at it uncritically and take what ever Mr. Mazzucco says as fact or even logical?
        Tell me where is the logic it this statement by Mr. Mazzucco talking about this frame 23 , camera 2
        “It seems in fact as if someone has re-touched this area of the frame by means of cut and paste in order to cover the plane while he has kept the end of the smoke trail to make it look like the nose of the plane entering frame.”
        If the someone has covered the plane then there was a plane there to begin with. If there was plane there then it would have hit the building. So he is saying the government, who are trying to convince people that there was a plane, manipulated the video by covering the image of the plane. Then having covered the image of the actual plane they put it back again but this time they copy and paste part of the smoke trail to pretend it is the nose of the plane further back in the image. Can you tell me where the logic is in that?

        Quote AR: “How can you explain the fact that frames 22 and 24 in both videos are identical yet frame 23 is different in each video? How can you explain that without admitting frame 23 has been manipulated in at least one of the videos?”

        What is the difference between the two frames? The difference between them according to Mr. Mazzucco is that there isn’t an image of the plane in the camera 2, frame 23- that is why he says the two frames are inconsistant. If you look at the table this digital expert has drawn up he is comparing the frames just by comparing what is in them , not by any technical analysis. When it gets to frame 23 he says there is a ‘strong inconsistancy’ based on the fact that he thinks the plane is missing from camera 2, frame 23. I think it is pretty obvious he is wrong about that as there is an image of a plane in both frames 23. You say you know something about photography and video then copy and paste an image of cam 2 ,frame 22. then copy an image of camera 2 frame 23 and paste that on top of it. Then flip back and forward between the two images and tell me if there is something to the left of the smoke plume in frame 23 that is not in frame 22. It is not just the smoke plume that appears in frame 23 , there is also something to the left of the smoke plume that was not there in frame 22. In the film he circles an area where he says there should be a plane but he misses seeing the object to the right, bisected by the yellow boundary. That to me is amazing for video experts who have obviously spent a lot of time looking at this one particular area in just these few frames.
        This digital expert then compares the two videos with this ‘boolean subtraction’ and identifies areas in both that are the same in both – the smoke trail in one and what he says ‘ is said to be’ the nose of the plane in the other. Well he has just identified that it is the smoke trail in both, not the nose of the plane. It obviously isn’t the nose of the plane, that much is obvious. But having identified the smoke trail in the image he fails to do the obvious and look to the left of it and see the image that is there.

    2. Mr Syed,

      If I were to postulate where the blur “plane” should be in this frame, it would actually be at the height of your bold red line – roof level with the Pentagon; not down near the lawn as the video doctors were attempting to paint in.

      Yes, the flyover plane should be in this image. But not where everyone is looking for the official plane. It should already be in pull up to roof level of the building.
      \\][//

  8. This is a very good rebuttal of the Pentagon video:

    http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-security_video.html

    I would also add

    1. The alleged smoke trail was witnessed by nobody

    2. Maybe because this very clearly formed thick smoke trail only lasted one tenth of a second. Think about that. We can’t make out any details whatsoever on the alleged plane crossing the lawn but have a very clear picture of something that lasted all of a tenth of a second.

    3. As outlined in the above link, the alleged smoke trail casts no shadow even though everything else does (watch the shadow of rhe fireball)

    4. To correspond with the damage, the aircraft should have been in a relatively high right bank at this point (the right wing supposedly reached third floor level of a five storey building (yet left no marks on the facade…dun dun dunnn). The right wing should have been visible alongside the alleged tail, which should also have been angled to the left.

    The biggest blooper for me is the trajectory of the smoke that we can see as it dissipates. It’s completely level.

    Remember…

    The official aircraft was allegedly 20+ft above the bridge to the right as it crossed Rt 27 (where nobody saw it) – pole damage at about 30ft minus wing upsweep @6-8 ft

    It was then allegedly @18ft agl to cause the damage to lightpole 3 seen in the next image (this calculation can be shown but it’s too long to go in to here):

    Here’s another image showing lightpole 3 and the guardrail on the lawn is hiding lightpole 5 where the damage indicates that the aircraft would have had to have been about 10-12ft agl (pole 5 was cut to about 18+ft minus upsweep of wing between 6-8ft)

    So we supposedly have a very shallow descent from lightpoles 1 and 2 to lightpole 5 – at the official speed of 800fps = 0.9 seconds

    Lightpole 5 is on the edge of this 400ft lawn where the video supposedly picked the aircraft up a fraction of a second later.

    The aircraft is allegedly at 10-12ft agl a fraction of a second before appearing on that video.

    It would have to be on a steep descent and pull up to appear level across what is far from a level lawn.

    The bottom of the fuselage should also be 8-10ft above the lawn.

    The top length of the fuselage would be 22-24ft above the lawn. At almost the height of the heliport.

    Now add those dimensions, according to physical dimensions of the alleged damage to the right banked wing, the tail, and of course the cartoon smoke plume.

    All of the alleged physical damage contradicts what we see in that video.

    And Boger described the dimensions that I just outlined. As did many more.

  9. Everything about the “video evidence” is preposterous.

    The military claims they have some eighty-something videos from cameras at the Pentagon, and only 2 cameras caught anything whatsoever. No “plane” in any other videos.

    Out of all the cameras that could have potentially recorded an image of the alleged plane there is only ONE FRAME that is claimed to show the plane.
    One fricken frame out of 80 something cameras at the Pentagon, and however many others seized from the surrounding area by FBI.

    There is only one rational conclusion to draw from this:

    THERE WAS NO PLANE CRASH AT THE PENTAGON.
    \\][//

    1. @HR1
      There were not 85 cameras at the Pentagon. Read the reply to the FOIA request. In this film they deceptively try to suggest that there were 85 videos of the Pentagon.

  10. @A Wright

    It appears that the FBI is the party who “deceptively try to suggest that there were 85 videos of the Pentagon.”:

    FBI 7 page Maguire statement: 85 confirmed surveillance tapes directed at the building. FBI special agent Jacqueline McGuire testified that she inspected 85 videotapes to find evidence for 9/11 Pentagon crash.

    \\][//

    1. @HR1
      “The security camera footage taken from around the Pentagon included the Citgo, the Doubletree, and the Pentagon parking lot. There was also video from cameras at Reagan National Airport parking garage. Both video files show smoke in the distance coming from direction of Pentagon. Another video came from a DEA HQ security camera atop 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. The camera was repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon.
      Footage taken after the attack included home video filmed by a tourist traveling past Pentagon and then by AP photographer who borrowed the camera, and video taken by a NBC4 Washington reporter…

      The list of 85 videos

      Five videotapes were recovered from the post-attack Pentagon crime scene and submitted to the FBI Laboratory in Quantico.
      13 videos were obtained by the Defense Protective Services (DPS) – Pentagon Police – on 9/25/2001 from individual filming Pentagon site from Boundary Channel Drive. These included footage from the WTC site in the days after the attcks.
      One (1) Beta video tape – interviews in NYC
      One (1) DVCAM tape labeled “Twin Towers, World Trade Center” – NYC/WTC
      One (1) DVCAM tape – suburban setting, unknown individuals, dated 9/12-13
      One (1) DVCAM tape – NYC/WTC, 9/21-22
      One (1) DVCAM tape – NYC/WTC, 9/22-23
      One (1) DVCAM tape – NYC 9/23
      One (1) DVCAM tape – interviews in NYC; 10 seconds of Pentagon footage, but not crash site
      One (1) DVCAM tape – no recorded video or audio information
      One (1) DVCAM tape – no recorded video or audio information
      One (1) DVCAM tape – no recorded video or audio information
      One (1) DVCAM tape – no recorded video or audio information
      One (1) DVCAM tape – no recorded video or audio information
      One (1) DVCAM tape – no recorded video or audio information
      8 videos were received on 10/11/2001 at Quantico. These videos were collected during consent search of residence in Avanel, New Jersey. Pending case on subject.
      One (1) damaged Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
      One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
      One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
      One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
      One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
      One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
      One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
      One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
      Videos received on 10/15/2001 at Quantico. These videos were collected from surveillance cameras at multiple Kinko’s in South Florida.
      One (1) TDK 1-160 VHS video tape
      One (1) VHS video tape
      One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
      One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
      One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
      One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
      One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
      One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
      Video received on 10/22/2001 at Quantico. This video was recovered from garbage at residenced in Neenah, Wisconsin by the Neenah Police Department. Investigation on suspect has been closed.
      One (1) damaged VHS video tape and housing
      Received at Washington Field Office Command Post
      These two video tapes included footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene taken by DOD media pool photographers, and were obtained from Navy Rear Admiral Craig Quigley.
      One (1) Betacam BCT-30G video cassette, labeled “1 of 2” & “early 6pm 9/11/01”
      One (1) Betacam BCT-30G video cassette, labeled “2 of 2” & “early pm 9/11/01”
      Also received at the Washington Field Office Command Post:
      One (1) VHS video cassette – witness interviews near Pentagon after the attack
      One (1) VHS video cassette, labeled “9/11/2001” – footage of post Pentagon crime scene, obtained from Chief Mastin, Prince William County
      One (1) TDK Hi8 MP 120 video casette, wrapped in Pentagon map and labeled on back “1/29/1952 Mohan Shresesa 8/2/2018 Todoroki Japan 9/17/01 3:00 hr Fern/So. Rotary” – Home video taken from car, dated 9/17/2001,showing post-crash Pentagon crime scene very briefly from road (~10 seconds)
      One (1) FujiFilm DP121 video cassette, labeled “WJLA-TV” – miscellaneous footage from news reporter, dated 9/18/2001
      One (1) Sony MP120 8mm video cassette – Home video, DC sightseeing
      One (1) TDK HG Ultimate TC-30 video cassette – Home video, unknown date, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
      One (1) Maxell DVM60SE mini digital video cassette – Home video, dated 9/17/2001, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
      One (1) Sony Hi8 video cassette – Home video obtained by DPS on 9/11/2001 showing ~6 seconds of Pentagon footage (not crash site)
      One (1) TDK Hi8 MP 120 video cassette – Home video obtained by DPS on 9/21/2001, showing post-crash Pentagon crime scene
      One (1) JVC MP120 8mm video cassette – Home video obtained by DPS on 9/21/2001, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
      Videos filmed on 9/26/2001 by FBI Forensic Audio-Visual Analysis Unit (FAVIAU) of post-crash Pentagon crime scene.
      One (1) original SONY 40 min. Digital Betacam video tape
      One (1) original SONY 40 min. Digital Betacam video tape
      Videos submitted to FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, under cover of communication dated 2/19/2002, all depicting WTC footage.
      One (1) Betacam video tape
      One (1) HDCAM video tape
      One (1) Betacam SP video tape
      One (1) Betacam SP video tape
      One (1) Mini DV video tape maked in part Antonio M.
      One (1) DVC PRO video tape
      One VHS video tape marked in part “1B1056 COPY 5A of 5”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “1B1056 COPY 5 of 5”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “1B1471 COPY 5 of 5”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “1B1788 COPY 5 of 5”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “1B1729 COPY 5 of 5”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “1B1808 COPY 5 of 5”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “1B1813 COPY 5 of 5”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “1B530 COPY 5 of 5”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “1B729 COPY 5 of 5”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “1B1563 COPY 5 of 5”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “1B1051 COPY 5 of 5”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “1B1787 COPY 5 of 5”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “1B2406 COPY 5 of 5”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “1B1276 COPY 5 of 5”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “CNN RE: BURN VICTIM…”
      One VHS video tape marked in part “NIGHTLINE 2/15/2002”
      Videos submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico, under communication dated 5/13/2002.
      One (1) Sony SDX1-25C video tape
      One (1) Sony SDX1-25C video tape
      One (1) TDK 8mm video tape
      Video obtained by FBI on 9/28/2001 and submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico on 5/28/2002. Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 showing footage of WTC after attacks, obtained by Suffolk County, New York Police Department.
      One Hi 8mm video cassette tape from Eileen McMahon
      Video obtained by FBI on 9/13/2001 and submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico on 5/28/2002. Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 showing footage of second plane hitting WTC and aftermath.
      One Mini DV 60 video cassette tape
      Video submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico under cover of communication dated 9/22/2001. Obtained by FBI NK from Dime Savings Bank, Nutley, New Jersey
      One TDK T-160 VHS video tape
      Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by NBC4 Washington reporter, with footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.
      One (1) home Video of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.
      Video from DEA HQ security camera atop 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. Camera repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.
      One (1) videotape
      Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by tourist traveling past Pentagon and then by AP photographer who borrowed the camera. Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.
      One (1) videotape
      Copy of home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by AP photographer using camera borrowed from nearby motorist. Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.
      One (1) duplicate video cassette tape dated 9/11/01
      Video from cameras at Reagan National Airport parking garage. Both video files show smoke in the distance coming from direction of Pentagon. Obtained by FBI on 9/13/2001.
      One (1) CD containing 2 video files
      Video from security camera at Citgo Gas Station, 801 S. Joyce Street, Arlington, Virginia. Submitted to FAVIAU to determine if video showed impact of plane into Pentagon. Determined not to show impact. Obtained by FBI on 9/11/2001.
      One (1) JVC EHG Hi-Fi videocassette, labeled Day 11 Quarters K
      Video from security camera at Doubletree Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Security video showing rotating footage from different camera locations at hotel; no camera captures impact of plane into Pentagon.
      One (1) TDK video tape marked “11C”
      Images captured by two separate cameras at the entrance to the Pentagon Mall Terrace parking lot. Images capture the impact of the plane into the Pentagon from two different cameras. Obtained from the Pentagon Force Protection Agency via USA/EDVA.
      The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
      No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.

      1. And the point to all of this detailed and yet banal information Wright?

        The only bottom line point here remains – no images of a plane or impact.
        Only rational conclusion remains: No plane impacted the Pentagon.

        Now, anyone who asserts that the Pentagon itself was not under surveillance by scores of cameras is tickling your ass with a feather, ye grouper-snooper bottom-feeding flatule-verbalating varment. The so-whats are stacking up like dirty plates at the local diner that fired all the dishwashers for doing crack in the larking pot. If you had another brain in your head it would be all lonesome. You sing A Cappella in F minor.
        \\][//

        1. @HR1
          “FBI 7 page Maguire statement: 85 confirmed surveillance tapes directed at the building. FBI special agent Jacqueline McGuire testified that she inspected 85 videotapes to find evidence for 9/11 Pentagon crash.”
          I just presented you with the information that agent McGuiire gave about tapes. They were not ’85 confirmed surveillance tapes directed at the building’.

          1. Yes Wright,
            And does this effect the bottom line? No, that was my point.
            You present platitudes that stack-up to be worthless detail.
            Now, if you seriously contend that there weren’t scores of surveillance cameras at the Pentagon itself that surely would have caught the event pretended on tape you are floating flatulence.
            The Pentagon is and was the very heart of the military complex. To actually consider for a moment that it wasn’t at least as protected by surveillance, as well as projected force capabilities is simply jejune.

            If a plane had hit the Pentagon you can bet your rubber ducky that it would have been caught on video tape. But further, if a plane had entered that airspace at that time – one of known crisis – and not intercepted, there can be no doubt whatsoever that it was allowed to.

            As you continue to defy the logic of this is what slides you into the category of shill, or utter fool by the reckoning of serious thinkers and knowledgeable researchers.

            And you certainly know that is the assessment here.
            \\][//

            1. —————————–
              Quote: “Yes Wright,”
              ——————————–

              Yes what? The 85 videos that you said were confirmed directed at the Pentagon were not directed at the building; the 85 videos were mostly from NY and nothing to do with the Pentagon. Sorry for correcting your totally inaccurate information.

              —————————-
              Quote: “And does this effect the bottom line? No, that was my point.”
              —————————-

              No it wasn’t your point. You point was that the FBI were engaged in a deception because they had all these 80 tapes.

              —————————–
              Quote: “Out of all the cameras that could have potentially recorded an image of the alleged plane there is only ONE FRAME that is claimed to show the plane.
              One fricken frame out of 80 something cameras at the Pentagon, and however many others seized from the surrounding area by FBI.
              There is only one rational conclusion to draw from this:
              THERE WAS NO PLANE CRASH AT THE PENTAGON.”
              —————————

              This was your point. Since you were working with totally inaccurate information, on which you were basing your ‘one rational conclusion’ I’d say that was a pretty irrational conclusion.
              And then on the one frame you refuse to examine it to see if you can see the plane.

              ——————————
              Quote :You present platitudes that stack-up to be worthless detail.
              Now, if you seriously contend that there weren’t scores of surveillance cameras at the Pentagon itself that surely would have caught the event pretended on tape you are floating flatulence.
              ———————————

              You have a fixation with flatulence. You are now making up videos that you have no evidence for apart from your assumptions, and ‘berating’ me for not agreeing with your unsupported assumptions.

              ——————————-
              Quote: The Pentagon is and was the very heart of the military complex. To actually consider for a moment that it wasn’t at least as protected by surveillance, as well as projected force capabilities is simply jejune.
              ——————————–

              Assumptions again.

              ———————————-
              Quote: If a plane had hit the Pentagon you can bet your rubber ducky that it would have been caught on video tape.
              ———————————-
              It was. But you don’t want to see it. Do I get two rubber duckies?

              ———————————-
              Quote: But further, if a plane had entered that airspace at that time – one of known crisis – and not intercepted, there can be no doubt whatsoever that it was allowed to.
              ———————————-

              It was approaching an airport, the military had not been made aware of it, it was a primary target not showing a transponder code, ATC had no idea what was happening on the plane because it was not communicating with them and the US airforce even if they had intercepted would not have known what was happening on the plane or had any time to do anything about it. There would be no need to allow something it would be vanishingly unlikely could have been stopped.

              ———————————-
              Quote: Now As you continue to defy the logic of this is what slides you into the category of shill, or utter fool by the reckoning of serious thinkers and knowledgeable researchers.
              ————————————–

              More rhetorical ad homenem cobblers.

              ——————————–
              Quote: And you certainly know that is the assessment here.
              ———————————

              Obviously I respect your assessment , since it is based on such reliable assessments of inaccurate evidence and no hint whatever of prejudicial judgement of it.

              1. Wright says

                It was approaching an airport, the military had not been made aware of it, it was a primary target not showing a transponder code, ATC had no idea what was happening on the plane because it was not communicating with them and the US airforce even if they had intercepted would not have known what was happening on the plane or had any time to do anything about it. There would be no need to allow something it would be vanishingly unlikely could have been stopped.

                Jesus, where to start…

                It was not “approaching an airport”!

                The military was made aware of it as early as 09:21, but were told that it was “Flight 11” (“Phantom 11”). This alleged “confusion” is neither here nor there as it was described as “heading for Washington” with no transponder code.

                “NEADS received a report from Boston Center that “it was evidently another aircraft that hit the tower” and that Flight 11 was still airborne and “heading towards Washington.” NEADS personnel immediately began an active search for the aircraft.
                9/11 Commission Report”

                Two aircraft had struck buildings in Manhattan so I think they may have had an idea what this plane had been hijacked for?

                What also should be noted is that the FAA didn’t follow protocol. Why?

                An alleged phonecall from Renee May from alleged Flight 77 was also made around 09:12 onwards (from a cell phone no less) according to her mother.

                “Renee May’s parents reached an American Airlines employee at Reagan National Airport in Washington, D.C., giving her the information provided by their daughter, including her phone number on board and the flight number. ”

                Fighters at Langley were eventually sent out over the Atlantic at 09:28 having sat on the runway for over 20 minutes.

                This aircraft, or radar blip, or story, was “allowed” to proceed unabated. Everything was done to permit its journey.

                Lack of communication my balls.

                You’re really starting to bore me Wright.

            2. “And then on the one frame you refuse to examine it to see if you can see the plane.”~Wright

              Bullshit Wright. I certainly did examine it, and there is no fucking plane.

              As I said and do reassert here and now, all the rest of your banter is flaccid platitude. It only has bearing to one such as you who will spill pages full of argumentum verbosium with rhetorical twaddle.

              If you listen to Norman Mineta during his testimony to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003., it squashes your assertion that they were unaware of an incoming plane.

              If you seriously assert that the Pentagon is not protected and outfitted with surveillance cameras you are jejune. It is hardly empty speculation to make such an assumption, it is simply rational given the supreme importance of that facility.

              Wright, you can squawk and squirt here as much as you wish, but I know as well as all of the other regular commentators here that you are nothing but a stooge who will use every spurious argument available to make apologies for this despotic maniacal system in your attempt to support an obvious lie.
              \\][//

          2. Wright,

            Let me amend my last comment thus. You have indeed presented the information that stands as the word from the PR regime. I acknowledge that.

            Yet, it is the fact that you accept this as genuine that is so baffling. This is why my comments as to “so what?”, and my further enumeration as to the lack of rational assessment you make to such obvious propaganda.

            All things considered Wright, as you pretend to promote; all things considered prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no impact by a flying object of any kind at the Pentagon. Your insistence in taking this cherry-picking approach, spun by spurious rhetoric is what I and my companions here find repugnant.
            \\][//

            1. @HR1
              I consider the video to be genuine because the alternatve would be that people who wanted everyone to believe a plane hit the Pentagon released a tape showing no plane. Or that there was a plane in the video and they removed it, (which would mean that there was a plane and it hit the building) and that all the eyewitness at the site were wrong or lying about the plane they saw hitting the building and that people thought a plane flying over the Pentagon would not be seen by anyone or a hundred other alternative things I would have to believe instead.
              I can see no rational reason to believe all of those things rather than the fact that the plane hit the building -which is the only rational plan whether it was a group of suicidal hijackers or someone pretending it was a group of suicidal hijackers. The plan would be to pretend that terrorists had crashed a plane into the Pentagon , not to pretend that has a plane had crashed into the Pentagon. That would just make the first intention a hundred times more complicated and difficult to achieve.
              I wish people would stop attaching some moral purpose to it as if thinking a plane not hitting the Pentagon was some kind of reflection on their moral credentials.
              I have to say on this thread I have kept any rhetoric to a minimum and just stated things as simply as possible, until my previous post.

            2. “I wish people would stop attaching some moral purpose to it as if thinking a plane not hitting the Pentagon was some kind of reflection on their moral credentials.”~Wright

              Of course you would wish that, but the fact is that it does reflect on your “moral principles”

              You act as if this video controversy you play to is the only evidence of the lack of a plane crash. And that is why I call this cherry picking. On top of this Wright, whatever the reasons that the authorities released a tape that does not show a plane striking the Pentagon is irrelevant – they did, and it is published for all to see, but for apologist such as yourself, willing to hallucinate a plane into that single frame.

              \\][//

            3. Wright,

              You have exhausted your argument on the video. It does not show a plane.

              Now, if you will not respond to any of the other evidences that back this up, such as several examples put here on this very page by OSS, and rather spend every moment on that single frame that has been tampered with, there is nothing more I have to say to you.
              \\][//

  11. A Wright hop, skip and jumping again…yo, Wright..

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-23930

    The bottom line about the videos is that the FBI claimed that whatever number of videos they confiscated (such a priority within minutes and hours of the event, huh?), they say that they only released those which would show an “impact”. They were clever enough not to mention videos that captured the aircraft itself.

    Whatever number of videos they claim to have had, they’ve now chained themselves to their statement that no videos exist. They can’t, as has been spouted by the “honeytrap” theorists, suddenly pull a video from a hat.

    What we do know is that they stole a video, camera included, from the Citgo Gas Station and never returned it. Confirmed by the manager.

    What we do know is that according to the alleged physical damage, the upper section of the aircraft should have been visible. At the same height as the heliport. And that the 55ft long right wing should have been elevated even higher than the heliport.

    Even Sean Boger questioned this footage. He actually said that “if the aircraft had been that low (as shown in the gatecam) it would have taken out a lot more stuff”

    Can you please point out the upper half of the fuselage and the elevated right wing in the gatecam footage?

    Why does the supposed smoke trail have no shadow?

    Secondly, is Mike Wilson’s cartoon a crock? Pay particular attention to his explanation of what we see in the gatecam footage

    He used his cartoon to match up the necessary low flying aircraft where the engines are just above the lawn. It’s necessary to match up with the facade damage, particularly the alleged first floor hit (although he later admitted that he omitted the alleged left bank (which isn’t recorded in Stutt’s data either…hmmm).

    How can an aircraft supposedly 10-12ft agl suddenly level out inches above the ground within 0.2 seconds?

    1. Yea OSS,

      The impact supporters are hammering square pegs in round holes and making a splintery mess of their romper room.
      \\][//

    2. “Whatever number of videos they claim to have had, they’ve now chained themselves to their statement that no videos exist. They can’t, as has been spouted by the “honeytrap” theorists, suddenly pull a video from a hat.”
      ~OSS

      Excellent point. That “honeytrap” theory always seemed like a load of bullshit to me; just an excuse for not following the evidence.

      If the “authorities” attempt to “suddenly pull a video from a hat,” after all these years, it is going to get more scrutiny than the Zapruder Film. It will be analysed without mercy. And as I explained during my debates with Simon Shack, they STILL don’t have the chops to pull off a perfect fake video.
      That is one of the reasons all that has shown up so far is the junky attempt at passing off a blur as an aircraft in the videos under discussion in this thread.

      That on top of where has such a video been hiding all this time. And more to the actual temperament of the public, they wouldn’t give a shit one way or the other at this date. Too much trouble for too small benefit. They will let sleeping dogs lay, while the pack that is awake hound their heels.
      \\][//

      1. And who brought up the “honeytrap” buzzword?

        The same people who midwived the gatecam video to the public. Headed by a “former” military op. Financed by the Scaife-Mellon Foundation. Interviewed by Alex Jones. In the same year the first NOC witnesses were interviewed.

        And yeah, as for the “faking”, lower the resolution, steal a frame or two , throw the dog a bone in the form of a “tail” and drop an unprovable theory like the A3 SkyWarrior in to the mix.

          1. “Let’s just call it a baited trap, it draws somebody into a situation in which they’re compromised,” said Farrell in describing the tactic of creating a honey pot. He agreed that we should expect to see clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon released soon.”Prison Planet article

            Lol… what is Farrell’s definition of “soon”? 8 years have passed since this assertion that; “we should expect to see clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon released soon.”

            Well it hasn’t happened yet, and won’t happen “soon” or ever because an airplane did not crash into the Pentagon.
            \\][//

  12. Wright and the rest of these platitudenal disinfonauts really must see to grooming their skills, or getting booster shots from their managers. It is getting to be less entertaining with each encounter. These people need to find some new, original material, or seek deployment elsewhere.
    \\][//

    1. “The frame in question is the one pictured below, which according to Mr. Mckee and the film shows only the tip of the incoming plane, rather than the main body of the plane.”~Adam Taylor

      This is not McKee’s opinion at all. His, mine and the rest of the forum on T&S do not believe there is any plane in the video whatsoever. This white shape is an artifact of tampering with that frame – a portion of an insertion of animated “smoke”.

      You have misapprehended the discussion in the film and our blog about the analysis by Fourier Transformation, which highlights a group of pixels in this frame as an anomaly mismatching the pixel grade of the rest of the frame.

      \\][//

    2. What is really flabbergasting is that this frame that Taylor reproduces as a tiny jpg in the body of his ‘article’ shows absolutely NO PLANE. While claiming that the white smear is “smoke” and claiming it is from this clearly nonexistent plane… WTF?

      I asked Mr Taylor in a comment on his blog if he believes the tale of the box-cutter wielding “terrorists” – because he says that he believes the planes that hit the towers and the Pentagon were the actual commercial flights. As of just a few minutes ago he has not answered that there.

      It is “bold” of him to post a URL link on this page and not make any comment whatsoever. I am beginning to wonder what it is that distinguishes Mr Taylor’s beliefs from that of the official narrative.

      At any rate, I am not going to attend his blog anymore. If he hasn’t the balls to engage us here, there is no reason to promote his nonsense here anymore either.
      \\][//

      1. — “they {P4T} only conclude that two of the three impacts were genuine. Why? If the planes that hit the Towers were modified to allow them to do what was done, why couldn’t that be the case for the plane at the Pentagon? Why do for one and not the other? This is really the big problem with this whole “no-plane at the Pentagon” idea; what’s the point? What sense does it make to fake..”~Adam Taylor [his blog – June 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM]
        …….
        Again, TRAJECTORY. Until you grasp this simple concept you will spin in circles about the Pentagon event.
        …….

        Taylor continues with:

        -The plane hitting the building [non sequitur – cart before the horse]

        -The lightpoles being knocked down [staged]

        -Eyewitness testimony [this is gone over in detail here – the testimony of merit proves NOC. NOC means wrong trajectory]

        -Plane debris [staged, no serial numbers, no chain of possession]

        -Jet fuel residue [planted]

        -Damage to the building consistent with a plane impact [simply false]

        -DNA from victims on the plane [zero chain of possession = hearsay]
        . . . . . . .
        This is all explained in detail on this blog, CIT web page, P4T blog…
        Much of this has leads right on this page. Pay attention, drop your bias.
        \\][//

        1. Deny, deny, deny, that’s the strategy you’re going with. Show me evidence of any of that. I already know you believe all of this was faked. The point is there is absolutely no reason to fake any of it. The conspirators could have just flown the plane into the building to do all of that, and they did.

          1. adamtaylor911 — JUNE 17, 2014 AT 8:54 PM

            “Deny, deny, deny, that’s the strategy you’re going with. Show me evidence of any of that.”~”kid genius”
            . . . . . . . . . .
            WTF Taylor? This page is stacked to the gills with evidence. You want it hand fed to you? You’re the one that is in denial bucko.

            You obviously haven’t read a single exposition by OSS, and there are enough links to his work to convince anyone with half a brain that it is impossible for a plane to have hit the Pentagon.

            You are not a sincere researcher Taylor, you are a punk kid playing at being a grown-up and failing miserably.

            If you do not comprehend that a north of Citgo approach means no airplane crash by now, if you don’t understand the concept of trajectory, and crash physics then you need to go back to ‘See Spot Run’, and get out of the adult’s business here.

            With your ignorant rant of an article you wrote a check that your ass can’t cash. You’re washed up, wasted and down for the count stooge.

            \\][//

    3. Now there is sudden silence on Adam Taylor’s blog…

      He has stopped moderating comments and publishing them.

      I know of several in queue – plus he hasn’t answered but one question posed by myself. And never addressed Mr Syed’s comment.

      One wonders what sort of “Truther” this fellow is. As we wonder what sorts of “Truthers” quite a few are as we sludge through Sunstein Alley….

      A very interesting page this has turned out to be indeed.
      \\][//

      1. Perhaps the reason I stopped blogging last night was because it was past midnight, and I had work in the morning. And it might also be the case that there was a “silence” on my blog due to me being at work for the first half of the day. I actually have to work for a living pal, and I don’t have time to deal with you every waking moment. In any case, every comment so far submitted has been published. Check it for yourself.

        1. BTW, since you claim my still from the footage is “enhanced” and manipulated, then what is a trustworthy video source to use? Direct me to whatever version of the footage you think we should rely on to analyze and I’ll look at it.

          1. You are mixed up Mr Taylor, I said your video, the wide screen one called “Pentagon attack footage analyzed” — the same one posted here by the stooge A Wright is enhanced.
            The single frame I mention is frame 23 from Pent-cam 2. It clearly shows no airplane.

            NONE of these images shows an airplane just a blur of background color.

            I don’t need to direct you to anything in this case. You have that still on your blog. You just misunderstood I was talking about the “Pentagon attack footage..” as enhanced and worthless because of it. I wasn’t talking about the still from the original cam footage as enhanced.
            Do you get it now?
            ……. ……. …….
            While we have you here; do you grasp the significance of ‘Trajectory’ yet when it comes to the NOC approach?
            Have you looked at the info from Onesliceshort here as to seperating out the valid witnesses from the ones who had no proper POV?
            Stay engaged here Mr Taylor, you could learn some important things.
            \\][//

            1. That enhance video is called “Pentagon attack footage analyzed” in the version posted here by A Wright
              .
              Same video is called “Flight 77 frame analysis” on Taylor’s blog.

              They may be different lengths, but they are the same source video.
              \\][//

        2. Thank you, I will look at your blog again.

          But likely will have no further comments there. I would rather you deal with us here, so we can all be party to the discussion.

    4. Adam Taylor Reply – June 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM [His Blog]

      “Am I then to take it that you believe these planes were flown by boxcutter wielding “terrorists” and that Hanjor was piloting that plane you believe hit the Pentagon?”~Willy Whitten

      “Here’s what I believe. Yes, I do believe real terrorists were on the aircraft hijacked on 9/11. Furthermore, I believe they really did believe they were carrying out a terrorist plot. HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean they alone carried out the attacks. It just means that the true conspirators allowed the hijackers to carry out their plot, but then took control of the situation (hijacked the hijackers in a sense), and enhanced the results. If criminal forces within the US government allowed real foreign terrorists to carry out this attack, but themselves enhanced the results, then 9/11 is still an inside job.

      My position, and the one generally held by most others at the 911debunkers blog, is summarized here…”~Taylor

      Read more at: http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/2014/06/contra-craig-mckee-boeing-757-did.html
      . . . . . . . . . .

      I suppose that what we have here in Mr Taylor is what is called LIHOP.
      This is a position that I reject. I think it is much more elaborate than his scenario…and everyone here knows my summation, one version of which is on this page further down the line.
      \\][//

      1. No, I’m not a LIHOPer. I fall somewhere in between LIHOP and MIHOP. If you read my whole comment you’ll see that: http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/2014/06/contra-craig-mckee-boeing-757-did.html?showComment=1402948488991#c3870441692093991470

        I don’t take LIHOP and MIHOP to be mutually exclusive positions. I don’t know how you can say I’m a LIHOPer when I’ve made it abundantly clear I believe the Towers were demolished with explosives. I’ve written extensively on this topic:

        http://www.scientificmethod911.org/authors/taylor_author.html

        1. Mr Taylor, whatever, an in between version of MIHOP/LIHOP…fine, labels are not important…”just the facts ma’am” ~Sgt. Friday.

          You add on the same comment I addressed:
          –“All of this would had to have been faked in order to pull off whatever plan you think the conspirators had in mind. But why do it? Why not just fly the plane into the building? Which would leave ALL of this evidence without the need for any of it to be faked. It’s Occam’s razor, pure and simple.”~Taylor

          “But why do it?” — many suppositions could be offered; Such as the military brass is in this building. Would they go for a plan of an actual airplane crashing into the building? What if something went wrong??

          But this is irrelevant, what matters is the actual evidence. As that is assessed here, it boils down to ‘Trajectory’ and ‘damage path’.

          We can quibble forever – if you do not want to look at the evidences offered here, that is your choice. Until then you will be making these off base arguments.
          \\][//

        2. Mr Taylor we all agree on controlled demolition at WTC apparently. That is not where the current itch is.
          \\][//

        3. Mr Taylor,

          The issues of 9/11 are not Chinese cuisine and I find it deplorable to be passed the ‘Poopoo Platter’ in discussions about it. And this is precisely what your article in response to Mr McKee’s article is; ‘boolcheat’.

          You have now stopped posting here, and apparently have either banned me or shut down comments on the page of your jabberwacked article. This shows a disingenuous cowardice on your part. You have been given adequate responses to your dubious propositions here at at your home base. Now if you are going to turn your back on this discussion, one that has proximate cause in your spurious attack on McKee and this blog, I just want this to be made clear. You sir, are making the scoundrel’s move.
          Have not doubt that this is clear.
          \\][//

          1. I will have to adjust the former comment at this point. Apparently Mr Taylor has changed his mind about not allowing me to post to his blog.

            It wasn’t a matter of him not being their to moderate this time – it was a matter of my posting and nothing happening – no request that I pass the human or robot test by typing in smeared letters or numbers. I would post and it was like I hadn’t.
            Just now I posted – took the robot test and got the message that it was in moderation.
            So we will see if I am being published again. If so, I thank Mr Taylor for reconsidering.
            \\][//

  13. It has been near 13 God damned years…yes damning Amerika to the bowels of Hell as a warmongering aggressor. And this is due to not only the bastard leadership, and quisling shills {Wright} but also to the apathetic majority that doesn’t give a shit about anything but bread and circuses. They do not give a shit about the murderous rampage throughout the entire globe by this illegitimate entity squatting in DC, they do not give a shit about the spying on themselves, they do not give a shit about anything but shallow entertainment and voodoo gadgets to play with.

    Anyone with any sort of conscience has to be aghast at this dire predicament. And dealing with apologist for this despotic monster is tiring and wears on the soul. These mindless fuckers, hands dripping with the blood of innocents whining about not being dealt with in a ‘civil fashion’ does indeed set my jaw tight at times. I despise such stooges with a deep passion.
    Let such as they fade into oblivion with their evil masters.
    \\][//

    1. @Onesliceshort
      Yet another ‘ your dodging the question ‘ jibe.
      I think you left out one possibility.
      The plane hit the Pentagon.

      1. Sigh…

        A Wright, i was responding to your claim that an aircraft struck the Pentagon “whether by terrorists or whatever” (not your exact words but I can’t be arsed looking for it). Both of which end in a plane striking the Pentagon facade.
        You threaded the “why would they do it” question into this. I answered with another more likely scenario borne out by witnesses, a complete blanket censorship on evidence and that a wee squirt who was refused a Cessna supposedly flew a 757 like a kite.

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22698

        The “you’re dodging the question jibe” is not an insult! It’s a fact! Hahaha…Jesus..

        1. @Onesliceshort
          A complete blanket censorship on evidence….FDR data , FDR raw data file, RADES radar data, 36 hours of NORAD tapes, ATC recordings , video evidence of the plane hitting the Pentagon, as many witnesses as a stick could be shaken at, FBI interviews, Centre for Military History and Library of Congress interviews with witnesses at the Pentagon available for anyone to listen to WHO GAVE AWAY THE WHOLE COMPLEX PLOT , the fake-cab at the centrepiece of the entire operation still there, still in the possession of the aging cab driver- who is still alive! -and who, in spite of the watch being kept on him by the men in dark suits to make sure he does’t reveal the whole incredible plot, invites the citizen investigators into his house to be interviewed on camera and then takes them to see the faked cab centrepiece where they crawl all over it and photograph the faked damage and then put it all up on the internet. Oh the censorship..

          1. Mr Wright,

            There are three posts on this thread demanding the source your comment of JUNE 14, 2014 AT 10:51 AM, which supposedly details the ‘Maguire Statement’.

            If you refuse to supply the link, it is only natural to assume that you made all of it, or some portion of this “detail” up yourself. Which would be lying of course.

            So let’s have that link or my suspicion will be validated.
            \\][//

    2. A Wright claims it is a “jibe” that he is dodging the questions posed by the information OSS offers here. But it is not a “jibe” it is a fact, as much a fact as the utter impossibility that: “The plane hit the Pentagon.”

      Wright “sees” an airplane in a streak of background colors in a single frame and calls it macaroni like a yanking doodah dandy. But what he will never do is attend to the physics proving beyond reasonable doubt that what is “said to be a plane” in that video is simply impossible: that ground effect would have sucked that plane into the dirt and messed up that tidy lawn before it ever came close to the building. That had that been the actual plane observed by the witnesses of merit that it would couldn’t have caused the damage known to have been inflicted.

      Yes, yes, all of the surrounding facts of the case handwaved on the strength of a blur in a known forgery of a single frame offered by the very perpetrators that blew the Pentagon up with bombs.

      Wright obediently repeats the lies of authority and whines about “ad hominem” as if calling a spade a spade is sin. And like the dutiful smarmy stooge he is, continues to waddle and piss on all reason and sanity, all in apologia for the murderous warmongering state he pledges his blackened soul to. Defense of villainy is villainy itself, in the midst of us here now under the pseudonym of Wrighteousness, a sick and cankerous whore of PR.
      \\][//

  14. everytime I see this confrontation, I see agent SMITH and the Mandelbrot set distraction unfold, down the vortex psyop lines in the lines in the lines in the lines of ‘believe’ the video glimmer fuzz.
    Can I see the whole world in the ‘white patch’ in frame one? Can I see the number 77 printed around the stupid flag in the blur..on the tail?

    Can I HEAR Barbara fkn Olsen in her ZERO SECOND phone call to her conspirator husband describe the red bandanna, the ‘middle eastern men’ ‘cutting throats with box cutters’ .

    Whereas what I DID see was the line of freshmen spooks with rubbish bags in long lines picking up every scrap of whatever confettied the lawn break every conceivable ‘preservation of evidence’ rule. Throwing tarps over whatever got carried off that field we, the jury, are never allowed to see. Just like the source codes of ANSYS and LS-DYNA(you need LSD to believe it) of WTC7.
    Then, not long after, truck loads of earth to effect the most literal cover-up the world has ever seen.
    Playing us with the Fuckyou game theory of Uncle Donald, the ‘ruthless little barstard’ of R Nixon.
    The WRONG DATE on the video….the wrong DATE on the video of the most egregious breach of strategic airspace since that other catalyzing event and whats that up above????oh. An E4B…well. Maybe the ‘good-old honest Joe fly-boys were looking…..Studying their PTECH infested fly screens…
    Do you think THEY will ever tell the jury what they saw?

    1. Well said Fremo.

      Let’s not forget that even the content of Olson’s 0 second phonecall where she claimed that the pilots were in the back of the plane was denied by “Pentagon historians”.

      1. My reply below is actually a take off from OSS’ remarks of:
        JUNE 14, 2014 AT 11:12 PM — {someways up in this thread}

        The suppositions are mine alone and not necessarily shared by OSS or anyone else on this blog.
        \\][//

  15. An important addition to that OSS, is Norman Mineta during his testimony to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003., it squashes any assertion that they were unaware of an incoming plane.

    It is known that Cheney oversaw high command of the operation. As such he was linked to the whole network of military radar systems – he was tracking every one of the planes. He didn’t have to be present to have given orders to the team “the young man” was reporting from as Mineta looked on taking in the exchange.

    Supposition:
    The story of Cheney being physically picked up and hustled to the bunker area – the Situation Room, if true was simply theater. And another likelyhood is that it was just part of a script and didn’t need to be “acted out” at all. All that mattered is that Cheney had an alibi by being in his office and the upper areas of the WH. But his full attention was necessary for the final acts, the Pentagon magic act, and the taking down of 93, which quite possibly had the people from the three other flights that were expendable and not part of the operation.

    Like all the other planes, flt’s 77 and 93 were likely drones for the “attack leg” of their flights. The claimed termination sight for substitute 93 was predetermined as a theatrical dressing of an old mine shaft. The plane was wired with explosives for self-destruct on command.

    flight 77 choreography is well enough known, the pass-off point in the dark spot of the public radar; bringing 77 down at the same time as sending off the substitute 77 drone. Of course this is the ‘Turn’ [in stage magic terminology] ‘something ordinary that suddenly becomes something remarkable’. The ‘Prestige’ is another prop entirely, it is the supposed fragments of flt 77, and the set created by explosives. The sub 77 drone vanished during the distraction [slight of hand] of the illusion of an airplane crash.

    And all of this was staged as prologue to the Main Event, the TV Show; AMERICA UNDER ATTACK {and various versions of this for the several major TV channels}

    So in the Main Event the pre-scripted passion play is acted out by talking heads and media presentations. Perhaps the most elaborate hoax ever played on humankind. An epochal event, a shift of paradigm to the newest edition of ‘The Forever War’.

    \\][//

  16. Willy says

    “flight 77 choreography is well enough known, the pass-off point in the dark spot of the public radar; bringing 77 down at the same time as sending off the substitute 77 drone. Of course this is the ‘Turn’ [in stage magic terminology] ‘something ordinary that suddenly becomes something remarkable’. The ‘Prestige’ is another prop entirely, it is the supposed fragments of flt 77, and the set created by explosives. The sub 77 drone vanished during the distraction [slight of hand] of the illusion of an airplane crash.”

    That’s my personal opinion too Willy. Whatever Mineta was watching onscreen, or whatever the blip on radar from the west, the one and only aircraft that flew by the Sheraton Hotel and seen by the NOC witnesses (and all witnesses) arrived from DC skies (Steve Chaconas) from further south at low altitude (terrain masking) – check out “The White Plane” by CIT. Particularly the first guy interviewed at the golf course.

    Jamal el Kournayti distance


    Corroboration:


    1. This is a very interesting compilation of witness testimony collected by CIT.

      A “white plane” with one strip from most, but mostly white. Doesn’t sound like an American Airlines jet at all…? Moments later the crash, felt and heard but not their POV.

      The last witness who describes the plane as beginning to pull up just before the sound of the explosion … very interesting.
      \\][//

  17. A Wright,

    This is not a request – I demand that you provide the URL for the text to the ‘Maguire Statement’ on JUNE 14, 2014 AT 10:51 AM.

    \\][//

    1. I know for certain that Mr Wright is lurking in the background reading this page still. So I will make this very clear for his benefit:

      If Mr Wright refuses to source his comment of JUNE 14, 2014 AT 10:51 AM, which supposedly details the ‘Maguire Statement’, we may assume that he has made some portion of this “detail” up himself. Which would be lying of course.
      \\][//

  18. I truly salute you guys and Craig in particular for attempting to stay with an objective analysis of all these issues. it takes real courage and a passion for truth to stay with it. I have to say, I’m going through a period of immense hopelessness that there will ever be anything approaching justice for this disgusting crime, a crime which could only be conceived and carried out by a cluster of psychopaths who knew well in advance that they’d get away with it.

    There seems to be such a large presence of debunkers, trolls, disinfo agents paid to distract, despoil, distort. There are those who are conscious, unconscious, those who are well-meaning but misinformed, those that are clearly unhinged and happen to fall on the subject of 9/11 as a convenient outlet for their psychological issues. But the most damaging type of 9/11 “truther” is the one that offers just enough truth to gain a large following but with a major lie embedded in amongst all the erudition to bring many hundreds of folks far away from an objective appraisal. And since 9/11 covers so many cherished beliefs on the nature of society, culture, economics and geopolitics the refusal to contemplate how deep this corruption and psychopathy goes is proving to be the biggest asset to those who wish to keep the truth of 9/11 from society at large since it is an ever-present form of self-censorship, apathy and denial that seems impenetrable.

    This misunderstanding and unconscious avoidance of how the deep state works appears to offer such a huge advantage to those parties that carried out the attack. Society has been so thoroughly divorced from reality it was inevitable that the official story of 9/11 would seamlessly merge with an official culture based in an array of addictions to the subjective and personal belief. So, I’m forced to conclude that until the the socio-political systems in which we find ourselves irretrievably collapse and we have the opportunity to replace these systems with creative alternatives other than the pathology to which we have become accustomed, I simply don’t see how the truth of 9/11 can ever be allowed to filter through.

    Anyway, this is much longer rant than I intended. (Hardly a “comment.” )The shadows that descend are no doubt something that many of you frequently experience so I suppose it is a case of keep on keeping on.

    Many thanks for another great post and all the best.

    1. Mr Styllinski,

      I appreciate your comment very much – as far as it being a “rant”… well, some of the best commentary is ‘flow of consciousness’ – just letting go and letting it flow.

      You speak to core issues here, the ‘angst’ of being aware and conscious in a pathological society. A society that is founded on psychological manipulation, and constant strategies of tension; some subtle, some huge and horrific.

      Relish your own sanity, it is your best ‘companion’ in the valley of darkness.
      \\][//

    2. Thanks very much, M.K. Your analysis of the disinformation process is right on. Interesting that within hours of this post going up there was an article claiming to refute it by Adam Taylor. Mr. Taylor claims to be a 9/11 truther …

  19. The fact that they refuse to hand over the footage from all of the cameras should be enough to launch a criminal investigation. When you stack everything else on top, it should be enough to allow we-the-people to suspend all classification laws while we examine anything and everything we f**king feel like, in order to determine whether or not our government has been hijacked. Because, at this point, is does indeed appear as though our government was infiltrated & hijacked by murderous criminal filth.

  20. If anyone is interested, there is a Facebook post on the 9/11 Truth Movement page that features an article by Adam Taylor about this article. He calls the “no 757 hit the Pentagon” evidence “disinfo” and “bizarre.” And trash. He links to a ridiculous “mock trailer” that purports to show CIT as disinfo. I have posted a comment and another is on the way. https://www.facebook.com/groups/2204686781/10152068043421782/?notif_t=group_comment_reply

    1. Craig,

      I am not a member of Facebook, and don’t want to be. Is there a chance you might copy some portion of this article by Adam Taylor?

      Thanks \\][//

        1. Thanks Craig,

          I went to where I could make challenging remarks to Mr Taylor, as per Mr Syed’s lead.
          So I have read the BS and am aghast at its obvious bias and playing from ignorance.

          I should think it VERY LIKELY that Mr Taylor is keeping up with the commentary here, as he has such a keen interest in your work.

          So – Mr Taylor, grow a pair and hash it out here with us. You have my personal invitation, and I am sure Mr McKee would second that.
          \\][//

        1. “My comment will be available after approval.” Taylor’s Blog

          Thanks for the lead to the “article” if you can call it that. It is so sketchy and relying on gross generalizations that I would simply refer to it as a clumsy hit piece.
          He even presents that same bogus video that A Wright tries to pass on us here.
          We notice that Mr Taylor floats this piece of flatulence on his own blog, but hasn’t the nerve to make any comments here. [unless of course he has a sock named Wright].

          So the bullshit carousel continues to spin by the ignorant supporters of an air crash at the Pentagon; a goat’s play.
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          My comment there:

          Hello Mr Taylor,

          You make some mighty tall charges here concerning the article by Craig McKee, yet only give very sketchy rebuttal and general critique. Simply saying things like:

          “it does not take into consideration the work produced by others in the Truth Movement which shows that a Boeing 757 did impact the building.”

          But worse you offer the utterly bogus video clip “Flight 77 frame analysis” which is not at all a presentation of original pristine cam footage, but an “enhancement” with obvious manipulations, of not only format, but color, presenting a “leading argument”, while presenting a blur as an aircraft by suggestion.

          Having had a long and grueling email discussion with the lead author of “the work produced by others”, and having the opportunity to critique his PDF in progress through several revisions, I am of the opinion that the final product is simply bunk, and in no way ‘proves’ the assertion of an actual air crash at the Pentagon.
          He misrepresented witness testimony in gross and flagrant manner, plus includes witnesses in his witness pool who could not have even seen the impact from the POV they had.
          He even disputes the claims of eyewitnesses that were in the perfect position to identify the actual flightpath of the aircraft which place it north of the Citgo station. Claiming one, that they were mistaken about their place and perceptions when seeing the aircraft, and then claiming that they were witness to the impact – which is actually not possible from these witnesses at Citgo, specifically the two police officers. From their vantage point at that time they could only see the top story and roof-line of the Pentagon due to a rise in the hill between them and the building.

          These witness testimonies have been picked apart with great care on several articles on Pilots for 9/11Truth, showing why many of the most celebrated “impact witnesses” simply could not possibly have witnessed an impact. There is more, much more to say in criticism of those who claim that the essence of the official story is true.
          But I will say this much now at this juncture, you have shown bias in your current argument by relying on the faulty account given by the parties you site as giving Mazzucco “advice” to reconsider his Pentagon portion of the film.

          ~W. Whitten
          \\][//

        2. My comment is now published on Adam Taylors Blog. At least that much. He has made no counter commentary yet.

          There are no other comments on that article but mine so far.
          \\][//

          1. I just saw your comment there Mr Syed.
            Good job.
            I made a reply to his comeback to me… but I don’t think Mr Taylor is actually interested in learning. After all it is these many years down the line. If he doesn’t grasp the significance of the CIT information by now, I don’t see him changing his mind by a comment back and forth on a blog.
            \\][//

  21. Craig said: “If a plane had actually hit the Pentagon it would be impossible to believe that none of the video cameras in and around the building on 9/11 would have shown this. And if the videos did show the crash, then it would make no sense that the government would withhold them.”

    EXACTLY!! But try telling that to people who believe the government version. Here’s an example from another forum: “As to why no videotape has been released… think about this… why would one of the most secure buildings in the world give up videotape of how it was breached? I think its partly a security issue as well as one of protecting ones pride.” There’s a lot wrong with this viewpoint but my answer to him would be: Why should I believe the government? I haven’t been shown any proof. Think about this: Why would the government show photos of the crash site, tell us how and what happened, but then withhold evidence of the impact in the name of security even if it meant they could silence and discredit “conspiracy theorists”?

  22. Fantastic points, Peter. It’s absolutely absurd to think the government has any other motive than hiding the absence of an impact for keeping the tapes secret. If they had such a tape, they could have used it to deal a serious blow to the truth movement. But they haven’t because they have no tapes that show an impact. All they have are the falsified few frames that don’t even show a plane!

    The government has no pride to wound. It has pushed the “incompetence” theory from the beginning to distract us from their very calculated plan.

    1. Craig said “The government has no pride to wound. It has pushed the “incompetence” theory from the beginning to distract us from their very calculated plan.” Good point Craig, wish I’d thought of it at the time.
      Does it not strike people as odd that we get to see footage of the WTC plane crashes over and over, but not for the pentagon?

  23. A.Wright on JUNE 15, 2014 AT 5:12 PM, pretending to answer Onesliceshort,
    Spews another of his typical generalization squalls of “bla bla bla”.

    Not only does he avoid any specific arguments to OSS’ specific points, but as well he ignores a demand put to him 4 times-over now, to post the URL link to the source of his comment of JUNE 14, 2014 AT 10:51 AM, which supposedly details the ‘Maguire Statement’.

    I deplore such blatant evasion tactics, as most of us have time and again when dealing with Mr Wright. To dismiss Wright as a crank and stooge gains more merit as each thread goes by here. His venal pretense is simply outrageous.
    \\][//

    1. Willy

      I just saw Wright’s “response”.

      Serial numberless FDR that adds up to Jack Shit unless somebody tweaks the nipples off of it. And again, Wright ignores the fact that he denies the validity of the NTSB’s findings. That is, the official “impact time”.

      The RADES data that “misses” a spot, then returns a “hit” north of Citgo then in south parking of the Pentagon (not really backing up the official story, no?)
      And there are no ATC radar returns beyond the Sheraton. Not a one.

      The ATC/military audio? Apart from a lot of nothing going on, these same ATCs described the aircraft as “overflying the Pentagon” into DC and back round, depicted in a Nat Geo documentary. One ATC claims that the aircraft was “6 miles southeast of the White House” and was relayed to him via a visual sighting.

      The witnesses who he completely ignores are beng used by him to refute..umm..the witness testimony?

      And Lloyde England who denies to this day that he was on the bridge that morning ever since the NOC testimony came to light in 2006?

      The rest is “you’re a conspiritard” bullshit.

  24. GOSS interview. A conversation re: ‘planes used as weapons’ then explosive detonation, then full bore turbojet twins under thrust agitating the whole crew.
    Daniel HOPSICKER and Al MARTIN tell who GOSS is.

    What is the timeline on this interview? Is it established where and when it took place.

    1. Sure Goss knew exactly what was going on, he was part of the team that set up and planned the psyop, even meeting with one of the paymasters for Atta during a breakfast at the Congressional Lounge that morning as the show began.

      \\][//

        1. I do not know any of that about the Goss interview Fremo.

          They seem to be in DC, close enough to hear the explosions at the Pentagon and hear a plane screaming over head. So the time must be just at the time of the magic act at the Pentagon. Where the interview took place is uncertain, but I think the time is indicated.
          \\][//

          1. HR,

            Myself and others, including Craig Ranke, discussed this video several years ago. It is mostly likely a secondary explosion we are hearing; secondary and tertiary explosions were reported. I don’t have the link handy, but in one video, Goss says he was in the Capitol at the time of the initial Pentagon event. Don’t know if that’s true, but likely is. At any rate, we don’t know for sure the exact time of this video, so it’s not proof of anything on its own. I know for a fact that Ranke was livid when Fetzer claimed the video (on his own blog) to be straight up proof of the flyover.

        2. Fremo,

          You know what? First we here the booms in the background during that interview — and THEN a jet scream overhead … That could very well be the Plane that flew over the Pentagon coming back during its getaway maneuver.

          \\][//

        3. Fremo

          There was much debate and varying conclusions about this clip. My personal opinion based on scouring through videos (MSM and personal videos) lead me to believe that the explosion heard was the second explosion heard (and felt by some) at 10:10am that morning.

          http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21402&view=findpost&p=10799256

          What was really noticeable was the fact that the media never mentioned this (even on a sensationalist level) and a few very resourceful and determined guys I know could find no details on it (exact time and who the “journalists” were recording the Goss interview).

          1. Someone knows.

            A quintessential clip. There’s a whole lot going on in that 45 secs.
            Playing around with guesses why it got cut there and then. I mean, did the moment get any LESS interesting in the next 45 seconds?
            Instead, on the cutting room floor with Salomon #7.
            Flight 77.
            Boeing 777.
            Time and place CRUCIAL. I fully respect your very resourceful and determined guys.. 2014 and this is still not known?
            That’s very sobering.

            I just finished 3 weeks living 600 meters from the end of an international airport runway,
            where the big fat birds land, and those in the clip – of GOSS – are turbo fans at thrust….holding….not landing.

    1. I see he has “friends” the likes of Chris Sarns and Jeff Hill. I would just post NSA. The guy’s a Wrightesque tar baby.

      I’m sure AdamS has handy the moment where Truth Action turned on Gage, Chandler, Cole and DRG after they had signed up to the NOC bashing bandwagon? I would quote those. And show where neither of the Hoffmans came to their defense. Turn the tables😉

      1. Well, the truthaction forum is out of existence, and I don’t have any saved screen shots of the thread in question. Not sure if Archive.org would have them either. But we remember it well, yes.

    2. Another good one OSS, nice and concise.

      Once the point about trajectory and damage angle is grasped, it becomes very obvious that regardless of what these witnesses think happened, it is impossible as to their testimony of where the plane came in from.

      Huh, even Mike Walters is a NOC witness. I think that guy was sat on hard after his first interviews that morning. He did a literal back flip into the official story to save his career.
      \\][//

      1. Thanks Willy

        These are good links too

        Witness pool broken down

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

        Alleged impact witnesses (well worth a look)

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

        Physical Reaction

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

        Media embellishment, lies, distortions (the Hoffman piece uses the media as “proof”)

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

        Connections (witness pool quoted by media consists of media, government, military)

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

        1. OSS,
          I know you aren’t a pilot, but what is the consensus at P4911T as far as “ground effect” being a problem with the plane at the Pentagon?

          Thanks, \\][//

  25. Adam

    Just found these notes. In a hurry so sorry for the randomness

    TA abuse

    http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/mempages/Jenkins.html

    “Statement on 9/11: “I completed awakening to 9/11 truth by November of 2001 and started presenting PowerPoint and video productions on 9/11 truth in 2002. I have since spoken at six international 9/11 conferences and numerous other 9/11 events and radio programs. My first video release, Perspective on 9/11 was originally made for the early live presentations. I have since produced dozens of 9/11 DVDs – nine with leading 9/11 Truth author David Ray Griffin, including 9/11 – The Myth and the Reality. More recently I produced, directed and edited architect Richard Gage’s 9/11 – Blueprint for Truth for AE911Truth.”

    John Bursill: “…the most powerful position to take is the reasonable one of supporting the official account until proven otherwise. This is now my view.”

    Jimd

    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=45060#45060

    “David Ray Griffin is a dishonest fraud who uses the “9-11 truth movement” to fund his retirement, and is nothing more than a glorified CIT. Yea, I said it and have been saying it.”

    “Coincidence? Or just DRG continuing to be a dishonest asshole? And for any “truthers” who don’t like what I say – you are not truthers but cult members and your leader has already marched you off a cliff. ”

    Jon Gold

    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=45310#45310

    “David Ray Griffin, and others have given more than enough ammunition to our detractors (debunkers and the media) over the years to completely destroy the credibility and legitimacy of this cause.”

    Vullich

    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=45084#45084

    “I gotta say dr jones is a fraud on multiple fronts, the overunity bullshit, the earthquake machine tesla nonsense, and the thermite demolition theory itself. That’s right folks, he doctored photos to imply the existence of molten metal pools and steel beams severed by thermite. Other frauds? DRG with fake phone calls. I put in a vote for the whole space beams movement. Sorry but I also gotta put in people pushing the whole “foreign involvement/islamic extremism played no role or is a limited hangout” meme. I consider the big tent advocates to be the enablers of the frauds. If we refused to tolerate the marginal ideas and methods we would not have this problem today.”

    April Gallop

    Well, after I reviewed the footage and carefully looked at the information I think it should be considered as credible for public viewing and also very important for people to look at because it shows that it’s obviously some fabrication in the official testimony and I think everyone should sit down and take a look at it.

    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=45793#45793

    Snowcrash

    I hope Jon Cole and David Chandler will provide much needed pushback against this coalition of “Pentagon crash skeptics”; maybe some healthy scientific criticism of this ongoing joke on 9/11 research?

    Truthmover

    I won’t tolerate fraud. As a member of a social movement basically founded on principles of honesty, I can’t tolerate people in this movement lying to me.

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/pushing-the-boundaries-of-truth-911-vancouver-hearings-embrace-controversy/#comment-6526

    http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/truth-action-australia-mission-statement/

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/search.php?search_author=Victronix01

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49372#49372

    “I went to one of Richard Gage’s dog and pony shows in May of 2008 in Chicago at the Illinois Circle Campus”

    “But I’ve learned, from my error in supporting AE911TRUTH and all sorts of CHARLATANS over the years; that it was never a good idea to rush to the conclusion that it was controlled demolition. Just ruined any hope of drawing attention to the none-whacky sounding stuff. I don’t know what else to say. I was DUPED a lot of those years”

    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49383#49383

    John Albanese

    “CD is bullshit. that’s my opinion after 8 years of observation and listening to all the opinions and facts. it is – to put it kindly – the excrement of a horned bovine creature. BUUUUULLSHIIIIIT. plant food. ”

    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49444#49444

    Truthmover

    “Despite the best intentions of naive people CD was very effectively used to undermine the movement. I consider that fact.

    And as I said, some cling to it hoping it’s a shortcut or our only chance. They are wrong. ”

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49553#49553

    Snowcrash

    “We were on to Steven Jones soon enough”

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49558#49558

    Snowcrash

    “You know my position so we don’t need go over this again. I maintain Jones and Farrer must have committed scientific fraud for their findings to support anything else but thermite. The reason is their claim that previously molten iron-rich microspheres were formed upon ignition. This cannot be if not for a thermitic reaction. I believe they are capable of fraud. Period. ”

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49563#49563

    Snowcrash

    “This is not a “debate” about whether or not Jones et al. found nanothermite. I believe they conned people”

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49574#49574

    Snowcrash

    “I’m glad I can say AE911Truth LIED at this forum without being banned for it. ”

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49606#49606

    Kat Dorman

    “You’ve got an obscure high school teacher claiming a titan of the engineering mechanics field is completely full of shit. [b]Well, I’ll tell you who’s full of shit: the high school teacher who never bothered to educate himself on the principles involved before he decided he wanted to be a YouTube celebrity. I have nothing but contempt for Chandler in this matter, since he has had ample opportunity to educate himself (which he should have done FIRST) and publicly retract his pseudoscientific claptrap – but apparently has no interest in doing so.”[/b]

    Snowcrash response:

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49611#49611

    Finally, something truly worth reading about the WTC collapses.

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49613#49613

    Snowcrash

    “AE911Truth is a failure and so is your ongoing apologist desperation.”

    “I know this to be utter humbug and totally false, but for once, just once, I would like to see you do anything else but make pretentious bare assertions, and actually back up your claims with something verifiable. Will you do so? Will you quote some douche bag AE911Truth petition signee and lean on authority or will you quantify?”

    “Empirical? Wow. No. Chandler’s measurements are GIGO. Yes, you’re going to say NIST incorporated them into their report. Well guess what.”

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49644#49644

    Snowcrash

    “And frankly, if the outcome of my 9/11 inquiries is that the official story is true then so be it. ”

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49812#49812

    Snowcrash

    “Criticizing NIST belongs in that basket but promoting CD doesn’t. Criticizing NIST is positionally indeterminate but appropriate, while peddling unsustainable CD fantasies coupled with no plane, no hijacker and no passenger delusions is not.

    It is essential to me whether an idea has solidity, has scientific merit, has substance, rather than a wide-eyed theory whose central pillars are easily falsified by any competent analyst. There are questions NIST and friends must answer, many riddles to be solved but the core tenets of controlled demolition have been professionally demolished. I’d lost faith in AE911Truth’s soundbites years ago, while you kept the faith and spread the gospel with the religious fervor of a missionary. ”

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49922#49922

    Snowcrash

    Besides, some groups in the 9/11 TM exhibit cult-like behaviors. Others do not. But the cultish segments do exist. One could say there is a DRG-cult.

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=49977#49977

    Snowcrash

    In short: fuck CD.

    http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=50371#50371

    YT

    I know snowcrash has spoken highly of your work.

    I remember your site from a few years back.

    I believe it was one of (if not the) first to call out some of the fraudulently labelled photos that Jones included in his paper.

    Ashley

    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=36528&sid=43c2bcd390bce74ead6a20aea80f14c3#36528

    “We have 1000 professionals — civil, structural, mechanical engineers and architects with degrees and licenses — putting their careers on the line by publicly signing a petition suggesting the WTC may have been intentionally demolished. We have one paper on the dust published and more in the pipeline.”

    Hoz Turner

    http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=40271&sid=086f713142edee414aa1b11df8a50ffe#40271

    Why Building 7 may not be the smoking gun of 9/11

  26. A Wright still hasn’t provide the URL for the text to the ‘Maguire Statement’ that he posted on JUNE 14, 2014 AT 10:51 AM.

    It is my hunch that he won’t ever provide this link, because it presents a dire dilemma for Wright. One that I will reveal soon if Mr Wright doesn’t answer by the end of this day.
    \\][//

      1. I knew Wright wasn’t going to give us the link I have been demanding from him.
        Now he wants to play games – let us consider the possibilities of why this is for a time. Let him consider what our assumptions may turn to in these circumstances … it is NOT just a matter of his being stubborn in this instance.

        He could very well simply post a URL if he actually has one. Right Wright?
        Yes of course that’s right – bloody well right.
        \\][//

    1. Wright why don’t you give the link I speak to rather than wank around more here?

      Just cough up the link so we can verify that it is real info.
      \\][//

  27. @HR1
    I take it then that you don’t have a big revelation? I can’t remember what the link is but I will see if I can find it again. If you look at NSA they put it up on screen (but scroll over it fairly quickly) , according to this agent McGuire ,so someone should be able to provide link to it.

  28. Hahahaha….

    Wright doesn’t REMEMBER the link to something he just copy and pasted a couple days ago. Who does he think he’s kidding.

    [The revelation is in the method]

    I don’t want “someone to provide a link to it” Wright, I want YOU to provide that link to it.
    \\][//

    1. @HR1
      I can’t remember what the link is and since I am at work I am not going to look for it now. And when I get home I won’t be supplying you with the link either, if that’s the kind of juvenile response you are going to give.

      1. This is bullshit Wright,

        You won’t be supplying me with the link when you get home either because you have no fricking link – just as I proposed Wright.
        This is why I predicted that you would never provide the link and that you would jerk off the forum – BECAUSE THERE IS NO LINK.

        We all shall remember this on this blog Wright – because I will remember it, and every time you have the gall to return here again I will remind you and the forum of this incident with you.

        You are a lying stooge Wright, you have just proved it to the whole world.
        \\][//

    1. You know damned well there is not such link Wright.

      That is your dilemma. So just where did you get that list. I know you didn’t make it up. I want to know how you got hold of it in easy to copy and paste format.
      Let’s see what kind of jive ass story you come up with here Wright.
      You are beginning to see the implications now aren’t you?
      \\][//

        1. No Wright, I owe you no explanations whatsoever.

          “..and it better be good.” Lol … or WHAT bucko?

          \\][//

        2. Look at Wright.

          I asserted that he has no link. He has waddled around here all morning whistling and pissing in the corners. Now he demands that I reveal what the implications are to his scrabble. He KNOWS what those implications are.

          Now If he “goes home tonight” and still can’t come up with the link asked for, he will make more excuses, and drag this melodrama routine as long as he can. But that won’t cut it. He knows that I know there is no link. He knows that I know what that means. And when I explain what that means he will deny it, as obvious as it is. And we all know that because it is his MO.

          The very best thing this stooge can do for himself at this point is disappear for good. Because like I said, he will not post another thing here until he successfully resolves this issue. He won’t do that because he would have to come clean as to who and what he really is.
          \\][//

          1. @HR1
            Now that I am home I can look up this link that you seem obsessed with..yes, I found it. As I said I am not going to give it to you though . it only took me a few minutes using Google.

            1. Hahahahahaha…yea sure Wright,
              You and your pal crack me up.

              I just flushed two birds with one stone.
              Thanks for the comedy routine, the both of you.

              \\][//

  29. Wow, that’s a record. A Wright hanging around for 3-4 posts (not actually saying anything but posting sentences nonetheless).

    He usually does this when the discussion between people here gets into interesting, investigative territory. The Goss footage, exposing the hypocrisy and methods of the dishonest clique that worked 24/7 for years to discredit the NOC witnesses (Question: where are they now?), how 911 calls in Arlington have been permanently sequestered, the stolen Citgo camera, etc.

    In fact, all of those links and subsets of conversations are being buried by his baiting, childish wordplay (I can’t blame Willy, as I’ve done it myself). Wright is a disruptor. The discussion shouldn’t be about disproving the official story. That’s been done years ago. I know that official story defenders should be challenged but Wright offers nothing. He dodges, generalizes, and is genuinely one of the weakest “debunkers” I’ve come across but he’s serving his purpose to the full.

    What we should be doing is nailing the evidence that we do have.

    In future, I’m going to link and headline posts where this troll Wright has detracted us from (and for keeping track of Wright’s dodges so that one simple click will suffice instead of talking to the troll)

    LINKS

    The anti NOC clique exposed:

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24058

    Useful links (debunking Legge/Stutt/Hoffman/Ashley/Hill/911 sequestered calls/stolen Citgo camera):

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24062

    1. Wow OSS, this is going to turn into an absolute classic Truth and Shadows page…

      All of these links to real analysis PLUS a catalog of all the barking nonsense of that pack of jackals, the pretenders claiming to be ‘Truthers’…

      Absolutely awesome.
      \\][//

    2. Bear with me OSS, there is a method to my madness in this particular exchange with Wright. And the reason he is hanging out at this time is that he understands the implications of what I am driving at.

      \\][//

  30. Hahahahaha… very interesting; and who is it that suddenly jumps in to pull Agent Wright’s ass out of the fire? Non other than Señor El Once.

    Very telling indeed. Great team work…
    \\][//

    1. More telling is the inability of Mr. A.Wright ~and~ Mr. Rogue to use Google and to plop a telling phrase from the source in between double quotes of the Google command line. Due to the internet echo-chamber, my link doesn’t have to be Mr. A.Wright’s link. Telling also is that once armed with one of many links, Mr. Rogue does nothing with it. //

        1. Mr. Rogue knows all about plausible deniability.

          And Mr. Rogue seems to be in a pickle. Unable to find the source for Mr. A.Wright’s quote on his own, and so pissing off Mr. A.Wright that he won’t tell Mr. Rogue his source URL. Such a dastardly situation. And when given a link but an reader anxious to see what is made of it, nothing is made of it.

          All hat and no cattle.

          //

        2. Actually I have had a link to that information all along — it is not the link that the anonymous entity cites however. The link I had as the photocopied pages but not the html – easy copy/paste version that the entity cited.

          I didn’t doubt the information, and there is nothing a consequence to do with it. The document doesn’t prove an airplane hit the Pentagon. It is simply scrabble from the intelligence agencies.

          I sent Mr McKee one of the images from the page I had found yesterday or the day before. So he can verify that I had found the docs. They were more spread out and had other junk mixed in with them, and some crap about a Japanese airlines. But the essential info was there. Just no html to copy and paste.

          But the bottom line here for me at this point is I know who wears the socks in this family. I don’t care if it is enough to convince anyone else here. It doesn’t matter at this point. But as we all know, the truth will eventually out.

          \\][//

          1. This is the web page I had found:

            No html, but the frame shots of the docs.

            archive.today/www.flight77.info

            \\][//

  31. What I will add is that there were multiple cameras not mentioned in the alleged “Maguire report”

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=14873

    Maguire also said at the Massaoui trial that a nosecone was found at C Ring. When I bring this up with OS defenders they waive it away because it’s impossible.

    LINKS

    The anti NOC clique exposed:

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24058

    Useful links (debunking Legge/Stutt/Hoffman/Ashley/Hill/911 sequestered calls/stolen Citgo camera):

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24062

  32. OSS,
    Great page on the security cameras at and around Pentagon.

    Here is a page with images of the dome camera sans mount:

    http://www.cctv-surveillance-products.com/dome-camera.html

    Item Code:DOME420CMOS
    With a feature of 24 hour surveillance function this product is a highly useful tool for the purpose of keeping a security check. This Sensor Dome Camera of ours has a smart light control which provides high quality image in low or no light. This product has a sturdy plastic construct suitable for indoor use. This product is procured by us from highly reliable vendors who believe in providing high quality products. We offer this product at a very competitive price.
    Features:
    24 hour surveillance
    Increases security
    Strong construct
    Specifications:420 TVL CMOS camera 3.6 mm lens

    \\][//

  33. In the Adam Taylor Blog article, he introduces a video with these words, “Here I’ll let the witnesses speak for themselves..”

    And what is this video? A ‘Pumpitout’ production by none other than the smarmy agitprop salesman Jeff Hill, who does a cherry picking slipdance of “testimony”…. Yes, of course the testimony we are all well aware of here and have analyzed in depth. All manipulated in such a way as to seem that there is no doubt these ‘witnesses’ saw the impact.

    I suppose a neophyte such as Mr Taylor can be forgiven for being taken in by such utter nonsense. It is just too bad he won’t take the opportunity to learn something here while he is still redeemable.
    He seems to have slid off into dreamland again. So I won’t disturb his slumber over at his blog.
    \\][//

      1. Wllly

        Yeah, the excuse was that these cameras were only switched on manually (by request) and weren’t running 24/7 (yawn). These cameras weren’t running when Bush was due for a landing at the heliport that morning? Weren’t running when the. Pentagon security alert was raised before 09:30am (Noel Sepulveda). Uh huh.

        The monitors for these cameras were allegedly contained within the Navy Annex (Source: Goldberg et al). What they are trying to tell us is that security guys were sitting looking at black screens.

        There were also cameras dotted around the rooves of the Navy Annex too.

        And of course the missing Citgo camera.

        Recap. No cameras bar the gatecam capturing a blur (plus one camera stolen), no radar, a manually tweaked, serial number void, contradictory FDR that supposedly contained “missing seconds” which apparently began in the same area that the radar started to fail, sequestered 911 calls in the area (what the hell was recorded on those calls?) and not one witness contradicting the NOC witnesses.

        Naaah, nothing suspicious..

        Jeff Hill video debunk

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22741

        LINKS

        Cameras not mentioned in the Maguire Report

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24095

        The anti NOC clique exposed:

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24058

        Useful links (debunking Legge/Stutt/Hoffman/Ashley/Hill/911 sequestered calls/stolen Citgo camera):

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24062

        Witness pool broken down

        https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24042

      2. On the subject of Jeff Hill, he actually contributed one thing to 9/11 research that was truly valuable; however, he scrubbed it from his site. Nonetheless, Archive.org has it; here is a snapshot from 2008. It’s when he got Controlled Demolition Inc. to admit that “pull it” is indeed a demolition term. How very telling that Hill would scrub something from his site that was actually damning to the official story, yet the bullshit disinfo aspects of his time in 9/11 truth are still up on the world stage for all to see. Sorry Jeff, myself and many, many others have saved the following phone call on our hard drives, so no such luck being able to scrub it from the internet.

        Jeff Hill call to Controlled Demolition Inc.

        [audio src="https://web.archive.org/web/20081116180013/http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls/controlled_demolitions.mp3" /]

        1. Nice catch Adam!

          The guy completely changed tactics when he kept uncovering NOC witnesses.

          The Penny Elgas interview where she brought up the gas station herself and how close it appeared to it (corroborating Turcios who claimed that he thought the right wing was going to stike the roof). He changed the subject.

          The Lloyd England interview where Lloyd insinuated that CIT had used fake images of him on the bridge and Hill let it slide (planting a seed for those not familiar with the images which are available to verify – complete bs)

          The Hemphill interview where Hemphill repeated what he told CIT (NOC). Hill was forced to fax an image of the area complete with official path to make him “reremember”. And Hemphill still repeated that he saw it “over the gas station”! Then lied about Craig Ranke posting his interview on the net before Hill to poison the well.

          There are many more instances of Hill being a slimey lying, manipulative little shit but it got to the point where he mentioned Craig Ranke by name, claimed that there were “conspiracy theories on the internet” about what happened at the Pentagon before he asked them anything to make sure that they answered him “correctly”.

          JREF then took him under their wing and Ron Weick, the most hateful, boring government loyalist there is became his “friend” (TandS had the pleasure of his company for a while)

          That’s the sort of information that should be focused on whenever “truthers” like this fb guy start posting his crap. There’s so much detail in Pentagon research that it’s impossible to explain to newcomers or those on the fence in summarized form. What better way to block the reams of disinfo bullshit than to expose the “objectivity” of the disinfo merchants in question being linked to ad nauseum?

          Hill? Publish his quotes and videos where he labels Gage, Chandler and DRG as “liars”, “charlatans”

          Legge? Point out where he used the same sources in Hill and Snowcrash (whose quotes on AE911T are posted above)

          Point out the personalities involved. Liars, staunch government loyalists, abusive “former” NPT advocates turned truth movement haters.
          Two faced bastards that conned the likes of Gage, DRG and Chandler into signing up to this crap.

          Most guys on FB truth movement sites would think twice before using this pack of hyenas as a source for anything. And readers would raise an eyebrow at least.

          And shame on Chris Sarns for not saying a word about it. Egomaniac.

  34. this keeps rattling around my brain.
    GOSS.
    nothing back yet to verify time date and place of that clip. nothing. no corroboration. Nothing established after 12yrs. Thats too important a moment to not be established in the time-line.

    1. Fremo,

      Looks like the Goss interview was at the White House on the Lawn:

      s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3713705/old
      Porter Goss Interview WHITE HOUSE 9/11; US predicted planes to be used as missiles; Topic Started: Sep 16 2010, 06:14 AM (2,224 Views)

      \\][//

    2. @ fremo

      Frustrating as hell, no? And yes, definitely turbine engines (just saw your post above, sorry).

      Willy

      Re the “jet fuel”, I don’t doubt a “jet fuel” was used in the pyrotechnic show. In fact, jet fuel is an ingredient of napalm.

      Get this

      The Mark 77 bomb (MK-77) is a US 750-lb (340 kg) air-dropped incendiary bomb carrying 110 US gallons (415 litres) of a fuel gel mix which is the direct successor to napalm.

      The MK-77 is the primary incendiary weapon currently in use by the United States military. Instead of the gasoline and the benzene fuel used in napalm, MK-77 use kerosene-based fuel, which has a lower concentration of benzene. The Pentagon has claimed that the MK-77 has less impact on the environment than napalm. THE MIXTURE REPORTEDLY ALSO CONTAINS AN OXIDIZING AGENT, MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT TO PUT OUT ONCE IGNITED .
      THE FIRE WOULD BURN AT EXTREME TEMPERATURES THAT COULD DESTROY MOST BUILDINGS MADE OF WOOD OR OTHER COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS (BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED OF STONE TEND TO RESIST INCENDIARY DESTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST BLOWN OPEN BY HIGH EXPLOSIVES).

      In August 2003, the San Diego Union Tribune alleged that U.S. Marine pilots and their commanders confirmed the use of Mark 77 firebombs on Iraqi Republican Guards during the initial stages of combat. The only Mk 77 bomb remaining in service at this time was the Mk 77 Mod 5, which does not use actual napalm (e.g. napalm – b, but a different incendiary mixture. The last U.S. bomb to use actual napalm was the Mark 77 Mod 4, the last of which were destroyed in March 2001.
      http://en.allexperts.com/e/m/ma/mark_77_bomb.htm

      Either way, the jet fuel argument is irrelevant. There were also reports of the smell of cordite and “gunpowder”.

      The main point for me personally is that allegedly (according to the ASCE Report) only a fraction of the alleged jet fuel was burned up in the fireball, while the majority entered the building and none of it ended up in C Ring/AE Drive (the alleged punchout). Physical impossibility.

      Jeff Hill video debunk

      http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22741

      LINKS

      Cameras not mentioned in the Maguire Report

      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24095

      The anti NOC clique exposed:

      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24058

      Useful links (debunking Legge/Stutt/Hoffman/Ashley/Hill/911 sequestered calls/stolen Citgo camera):

      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24062

      Witness pool broken down

      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24042

      1. “The main point for me personally is that allegedly (according to the ASCE Report) only a fraction of the alleged jet fuel was burned up in the fireball, while the majority entered the building and none of it ended up in C Ring/AE Drive (the alleged punchout). Physical impossibility.”~OSS

        Yes absolutely impossible, just viewing the jet fuel explosions at WTC make that point very clearly.

        As far as the “punchout” there is a sign drawn on the wall next to that hole, with a international symbol for “emergency access point”. Have you read any detail about this point?
        \\][//

  35. This account repeated at Adam Taylors Blog:

    “According to Matt Hahr, Kirlin’s senior project manager at the Pentagon, the employee “was thrown about 80 ft down the hall through the air. As he was traveling through the air, he says the ceiling was coming down from the concussion. He got thrown into a closet, the door slammed shut and the fireball went past him,” recounts Hahr. “Jet fuel was on him and it irritated his eyes, but he didn’t get burned.” (http://web.archive.org/web/20040404074145/http:/www.designbuildmag.com/oct2001/pentagon1001.asp)

    Jet Fuel Source:

    Posting to September 11th Message Board Greg A. Lohr Staff Reporter, / © 2001 American City Business Journals Inc / Sept 14.
    Anderson Ted Lt. Col. Ted Anderson : “We ran to the end of our building, turned left and saw nothing but huge, billowing black smoke, and a brilliant, brilliant explosion of fire.” (…) One of the Pentagon’s two fire trucks was parked only 50 feet from the crash site, and it was “totally engulfed in flames,” Anderson says. Nearby, tanks full of propane and aviation fuel had begun igniting, and they soon began exploding, one by one. (…) Back in the building again, Anderson said he began “screaming and hollering for people as secondary and third-order explosions started going off. One of them was a fire department car exploding-I think my right eardrum exploded at the same time, and it unequivocally scared the heck out of me.” http://www.msnbc.com/news/635293.asp

    \\][//

    1. Beautiful shot, framed like a painting in a museum.
      So tell me does this look as planted as a red bandanna?
      As silly as a slightly scorched passport?
      As likely as living in the belly of a whale?

      It couldn’t possibly have been planted, now could it have? The Feds would NEVER do anything as dastardly as that … gawblesmurkah
      … with jingoberry pie.

      http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11-attacks-investigation-and-related-materials/Image/9-11-pentagon-debris-1

      \\][//

      1. And as per pretty picture…

        Does anyone know what aircraft this:

        AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC
        MOD S537 – S/N 944**?

        would have come from, and what part it is?

        OSS, do you know if P4T has anything on this?
        \\][//

            1. -“One ad hoc assertion after another. Good luck proving any of that.”~Adam Taylor [June 17, 2014 at 5:47 PM – his blog]
              . . . . . . . . . .
              In argumentation, an ad hoc argument is one that is hastily constructed to support or explain something without any underlying logical framework. Because of this haste and lack of a consistent frame-work, such an explanation likely contradicts other existing thoughts or arguments.

              But my logical framework is already existent and given before I constructed my analysis of the item: “AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC – MOD S537 – S/N 944**?”.

              You are taking my argument backwards. I am not saying that my analysis proves an airplane didn’t crash at the Pentagon. I am saying that since it is already proven that an airplane didn’t crash at the Pentagon, mine would be an explanation for a particular planted piece of evidence.

              If you read the comment with my analysis again, you will see that I do not use my analysis as a proof of no airplane crash, and say such plainly in my final remarks.
              \\][//

      2. I know … it’s hard to distinguish between jingoberries and road-apples.

        Isn’t it Mr Taylor?

        I take it you have closed up shop. Or, was it something I said? Lol
        \\][//

    2. The item pictured in the image at the link below is the subject of this short analysis – comment.

      The first thing one notices is the picture perfect pose of this item, and the way it perfectly frames the white ‘text/numeral tag’ stuck to it.
      The second thing to note is that this is a hand lettered with a fine point permanent marker {such as Sharpie makes}
      The tag itself is the same general material as the stick-on tags for automobile license plate to show the current year of registration.

      It is the first thing that leads me to the conclusion that this is a planted prop in a staged crime scene. This conclusion doesn’t stand alone, but this item simply reinforces what is already established.

      As a prop, it is a very simple matter to produce this piece. A part from a real Boeing jet, a blank American Airlines ‘Model Number/Serial Number’ sticky tag, a black marker, and plausible numbers to write into the spaces. A Boeing part could be crinkled and given the character of an accident part with just a couple hours of careful manipulation – the prepared tag was likely added at a midway point, just before the final curling of the “frame” around the tag.

      This is a very nice job, But it has one problem, it is too artsy fartsy, too much an obvious display piece. This is something I learned to avoid in prop making for special effects cinematography. Achieving ‘realism’ in prop making for film is a very subtle art-form – it is even more difficult for props to be scrutinized forensically.

      This point standing alone cannot be made the overall point however, as the case of a Jet Crash at the Pentagon is already proven false beyond a reasonable doubt as surely as the WTC complex was destroyed by explosive demolition. Explosive demolition is the mechanism in both cases, WTC and the Pentagon.

      See image here:
      http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11-attacks-investigation-and-related-materials/Image/9-11-pentagon-debris-1

      \\][//

  36. I will just say this about Adam Taylor and others we have critiqued here who claim to “Truthiness”:

    When you find yourself making the very same arguments as Government Stooges, it is likely time to reassess which side you are actually on in this matter; come clean and put on the real coat you represent.
    \\][//

    1. I mean afterall chillens, think about the term; “staging a false flag operation”.

      Yes, “staging”.

      So it just seems bizarre to me that those who have accepted a certain amount of staging as being done to pull off this psyop, would balk at the idea of simple staging of fake crime scenes at what are obviously locations that the perpetrators controlled?

      Why the doublethink when it comes to the Pentagon event? Why buying so much of the story “because the government says so”? And yes indeed that is exactly what it comes down to when one accepts items into evidence said to come from a crime scene controlled by those who committed the crime.

      We scoff at the idea of finding a ‘hijacker’s’ ID in the rubble of WTC with a slight singe, or a red bandanna that survived a “fiery jet crash that obliterated an entire jetliner in a field.”

      But when it comes to the Pentagon event, all the sudden the goal posts are moved to giving credence to the word of authority. I do not understand, nor do I accept this double standard for investigation. I rebuke this is simpleton bullshit.
      \\][//

  37. Extrapolated interpretation of extremely fast motion in visual perception is a known fact of human consciousness. Watching movies would be impossible without this extrapolation ability, and this is why a certain speed of frames is necessary for “moving pictures” to become viable to the human perceptions.

    This same phenomena is what gives success to many stage magic tricks reliant on “slight of hand”, this mixed with distraction techniques and controlled POV is the mainstay of stage magic.

    If the Pentagon event is considered with these facts in mind, the staged event, and the resulting confused and conflicting testimonials of the people who witnessed this magic act becomes very clear to researchers.
    \\][//

  38. Willy says

    But when it comes to the Pentagon event, all the sudden the goal posts are moved to giving credence to the word of authority. I do not understand, nor do I accept this double standard for investigation. I rebuke this is simpleton bullshit.

    Bingo. Sickens the hell out of me.

    As for that image, I’ve seen it before on the net. All I see is a scrap of metal with AA insignia lying on a turf of grass that could habe been taken anywhere. I’m not sure what the code stands for and apparently nobody does. What I do know is that the “Penny Elgas piece” didn’t come from the exterior of a 757. That’s a fact.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18356&view=findpost&p=10811356

    As for the “punchout hole” sign (are there two? – I have to check). No fire reports mention this. In fact, from day one, the official line was that the aircraft punched that hole.

    This is the area where Maguire and others claimed to see a “nosecone”. Other GLs claim that the landing gear caused it. Both impossible:

    The impossible debris path:

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807825

    LINKS

    Jeff Hill video debunk

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22741

    Cameras not mentioned in the Maguire Report

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24095

    The anti NOC clique exposed:

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24058

    Useful links (debunking Legge/Stutt/Hoffman/Ashley/Hill/911 sequestered calls/stolen Citgo camera):

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24062

    Witness pool broken down

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24042

  39. OSS. frustrating yes. Thing gets me about this GOSS thing; just as it appears no definitive ID of interviewer/time/place – and I am HAPPY to be corrected- is no apparent take on the jet coming in off camera unless to argue it a ‘sonic boom’..Those are twin engined turbofans RINGING hard. not powering down but holding up. Thats a big fuckin bird really close to a camera crew SOMEWHERE around PENTBOM on 911 and someone must have identified it on the time-line.
    Anyone know of any research on that fat bird?
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21402&st=0 more or less has it that clip taken outside near the White House during a secondary explosion around 10:10 and is therefore not significant evidence of anything.

    1. Fremo, yes a simple zoom from a cameraman (or plural) has been hidden in goosestep formation. It must be on film somewhere.

      There was the alleged flight of “Venus77” (E4B) at 09:44-5 (according to RADES) around the White House and the secondary explosion (the fireball of which was captured on film around the same time). What doesn’t fit, as you say, is what appears to be a turbine aircraft in descent (the E4B was allegedly at 7000ft IIRC)

      And it wasn’t a sonic boom if the testimony of F15 pilots is to be believed. They were ordered to fly at “sonic maximum” or just below sound barrier speed.

      Bottom line is that it shows just how obedient the MSM actually is. From top to bottom.

      It’s like the time one firecrew photographer ventured round to the south face of WTC7 and the footage got cut off just as he was going to film the all evasive view of that area of the building with the weird narrow linear 40 odd floor cut out. Or when Hess was shouting from the eighth floor window and the film supposedly and “suddenly” cut away to swirlimg paper and dust (did he mention explosives?) and tuned in to the high pitched alarms.

      Or the weird edit of the Naudet brother film of the second tower impact.

      Also re the. Pentagon not one journalist querying or seeking out the helicopter that was mentioned by multiple witnesses seen taking off or just above Pentagon airspace minutes before. Not a one.

      MSM is a gimp.

    2. That should read in quotation . “…..around 10:10 and is therefore not significant evidence of anything.”
      I remain unconvinced this is insignificant . ..

  40. See, here’s the thing about Adam Taylor. The admin of the FB 9/11 Truth group, Ken Doc, insists that there’s no way Taylor could be a shill because he’s written excellent stuff on the WTC. For example, here is Taylor TAKING ON Popular Mechanics as an official writer for AE911Truth:

    Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can’t Face Up to Reality
    http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/604-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-1.html

    Admittedly, Taylor’s WTC piece is good, and I’ve even linked to it on a couple occasions myself (I didn’t know his Pentagon take at the time btw). So Ken Doc slapped down that link and said: “There. Now tell me if you think Mr. Taylor is a shill.”

    However, another commenter on there makes the point that Taylor actually makes excuses for why the Pentagon videos haven’t been released. Slow frame rate, probably don’t show the impact anyway, etc. But in this instance, Taylor ALIGNS PERFECTLY with Popular Mechanics, who also have made the same excuses for the non-release of the video. This other commenter says that this is a “dead giveaway” that someone is a shill or a person with insincere motives.

    Here is an excerpt from page 279 of David Griffin’s 2007 book, “Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Below the line to the end of this comment is Griffin.
    _____________________________________________

    One attempt is to argue that the released pictures show nothing except blurs because the security cameras were set at a slow rate (one frame per second), and that this is “almost always” done in order to conserve storage space. “As a result,” our [PM] authors conclude, “it is unlikely that the recording system of any nearby security camera would be set at a rate high enough to capture the speeding plane with decent resolution.”

    Although that might be true, the claim that it is true is speculation. John McCain in the Foreword told us that “Popular Mechanics stands for an old-fashioned approach to facts. It relies on…evidence…and rejects speculation.” So why do PM’s authors here rely on speculation instead of demanding to see the empirical evidence?

    This evidence, moreover, is much greater than they let on. Although they speak of “other videos, reportedly seized by the FBI from businesses near the Pentagon,” they surely know that the Department of Justice has admitted to the existence of no less than 85 of these. Is it really likely that not a single one of the still unreleased videos has a clear image of the strike on the Pentagon? CNN’s Jamie McIntyre has suggested otherwise, In May of 2006, he said that “there are at least 80 other tapes that the government is holding onto. We’re told that they don’t really show much, but sources have told us that at least one of the tapes from a security camera at a nearby hotel may have captured the plane in the air.”

    Why does PM, with its “old-fashioned approach to facts,” not join the chorus of voices demanding that all these videos be released, so that we can see for ourselves what they do and do not show, rather than offering a speculative explanation as to why seeing the videos would probably not be helpful?

    1. Mr Syed,

      Take note of this from Taylor today:

      “You clearly don’t understand that you can just make up anything you want, but that still doesn’t make it true.”~Adam Taylor
      . . . . . . . .
      My answer here is:

      Hahahaha… what jejune nonsense. Of course I understand that elementary concept.
      Here is a guy that cannot grasp the simple concept of trajectory, vector, and damage path; laying this on me. Everything this duped novice says is ‘making things up’ that do not address the issue of Trajectory/Damage Path.

      I recall the arguments I had with Frank Legge on simple logic like this. A tenured “professor” he is. But utterly biased in his assumptions. Of course Legge is one of the people cited by Taylor – so it runs in the mindset. Legge rejected the argument to do with the ‘prime sense of place vs perception of split second events’, just like Taylor does. To accept the obvious logic of my argument crushes their entire construct. Legge couldn’t grasp the central issue of Trajectory either, and this is why both diddle around with the witness testimony proving NOC, denying the NOC significance by denying the impossibility of seeing the impact from the NOC.

      They refuse to take one step beyond their biases because it will strip them of their complete construction of the event. So the rhetorical gyre spins on and on.

      Sheeeeeeeeeeeeze!
      \\][//

    2. One last thing from today’s round at Taylors Blog:

      His comment plus my comment still in moderation:
      . . . . . . . . .
      ” It’s extremely telling that you take their word for it when they say they saw the plane north of the citgo, but not when they say they saw it hit the building.”~Taylor

      It is extremely telling that you do not understand the ‘solid sense of place’ compared to visual perception of fast moving quick events. Again: ‘Extrapolated interpretation of extremely fast motion in visual perception is a known fact of human consciousness’, this is in no way supposition it is a physical fact at extreme speeds object will appear as indistinct blurs, and the natural neural ability to extrapolate will tend to try to make sense of such. This is not something that you aren’t experienced in as well, whether you recognized what was going on mentally or not.

      You can be at a fairly familiar location and have a complete sense of place. However if an event takes place at extreme speed, and you catch a glimpse of this event, you are not going to be anywhere near as certain of what you just saw compared to the certainty of where you are when you saw it.
      Now if you are going to argue with this you are being willfully obtuse.
      . . . . . .
      As to the Double Tree footage:
      Same phenomena as above; ‘controlled POV’.

      Consider that the hotel footage did not show a plane approach the Pentagon either.
      From the POV of that camera the plane would have reached the smoke screen made by the explosion at a fraction of a second after the explosion took place. The plane lifting just over the height of the roof-line of the Pentagon would have taken place within the smoke screen, thus the flyover was hidden by the smoke screen. Simple reasonable explanation.

      The main problem you have is in accepting the witnesses of the NOC, while dismissing the physics of trajectory and vector. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the plane to have cause the damage in the vector path from entry to exit.

      You say “talk to the witnesses” myself. I don’t have to, their testimony is in the record. Whether they are willing or unwilling to grasp the significance to the NOC approach or not is insignificant, just as your unwillingness to grasp the significance is.
      Your only choice is then to dismiss these witnesses in toto, because the NOC path cannot have caused the known physical damage to the building.

      Now more to visual perception and sense of place. Sean Boger was the witness in the helipad tower. His testimony clearly claims he saw the plane come overt he middle of the Navy Annex, over the north side of the Citgo and directly towards him. This is all solid ‘sense of place’ testimony. As it dawned on Boger that the plane indeed was heading right towards him, split seconds became panic moments. The cringe response will cause anyone in that situation to duck. That he hit the deck a split second before the explosion is clear. He heard and felt the explosion and assumed the plane must have hit the building. But again – it could NOT have; Trajectory – damage path proves it could not have hit the building by the NOC approach.

      Hemphill, same thing, he insists over and again that the plane went over the top of him and continued over the Citgo station. He thinks he saw it hit the Pentagon at the instant of the explosion – again, IMPOSSIBLE because of the physical damage path.

      So the things I have said about perception of fast moving events and extrapolation, whether actually visual or in “instant replay” to make sense of what one just saw, is not simple supposition on my part.
      \\][//

  41. More from Taylor at his blog, plus my answer still in moderation:

    “You have no evidence for any of that. At least I’m trying to work with what we actually have, not blind speculation.”~Taylor

    I dispute both aspects of this assertion you have made here.

    First of all your claim of ” trying to work with what we actually have”. This is not so, as has been explained repeatedly; because what we have is verified NOC, and the issue of trajectory – that belies the damage path of the physical evidence.

    My evidence of the fact of the item discussed that was supposedly “found” in the grass of the Pentagon lawn is not the explanation of how it was likely produced, as I said in my closing lines to that comment:

    -’This point standing alone cannot be made the overall point however, as the case of a Jet Crash at the Pentagon is already proven false beyond a reasonable doubt as surely as the WTC complex was destroyed by explosive demolition. Explosive demolition is the mechanism in both cases, WTC and the Pentagon.’

    Please pay closer attention to the whole of what I am saying here, because the bottom line is and will continue to be Trajectory and NOC = no plane crash.

    You must successfully dispute NOC to come up with a plane crash. This is an impossible task as it is already proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    \\][//

  42. Adam says (quoting DRG)

    One attempt is to argue that the released pictures show nothing except blurs because the security cameras were set at a slow rate (one frame per second), and that this is “almost always” done in order to conserve storage space. “As a result,” our [PM] authors conclude, “it is unlikely that the recording system of any nearby security camera would be set at a rate high enough to capture the speeding plane with decent resolution.”

    It would be useful to hunt out other security cam footage of the type allegedly used (slow frame rate). GLs make out that this is “normal”. So what purpose do they serve?

    Example. We can’t even make out any details of the building. Particularly the heliport in the gatecam footage. Nor do we see the two firefighters who reportedly ran from the heliport area to “the north of the lawn” (Skipper and Wallace). We do see a DPS car pass the camera but we can’t see the reg number on it.

    What is the point of having these cameras if they are so CRAP? What are they supposedly recording?

    Same goes for the Citgo footage. You can’t make anything out. Not even the reg numbers. Or faces. What is the point of these cameras if, as we are being told, they are basically low res, blurry messes. You could go to Citgo, steal fuel or rob the place and get away no problem because the cameras are so CRAP. And the Doubletree footage. Blurred, jumping back and forth and should I say, CRAP.

    I have an idea, why not “save on storage space” altogether and use nothing?

    Recap. All Pentagon security cameras were off and security was staring at black screens while grainy footage as if recorded through a piss filled old fashioned Coke bottle were grinding away.

    Why did they steal the Citgo camera? Or the Sheraton camera? Because one showed the aircraft NOC and the other showed it going over the Annex.

    LINKS

    The “Penny Elgas debris” did not come from a 757

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18356&view=findpost&p=10811356

    The impossible debris path:

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807825

    The irrelevant jet fuel argument

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24126

    Jeff Hill video debunk

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22741

    Cameras not mentioned in the Maguire Report

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24095

    The anti NOC clique exposed:

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24058

    Useful links (debunking Legge/Stutt/Hoffman/Ashley/Hill/911 sequestered calls/stolen Citgo camera):

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24062

    Witness pool broken down

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24042

  43. Pay particular attention to the 1 frame per second rate CCTV

    Yes, they are “saving storage” but the images are relatively clear. The FBI has used the lowest resolution VHS video transfer. I’m sure that the technology isn’t much different from 13 years ago.

    1. OSS,

      What is being explained here is a good example of what I am speaking to as far as “Extrapolation” – as we see in the examples shown in the videos you just posted, from 30 FPS to 7.5 FPS the human eye perceives the movement as fairly smooth and natural – any lower frame rate is “choppy”.

      None of these examples are true smooth representations of real motion as seen in nature.

      Now, if we are to witness an event in extreme fast motion; like a bird flying in front of us a foot away from our face – we could not tell what the motion is until watching it as it moves farther from us – when we finally can see the clear shape and movements of a flying bird.

      A fast ball thrown unexpectedly at one from a short distance will likely hit an untrained pedestrian, just like a rock will – because most peoples perception is not that acute.

      Of course this all gets back to the eyewitness testimonies from the Pentagon event. And I haven’t remarked on your real reason for posting the CCTV videos.

      I would posit that the critical surveillance CCTVs in place at the Pentagon were of a higher frame rate than the ‘Gate Cams’ the videos we’ve seen are from. Those cams are for traffic purposes, not high security purposes of the actual building security. And also, it is absurd that these cameras were not on and running on the morning of 9/11 in particular. Two reasons, the expectation of a visit by Bush, and the heightened alert do to the WTC events.

      “Incompetence” is plausible deniability, and modified limited hangout.
      \\][//

      1. Willy, yeah, I get what you’re saying. Eyesight is an intricate and remarkable miracle of nature but the mind is always several, if not a dozen steps behind by comparison.
        The mind can only take in so much information, discards what it sees as irrelevant or non essential, and will translate the visual signals it has received in a way that makes sense in that instant. Particularly in highly adrenalized situations. Cognitive dissonance.

        The mind will adapt perception in a way that it feels comfortable with. Or with what makes sense. Now imagine the Pentagon scenario. How surreal must that experience have been for those people within the Pentagon basin? A low flying, high speed aircraft comes into “view” followed by an enormous fireball and explosion. How much actual time did these people have to actually assimilate what had happened?

        Loud, low plane > big explosion = impact

        [Sidenote: witness Maria de la Cerda is an interesting case in that she said that “in [her] mind’s eye, the aircraft hit on top….hit on the other side of the building” – she was watching from Arlington Cemetery – I personally think that she backed off from telling what she saw]

        In looking through the witness testimony I found 34 (most of whom were in the immediate vicinity and cited as “impact witnesses”) who admitted that they had ducked, flinched or even dove to the ground (or were knocked out!) yet went on to claim to have seen details after they had reacted.

        More detail here (and a partial quote – more of a “thinking out loud moment”):

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

        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.

        More details on the alleged views here (Route 27 POVs):

        http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22690

        1. I tell ya OSS with the addition of this ‘Route 27 POVs’ on top of all the rest of your Pentagon info … it has to be the most detailed exposition on this topic I have seen.

          Anyone who wants to understand what really happened at the Pentagon needs to reboot, start over from scratch and dig the OSS compilation.
          Yea, I give much credit to CIT, the Pilots… but for the current ongoing real deal OSS is THE MAN.
          \\][//

  44. Some people seem to claim that these witnesses are idiots that do not know exactly where they were, nor what the familiar landmarks in their area are, and where the plane flew in relation to such landmarks and their own position — BUT they can be trusted to have seen the impact.

    I find this proposition remarkably absurd, and most certainly liable to ridicule.

    The significance of what the trajectory of the aircraft actually was did not occur to ANY of the witnesses or reporters at the time of the event at the Pentagon. That significance would only come to light later when the damage path within the building was revealed.

    This is why the witnesses who were in a position to tell, and saw the plane fly north of Citgo, and over the Naval Annex did not grasp what they were revealing in their testimony. This is why, regardless of how convinced they were that they saw an impact, it is in conflict with the majority of their testimony.

    So their testimony has a glaring and critical self-contradiction. One which obviously causes cognitive dissonance to these witnesses, so convinced that they actually saw an impact, and yet proving that the plane could not have caused the damage as discovered.
    Now their conundrum has become ours – most of all for those who try to claim that these witnesses actually saw an impact; they are suffering the same cognitive dissonance as the witnesses themselves.

    And this problem has become ours who grasp this as well, because of the difficulty in convincing true believers that they are wrong.

    \\][//

    1. Some people seem to claim that these witnesses are idiots that do not know exactly where they were, nor what the familiar landmarks in their area are, and where the plane flew in relation to such landmarks and their own position — BUT they can be trusted to have seen the impact.

      I find this proposition remarkably absurd, and most certainly liable to ridicule.

      Me too Willy, me too. I can’t for the life in me imagine why anyone who is genuinely on the side of truth would subscribe to such a silly argument.

  45. Willy

    Ask Taylor what exactly he believes was an inside job about the Pentagon. Hanjur? Passengers? Mobile phones? NORAD? Was it Flight 77?

    Did he think there was enough evidence presented to identify “Flight UA175”? “Flight AA11”?

    Is he aware that the people he uses as “sources” have been involved in a smearing campaign of Gage, Chandler and DRG?

    1. Hi OSS,

      Here is a plate of waffles from “kid genius” June 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM

      –“Am I then to take it that you believe these planes were flown by boxcutter wielding “terrorists” and that Hanjor was piloting that plane you believe hit the Pentagon?”~Quoting my question to him…
      . . . . . . . .
      “Here’s what I believe. Yes, I do believe real terrorists were on the aircraft hijacked on 9/11. Furthermore, I believe they really did believe they were carrying out a terrorist plot. HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean they alone carried out the attacks. It just means that the true conspirators allowed the hijackers to carry out their plot, but then took control of the situation (hijacked the hijackers in a sense), and enhanced the results. If criminal forces within the US government allowed real foreign terrorists to carry out this attack, but themselves enhanced the results, then 9/11 is still an inside job.

      My position, and the one generally held by most others at the 911debunkers blog, is summarized here:

      http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/12/alleged-911-plotters-offer-to-confess.html
      . . . . . . . . . .
      But he goes on further and you could read what that is at his blog.

      Frankly it has become a bit of a bore playing patty-cake with this woowanker, as it takes a day between each post – de-moderation – and reply. I find him unfocused and distracted, and not up to the challenge of defending his hit piece on Craig and Truth and Shadows. He is playing to the ignorant and misinformed. Like some circus guy once said, “there’s a sucker born every minute”. Taylor needs to fade back into the oblivion he just came from, as far as I’m concerned.
      \\][//

  46. Hey folks,

    I know that back in ancient times such as 2008, a particular eyewitness’ testimony was discussed at the Loose Change, Pilots and CIT forums; a bit of Googling also reminds us that Matt Sullivan brought up this guy at the 2013 “Advancing the Truth” event at the Sheraton hotel in Arlington. The man is only known as “Mr Gurma.” We don’t have a first name, nor a definitive spelling for the surname.

    While he most definitely can not be counted as a “flyover witness,” his words are nonetheless interesting. His impression was that the plane missed the Pentagon and that it was a “flyby.”

    MG: I saw a big explosion, a ball of fire. My windows rattled and I looked out. There was a big ball of fire and there was smoke coming out. But [background unintelligible comment] I am looking at it right now. It missed the navy annex. It missed the pentagon. It like missed so many the high rise buildings. It head past the parking lot. Oh, there’s a cemetery behind the navy annex. I’m lookin at smoke right now.

    SH: (interrupting) Mr. Gurma, did? Mr. Gurma did you actually see a plane?

    MG: I did[n’t?] see a plane. I, I heard the explosion, I thought it was a fly by, cause I live next to the airport. [he says later that he lives 2 miles from the pentagon]

    [1]

    On the one hand, he certainly wouldn’t have seen the approach of the plane, because it was the rattling of his windows from the explosion that made him look out. Most frustratingly, I can’t make out whether he says he “did” or “didn’t” see a plane. (Ranke said the same thing in 2008 at the Loose Change link I provide below.) It sounds like he looked out the window soon enough, though, because he saw the ball of fire. If he lives “next to the airport,” it would make sense if, by road, he lives 2 miles from the Pentagon; likely, roughly one mile as the crow flies, which is direct distance between the airport and the Pentagon. So he could well have been in a position from his window to see a plane flying away, and indeed, he also says the plane headed past the parking lot; which would be consistent with someone who “did” see a plane. This would certainly corroborate Roosevelt Roberts’ account of a low flying plane over the light poles in the parking lot, just after the explosion.

    Certainly, his “impression” was that the plane did NOT crash at the Pentagon.

    [1]Transcript copied from http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/931122/1/

    Some other links where this has been discussed yester-decade:

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=943
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15692

    1. Yo Adam,

      Yea, Mr Gurma’s accent makes it really hard to tell. Those goofball MSM folks surely couldn’t tell either and that they left it ambiguous seems another game wank left that way on purpose. If they don’t have the time to get it absolutely straight and clear they should get the fluggie out of the business.

      But for some reason he says, it missed the Annex and the Pentagon and flew out over the parking lot. Doesn’t that indicate to you that he saw the plane fly away from the Pentagon? Yea I know it does. Me too.

      A real shame that this wasn’t cleared up on the spot then and there.

      \\][//

      1. Yes, that interviewer really grilled him about the details, didn’t she?

        I would have been like, “I’m sorry, could you confirm that answer one more time? You DID or DID NOT see a plane?”

        Yes, speaking of “missing” the Annex and Pentagon and mentioning the parking lot, and feeling that it was a flyby, does indeed strongly point toward what we’ve known all along.

        It does seem that he was right near a window when he felt his building rattle, which prompted him to look out the window; the most he’d have had to do is turn his body, which would have happened within a fraction of a second. He had an immediate enough view to see the fireball itself, not just the smoke afterwards. So it does seem that he’d quite likely be in a good position to see the plane flying away, and indeed, that’s what his testimony seems to point towards.

        Then there is also the case of Dewitt Roseborough, who since his initial interview with the damning material I’m sure he wishes he could take back, has made his “policy” not to talk about what he saw on 9/11.

        http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449

        I tried to contact him on Facebook myself. I know he saw my message but he didn’t respond. Of course.

        1. Wow Adam,

          That account by Dewitt Roseborough is amazing!
          He was in the perfect spot to see the flyover plane, and did. Now he realizes what it really means and is obviously too scared to shit to talk about it.

          You gotta wonder how many more saw and know it’s bad jive if they come forward with the info.

          \\][//

          1. I honestly wish CIT had included both Roseborough and Mr. Gurma in NSA. I understand they only wanted to present the hardest evidence, which is why they focused intensely on Roosevelt Roberts. But they did include the 2nd hand testimony reported by Erik Diehle, the testimony about “a bomb hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going.” I think if Diehle was included, Gurma and Roseborough should have been too; it would have made the cumulative case even stronger.

            It was only by chance, while doing some random Googling yesterday, that I found out about Gurma.

            Yes, Willy, I wonder how many people did see what happened and are scared to come forward. Also, don’t forget that the 911 calls from witnesses have not been made public, unlike the NYC 911 calls.

            Finally, the idea that the MSM would have actually reported the flyover witnesses and even declare that these witnesses contradict what the government is telling us, is absurd.

        2. Of all the ambiguity in Mr Gurman’s testimony (he said that he “did see the plane” IMO – which one, I can’t 100% say), what sticks out is him mentioning the “parking lot”. But he tags the Navy Annex and Arlington Cemetery on at the end of the sentence. Poor guy was talking just minutes after the event so his nerves were shot. And the MSM whores did no follow up.

          Incidentally, if he is describing the C130, he corroborates the ANC witnesses in that it approached from the northwest, travelling south and looping round (as per the Tribby video)

          C130 deception (ANC witnesses discussed towards the end of the link)

          http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22729

          LINKS

          Witness reactions

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

          Route 27 POVs

          http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22690

          The “Penny Elgas debris” did not come from a 757

          http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18356&view=findpost&p=10811356

          The impossible debris path:

          http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807825

          The irrelevant jet fuel argument

          https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24126

          Jeff Hill video debunk

          http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22741

          Cameras not mentioned in the Maguire Report

          https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24095

          The anti NOC clique exposed:

          https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24058

          Useful links (debunking Legge/Stutt/Hoffman/Ashley/Hill/911 sequestered calls/stolen Citgo camera):

          https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24062

          Witness pool broken down

          https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24042

          1. OSS,

            Yes, the way he tacks on the Cemetery at the end is kind of weird, but does make sense when you think about how much he must have been flipping out, and how his thoughts must have been racing.

            I think it also does sound more like “did” see the plane; but it could be really lazy pronunciation, with the “n’t” getting swallowed by the syllables surrounding it. The other parts of his testimony, however, more support “did.”

            I think he specified that his name was “Gurma,” not “Gurman,” after the reporter initially asked, and put the ‘n’ at the end. He responded without the ‘n,’ and then she echoed it the way he said it.

  47. Just the tired fact of the DATE being wrong on ‘gatecam’ presented as STATES evidence indicates degree of insult or contempt designers of this conspiracy have.
    CIT must have really stuck a fire under their arse. To think that up until then, there had been no dissonance to SOC at all. Not until CIT went in and did actual POLICE work.
    It is truly an exasperation to realize the Pentagon Police NOC eyewitness -when asked- “did you read the final report?” both replied “No”. Trained Police, witnessing the most egregious terrorist attack in the history of USA.con, never had the individual interest to access and READ the official report. That probably saved their evidence from an obvious result should they had, but doesn’t detract from the argument If they HAD that investigative interest in the first place, and that was default overall in individual police, the 911 deception would have been far harder to orchestrate and maintain.
    If the COPS aint asking, msm won’t is my point.

  48. I have to wonder sometimes if these people who insist a plane hit the Pentagon have ever seen a live performance of a master stage magician.
    I used to go to Las Vegas to see such shows because they have some of the best there are to see. And I don’t mean the big fancy headliners that everyone has seen on TV. Not the laser show ‘rock’n’roll’ extravaganzas but some real amazing stage craft.

    I recall leaving one of these shows and a family was walking just ahead of me. They had a boy, probably 11 or 12 years old who was just raving about seeing the magician cut that woman in half, and then actually put her back together “with no blood or nothing’!” … Lol
    His mom was saying, “but honey, that wasn’t real, it was just a trick”. The kid wasn’t having any of it saying, “I saw it with my own eyes mom, you did too!”

    But some people never learn, even adults, that the eye can be fooled. And some people don’t ever come to realize, it was just a trick. And some never realize that there’s no business like bullshit. And suckers are STILL being born every minute.
    \\][//

  49. I went to a magician show in a country hall when I was 10. One guy shot another in the face with a .22 rifle from across the stage and the magician caught the bullet in his TEETH. woah!
    sure stuck in my mind!
    -someone lazily said we shouldn’t try it at home but it took a couple of rabbits later to figure it out.
    To do with this; As a young man, before becoming WTC Janitor, Willie Rodriguez worked under the stage name “Roudy” as an assistant to magician James Randi. He sais the experience allows him to understand just how WTC was done.

    1. “Willie Rodriguez worked under the stage name “Roudy” as an assistant to magician James Randi.”~Fremo

      Wow, now isn’t that a weird one??? Especially as Randi’s forums are dedicated to debunking the magic act of 9/11.
      I remember wondering for some time if James Randi might have been a ‘consultant’ on how to stage an event like 9/11. Wouldn’t that just figure?
      Lol
      \\][//


  50. “Bomb Goes Off At Pentago…” The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.

  51. The website this is from is called ‘Scientific Method 9/11’, however this is a misrepresentation; ‘Rhetorical Method 9/11’ would be a more accurate name for this site.

    “While the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) members have endeavored to uncover the truth about 9/11 in order to bring the perpetrators to justice, their methods and arguments are inferior and inadequate for the task. Their attempts to lead a witness and even distort the witness testimony have been well documented, as in the case of Craig Ranke’s interview of Albert Hemphill. This behavior not only lacks scientific integrity, it is unethical by any standards. However, CIT’s treatment (see video – times quoted below relate to the video referenced here) of the taxi driver, Lloyde England, goes well beyond a lack of ethics to the libelous persecution of an inoffensive man.”~John D. Wyndham (Appendix C)

    http://www.scientificmethod911.org/docs/Eyewitnesses_DebrisFlow_FandE_Apr12_2013.pdf

    \\][//

    1. Having read the Wyndham, Legge papers {and of course debated Legge via email}, I have to note that in none of these published works do the directly address the core issue we attend to here: The trajectory issue of a north of Citgo plane approach as incompatible with the damage path in the Pentagon.

      As early as the time we were communicating by email – before his paper:
      “The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus,” June, 2012, was published {we were discussing this very paper as our conversation went on} — nowhere in this or any subsequent papers is the issue mentioned.
      I have to conclude that this issue is purposely avoided by this click [Legge et al], because this was my central point during our email exchange – and the point that he hand-waved then as well.

      So far, from that time [and earlier] up until even now, there has been no honest rebuttal, or mention of what is the central question of NOC.
      As we have noted with Adam Taylor, a student of the Legge clique; he will not address the issue, or even acknowledge it consciously.

      This is a blind-spot for our detractors at the very least … and agitprop at the worst.
      \\][//

  52. Fremo

    Weird shit about Rodriguez and James “protect the kiddie abusers” Randi.

    As for the video, the “bomb at the Pentagon” statement was made by or to journalists being evacuated from the White House lawn at @09:40

    It’s at 5:50mins into this video but worth watching in full for context:

    What confuses me is that if journalists were being evacuated from the lawn just after 09:40, and AP puts the evacuation of all of the White House at 09:45, they would hardly let a separate bunch of journalists back on to another section of the White House grounds to interview Goss.

    If you look towards the end of that video, during this evacuation, there’s a screengrab of the ABC footage showing the time to be 09:41 where an aircraft can be seen which is not (according to the official story) the E4B, flying over the White House. RADES had it still on the runway at that time. Which brings us full circle to Peter Jennings’ live announcement at 09:41 of “an aircraft circling the White House” (reports of which must have came ro him minutes earlier).

    1. Yes OSS,

      Wyndham accuses CIT: “Their attempts to lead a witness and even distort the witness testimony have been well documented, as in the case of Craig Ranke’s interview of Albert Hemphill.”

      But when the record is set straight it is Adam Larson and Jeff Hill who are the very obvious prevaricators on this issue – proven by comparison of Hemphill’s actual testimony vs the twisting of it by Larson and Hill. All of this now in the public record.

      I think that proposing that the Legge clique is agitprop is very rational at this stage of the game. As I said earlier after my email debate with him:
      Frank Legge is el Topo {the Mole}
      \\][//

    1. Bizarre indeed OSS,

      One notes right off the bat, that even with this fudged trajectory, the “plane” still would not achieve the damage path.

      The Legge clique is grasping at straws. They are KO’d and twitching.
      \\][//

  53. I call on Adam Taylor to make a public apology for his baseless and spurious hit piece on Craig McKee and Truth and Shadows.
    \\][//

  54. Just wondering, who all has a PDF file: PentWitnesses 12041 [1]. xls?

    This is the spreadsheet that Legge used in his Pentagon paper;
    “The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus,” June, 2012

    He sent it to me by email, I have it saved to file. But I have no URL for it.
    Does anyone have a URL for this item?

    Thanks, \\][//

    1. Man, don’t tell me he’s linking to Mark Roberts’ disinfo? I tore that crap apart at JREF until they started “moderating” my posts. I’d break his list down, they’d throw shit around the cage, the mods would stall my posts. Then when I had to repeat the debunk after pages and pages of more disinfo and insults, the mods would accuse me of spamming and leave the shit piled up on top of valid information.

      That’s been well debunked, thrown around the room, bent over a barrel and debunked some more.

      “104 witnesses to an impact”

      LIE

      There’s even a section that lists “8 pilots among the witnesses”..,ummm…Sean Boger, William Lagasse, Terry Morin are among those. On the one hand, they are cited as viable witnesses because of their background, the next they are portrayed as dumbasses who don’t know left from right and “directly over me” from “way over yonder”.

      If you have any questions about the claims give me a shout Willy.

      1. Yea OSS,

        Legge was using this Mark Roberts creation for his witness testimony analysis during the writing of the article in question.
        He wouldn’t say who compiled the list however. I found out later, it may have been from you when we were going over the lumpinchunk from Legge on one of the threads.

        Thank you Mr Once, I figured you would be the one to offer a find. Lol
        \\][//

        1. For those who don’t know, Mark Roberts is the guy that produced those videos “comparing real demolitions” to WTC 7. He would boost the sound on the “real demolitions” and then compare those with silent videos of WTC 7, and make spurious commentary through these disinformation presentations.

          Mark Roberts a.k.a ‘Gravy” on JREF is really just a New York tour guide. He as admitted that he has “no specific expertise” in 9-11 matters but became interested in 2006 when he heard some of the “conspiracy theories” and found them “suspect.”

          Of course this is the reason Frank Legge didn’t want anyone to know where the Pentagon witness spreadsheet that he was using came from. Because almost everyone in 9/11 research knows that Roberts is an infamous “debunker” and shill for the official story.

          \\][//

      2. “Morin was clearly a straight south side witness though claimed as north side.”~PentWitnesses spreadsheet

        Just one instance to point out how spurious the list itself is.
        As we all know Morin was in a walkway in the Navy Annex and testified that plane went right over him. How it can be claimed that he is a “south side witness” in this doc is truly amazing as a flat out lie.

        Sean Boger as per PentWitnesses spreadsheet:
        “I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building.” “It exploded. I could actually hear the metal going through the building”.
        The whole first portion of his testimony describing the approach over the Navy Annex and just north of Citgo is missing entirely from the doc.

        So yea, OSS it is easy to determine when the whole of the testimony is accounted for, how this document is a spin-jive agitprop load of bullshit.
        \\][//

        1. Willy re Morin

          GLs are always ambiguous as to what a “south side witness” actually is. They stray right off the “evidence” they claim to defend.

          Their multiple definitions are

          1. If the aircraft flew down Columbia Pike, it’s “SOC”
          2. If it flew just south of Citgo, it’s “SOC”

          This is wordplay.

          If they claim that it flew down Columbia Pike (Paik, Morin, Zakhem according to them), or just south of Citgo, it would have to perform a 72° right bank followed by the same hard left bank, then level out before it reached the lightpoles.

          There is no left bank whatsoever recorded on the alleged FDR in the “last” 20 odd seconds of flight.

          Also re Morin (my personal speculation)

          He had no physical view of the area below, but just supposing we accept that he did, and that the Navy Annex blocked any view of the NOC trajectory (and ignoring Morin’s insinuation through statements he made that it actually was out of his view temporarily), he also had no view of the official (directional damage) path from before lightpole 1. He originally said that he saw the tail tilt to the right, saw a flash and then saw the aircraft cross the lawn.

          1. He can’t see lightpole 1 which he deduced had caused the flash.

          2. The aircraft had to have levelled out and banked to the left to correspond with the facade damage.

          3. He had no view at all beyond lightpole 1, that is, the lawn area.

          4. He couldn’t physically see the tail of the (official) aircraft from his POV as the aircraft reached Route 27 (there’s photographic proof that only the top floor of the south side of the. Pentagon is visible from that area (and this image was foreshortened)

          If he didn’t embellish his testimony and was actually describing what he saw, he’s describing a flyover on the southwest corner of the building.

          Remember Maria de la Cerda who claimed to be watching from Arlington Cemetery, on the other side of the Annex from Morin, said that it appeared to hit “the other side”/”on top” of the building. The southwest corner.

          Roosevelt Roberts claimed to see it in south parking banking towards the mall

          Dave Statter interviewed witnesses who claimed that it appeared to “glance” the building. That it tried “to avert going in”.

          There’s more but I’ve waffled on enough.

  55. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t11639.html

    Mike Walters a NOC witness with a shifting story line. No doubt his first interview describes NOC.

    A man with a waffle house in his brain.

    It is my opinion that Walters made his first remarks on camera, and was subsequently given an interview with “God” ala the film ‘NETWORK’.
    He then “saw the light” … and his only path to continued employment, and an “offer he couldn’t refuse” as it were.
    \\][//

  56. Willy re Walters

    His alleged POV vs his stories

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22690&view=findpost&p=10812477

    He was allegedly in area A of the road – keep in mind how close the official aircraft (blue line) is to his POV:

    And the estimated POV itself (remembering that this image was taken 1 metre above a car on a quiet day):

    Is he describing a very low aircraft almost parallel to his position, in a very shallow bank (2° at this point according to Stutt)? Or is he describing an aircraft at a relatively higher altitude in a steeper bank appearing off in the distance and then straightening up?

    If CIT had been as “dishonest” as Wyndham falsely claimed, they’d have lumped him in with the NOC witnesses that they interviewed to get the numbers up. Is he describing the NOC trajectory? Yes. Is he an honest person? No.

    Whether intentional or not, he stepped forward and shilled the official story. As you say, a typical ambitious MSM figure who’d sell their soul for “the man upstairs”.

    1. How many people here followed the OJ Simpson trial?

      How many know why he was acquitted?

      The first forensic team at the crime scene in the house took photos of the entire area, including clear pictures of the white carpeted stairway leading up stairs.

      The shots of this stairway were pristine, there was no blood on the stairs.

      The second team of officers took another set of photos from the crime scene, including the white carpeted stairs that clearly showed a trail of blood stains. This blood was analyzed and showed to be OJ Simpsons blood; not the blood of any of the victims. However it was claimed that Simpson had cut his own hand in his frantic attack on his victims.

      It later turned out that the officers in the second team had access to a sample of Simpson’s blood that had been taken earlier for some reason I do not recall. The point was, that it was shown that this sample was checked out and no longer in storage by the police department.
      Logic then tells us that the officers in the second unit had to have used this sample to stage the blood stains on the white carpet that was spotless in the first forensic photos.

      Why would these officers take such a chance, and be found to have decimated a crime scene? This is where the story becomes quite complex, and I won’t delve into it here. Suffice it to say that such tampering and planting of evidence is common enough to make the case that it is not unheard of – and even seems to be common practice in police work – but even more common practice by intelligence services, in fact being a MO with many historical proofs.

      The main point here is that in a psyop as we are dealing with in the 9/11 case, the idea that an elaborate staging of fake evidence is not out of the question and in fact should be suspected by any sophisticated researcher.

      Note the photo’s of the amount of “evidence” simply being quickly gathered by a group of men in white shirts and ties. No tagging, no careful photography of the items being collected, just a ‘sweep’ clearing off all of this “evidence” as quickly as possible. This is obviously in disregard of any standard crime scene procedures that can be cited. And this was done in full daylight in front of reporters and other cameramen.

      What might have been going on in the interior of the Pentagon? What sort of ‘staging’ could have been in the process while controlled by the intelligence agencies? The answer is – anything needed to make it appear an aircraft had caused the damage.

      We have been through the lack of proper procedure analysis too many times to keep reiterating it. No proper chains of possession for ANYTHING. Black boxes [3] said to be found at various locations. Check in of such black boxes BEFORE they were found… etc etc.

      At this point, practically 13 years later, the authorities could “come clean” and release “EVERYTHING” including clear videos of the plane hitting the building – but I for one wouldn’t buy any of it. Why? Because the plane that supposedly did this damage and left its entrails in the Pentagon has been proven to flown in by NOC. And that damage path is IMPOSSIBLE to have been caused from that trajectory.

      So it’s to late for a dirty government to “come clean” – it could only be another dirty trick on top of too many. They have fouled their own nest, and need to be eradicated.
      \\][//

  57. Willy,

    I’m not even convinced Mark Roberts was a tour guide. I think he was a govt spook, whose assignment, in the early days prior to the advent of the professional 9/11 organizations, was to act the part of the “ordinary New Yorker.” The purpose: “These 9/11 conspiracy theories are so stupid that anybody with half a brain, and a few hours of time, can easily debunk this crap. See look at me, I’m not an architect or engineer, I’m just a tour guide, and even I can refute all of the logical fallacies required to believe in this controlled demolition hooey!” But at the same time, while claiming that you didn’t need specific expertise to refute 9/11 truth, he was always quick to point out in those early years that no experts supported the truthers’ claims. This, obviously, was a talking point that would have a very limited shelf life.

    “Mark Roberts” (if that’s even his real name and not his CIA alias) basically withered away into the shadows for good after about 2009 or so, or whenever it was that he debated Gage on Hardfire and got his ass handed to him by Richard. At that point, his act had become totally transparent to all but the most fervent JREF groupies; it was the height of comedy that a “tour guide” was taking on a professional architect on the subject. Roberts’ main schtick had been to show up at Ground Zero every Saturday, and intimidate “lay” truthers with the talking point that no experts supported the movement’s claims. There are still videos on YT, I’m sure, of him intimidating a sign-bearing activist: “Name a structural engineer who agrees with you!” “Name one fact that the NIST report got wrong!” And so forth.

    Of course, if the “tour guide” thing were all an act, and I think it was, you can’t pick a better alias to hide behind than “Mark Roberts” – it’s basically in the “John Smith” category. I don’t believe he ever provided any photos of himself giving a tour. I also remember another thing: he asked people to email him at nyctours (at) gmail.com. A professional tour guide wouldn’t have a Gmail account, I don’t think. The domain would be an official tour agency within NYC. For example, “mroberts (at) nytours.us” or something like that.

    Quite simply, when the A/E, Pilots, Firefighters, etc. groups started growing in numbers, “Mark Roberts'” jig was up, and he was retired from assignment, or reassigned. He might still be an online shill under another alias.

    1. Well Mr Syed,

      That’s as good a theory as any for “Mark Roberts” — as any number of these shill barkers with their hot gas balloons. The “I’m just little ol’me” meme would have a short shelf life as you say, and apparently he has skipped out of Dodge.

      I checked out a JREF page where OSS was asking about the ‘Witness List’ Roberts compiled. And all the usual suspects were oinking their standard ululations – but “Mark ‘Gravy’ Roberts” never did pop up…at least as far as the pages that weren’t sent to the ozone by the luck of aunt Mert.

      Did he ever show up there OSS?
      \\][//

  58. Willy Whitten – June 19, 2014 at 7:52 PM
    I call on Adam Taylor to make a public apology for his baseless and spurious hit piece on Craig McKee and Truth and Shadows.
    \\][//

    Replies

    Adam Taylor – June 20, 2014 at 2:51 PM
    “Yeah, good luck with that. I don’t have much incentive to apologize to nutcases.”

    http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/2014/06/contra-craig-mckee-boeing-757-did.html
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    And that folks, is just about a strong as Adam Taylor’s argument is. Lol
    \\][//

      1. As an answer to my comment it seems that you and all of us are “nutcases” in this juvenile’s opinion.

        He never did have any rational comebacks for any of the critiques he was offered. Shockingly jejune when you read through the comments section.
        \\][//

      2. By the way, “nut cases” is plural. If Taylor tries to wiggle out of this by coming back with the excuse he only meant me, this very construction put in the plural belies that excuse.
        \\][//

      1. I just posted this there:

        ‘Well boy, now you are going to have to live with this.

        Good luck with that…Lol’
        . . . . . . . . . .
        We’ll see if he un-moderates that, and has something else smartassed to say.

        IF he has any brains he would take the article down.

        Quick Mr Syed get a screen save of it with the comments, he might just try to ax that section.
        \\][//

        1. @Adam Syed
          Have you tried comparing the frames, 22 and 23 to see if there is a difference between them in the area ahead of the smoke trail?

            1. @HR1
              Have you tried comparing the frames, 22 and 23 to see if there is a difference between them in the area ahead of the smoke trail?

  59. My respect level for Adam Taylor is ZERO. When you start calling fellow truthers “nutcases” without a damned good reason, then you are hurting the cause, not helping it. And you are blowing any semblance of credibility that you might have had.

      1. Yea that’s true of all the Legge Legionnaires isn’t it Mr Syed?
        You get your certificate of Truthiness in one aspect and then you got the license to porntificate any flatulent pufta you want…
        \\][//

          1. Ken Doc seems to think that just because Adam Taylor plus a few ‘leaders’ like Chandler believe a plane hit the Pentagon, that this someone translates into the movement being divided 50/50. Clearly it’s more like 98 to 2 in favor of no crash.

          2. Adam Taylor may be on Ken Doc’s team. But Taylor isn’t on ours… If I may take the liberty to use the term “ours” here.

            Is the disingenuous Frank Legge el Topo on “our team”?
            Where did this “split in the Truth Movement” originate? It was my impression since the time this movement first began that only a tiny portion of those in the movement accepted the government story about the Pentagon.
            It is my impression yet today that only a tiny portion accept the government story about the Pentagon.

            In my view it is agitprop on the part of Legge and Wyndham, and a duping of the others in that clique that claims fidelity to the government version of the Pentagon event. And that all of this bullshit about “scientific thinking” is just so much rhetorical twaddle.
            \\][//

        1. I am sure that it would be Frank Legge’s story that I turned hostile against him during the last portion of our email exchange. Not so, I became hostile to his lack of rational assessment of the witness testimonies we were discussing.

          That he was ‘stretching’ rhetorically to dismiss the clear testimony of NOC, while maintaining the claims of ‘impact’ became too obvious to me to ignore or leave unmentioned in our discussion.

          He in fact was the one who became hostile in the first instance by claiming “any child could see his point”. Did that piss me off a little bit? Did I consider Frank ‘fair game’ for insulting retorts because of that? You bet your squirting bippy I did. Am I well versed in cutting insult? Do any here doubt that?

          He’s the one who flipped the switch on ‘decorum’ in our conversation. He is the one who became hysterically irrational by the end of it.
          \\][//

            1. Mr Syed,

              I have portions of that exchange in a word doc. But not the whole thing.
              And I no longer have access to the whole exchange in my gmail history because my gmail account of that time was hacked. Someone commandeered the account to try to soak money out of my contacts, claiming to be me “stuck in France, with no ID and no money after getting snookered by thieves” … Lol
              Well it wasn’t funny at the time, a couple friends came close to falling for it and luckily contacted my mom first before sending any money.
              —-
              At any rate – It would be a real chore just to look up the proper word doc… I am not so organized with such things as some are.
              There are some portions of that exchange on this blog, but I am not sure which threads.
              I know, I should have made it a priority at the time to get that exchange documented properly. Live and learn…maybe…Lol
              \\][//

  60. BARE BONES SUMMATION – PENTAGON 9/11

    My reasoning as per the Pentagon event is straightforward.

    First is lack of verifiable evidence due to lack of documented chain of possession of evidence. The obvious ignoring of crime scene protocol in broad daylight of the sweep by the team of men in shirts and ties, that were simply picking up pieces of “debris” as quickly as possible, not tagging, not photographing. A modus operendi that is reasonably enough surmised to extend to ‘sight unseen’ portions of the crime scene.
    The bottom line to such an arc of reasoning would be that the entire scene is staged, and there is simply no proof that this is not so.

    As those who controlled the crime scene, the onus is on the government to prove its case.
    At this point in the argument we can only say we don’t know either way from such claimed evidence.

    But the next point is that of the witness testimony, which once parsed out proves conclusively that the plane approaching the Pentagon came from a NOC direction.
    And it has been stressed time and again, and will be until this fact is grasped, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the plane to have created the damage path. And this answers the first point, the crime scene was staged, just like the magic act that fooled so many eyes.

    Of course this is a bear bones summation based on all the evidence discussed and analyzed on T&S, CIT, P4T and here on my own blog.

    The circumstantial evidence bulges the case’s files – the best evidence in this case is the NOC witness testimonies and the only rational conclusion that they lead to:
    NO PLANE CRASH.
    \\][//

    1. Clarification:
      I originally wrote the summation above on HR1 blog. I copied that and pasted to T&S and failed to edit out – ‘here on my own blog.’
      \\][//

    2. Willy

      The heavily censored footage of these people running about “picking up” scraps on the lawn within minutes of the event. Where did they appear from?

      Where did the shirt and ties (one an identified FBI agent among a line of FBI agents searching the lawn later that day) appear from when they surrounded England’s taxi within minutes? Surrounding and securing what would turn out to be the most controversial area while a lone firefighter, Alan Wallace was trying on his own to do something about the alleged 757 that had supposedly just flown into the Pentagon across the road. I say supposedly because Wallace denied seeing it from 80ft away. His co-firefighter Mark Skipper never mentions the alleged impact once and is never asked about it.

      While the fires still burned and rescue efforts had long been called off, the FBI was busy confiscating all footage in the area in what must have been a preprepared pinpointing of surrounding vantage points. The Citgo camera “with a good view of the Pentagon” stolen, along with a camera overlooking the Annex at the Sheraton Hotel. Meanwhile, all those fancy security cameras at the Pentagon and Navy Annex caught nothing.

      Meanwhile, people like Penny Elgas were driving off with pieces (hers didn’t belong to a 757 anyway), reports (from Roosevelt Roberts) that people were “vandalizing” the crime scene (at the heliport) and trying to lift “souvenirs”, and three fake firefighters who had entered the building itself, arrested and quietly released.

      Yep, I’m a crackpot.

  61. @Adam Ruff
    Have you tried comparing the frames, 22 and 23 to see if there is a difference between them in the area ahead of the smoke trail?

    1. You answer my question first A.Wright. I asked it first and you as usual want to control the discussion by ignoring others questions and asking your own. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN PAL. The answer to your question is already posted by the way in the very comment you are NOT replying to here.

      1. @Adam Ruff
        I did answer your question.
        You said you examined the frame 23 , not compared it with the previous frame to see if there was a difference between the two. You said you examined the frame 23 ‘down to the pixel level’ – that’s not going to make things clearer , it will make things less clear. Every image is composed of pixels -you can take any image of anything and zoom in on it until all you can see are pixels and it will be less clear , not more, what it is an image of.

  62. Clarification:
    I originally wrote the summation above on HR1 blog. I copied that and pasted to T&S and failed to edit out – ‘here on my own blog.’
    \\][//

    Thought I was seeing a coup d’etat before my very eyes lol

    Seriously, well written.

    Sidenote. Notice how Wright reappeared because of the lull in the barrage of info being posted lately?

    May as well post these as a reminder to what he missed

    LINKS

    C130 deception (ANC witnesses discussed towards the end of the link)

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22729

    Witness reactions

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

    Route 27 POVs

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22690

    The “Penny Elgas debris” did not come from a 757

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18356&view=findpost&p=10811356

    The impossible debris path:

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807825

    The irrelevant jet fuel argument

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24126

    Jeff Hill video debunk

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22741

    Cameras not mentioned in the Maguire Report

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24095

    The anti NOC clique exposed:

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24058

    Useful links (debunking Legge/Stutt/Hoffman/Ashley/Hill/911 sequestered calls/stolen Citgo camera):

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24062

    Witness pool broken down (“104 witnesses to an impact” LIE)

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24042

    Mike Walters

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24235

    More fallacies from Legge and Wyndham

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21840&hl=Addendum

    Wyndham lies about Hemphill

    Willy, re Hemphill

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

    Defining the Goss timeline:

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24208

  63. Now, as far as the argument that it gets Cheney off the hook if the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon; this is more spurious reasoning. Cheney was responsible for the plane being allowed into the Pentagon airspace {see: Norman Mineta} – the plane was necessary as a distraction to blame the explosives on.
    Cheney is running the whole show from the situation room in the White House. He can’t be let off the hook for anything, this was at the core of things his operation. Bush was obviously left out of the loop on purpose, because he would have likely spilled the beans right off the bat, he is such a goofball. But Bush is liable as the top chief executive nevertheless, and as culpable as anyone else privy to the plot. RICO applies to this case in no uncertain terms.
    \\][//

  64. Adam Taylor – June 21, 2014 at 7:30 AM

    “Oh dear me, how will I ever live with what I’ve done? How will I ever sleep at night knowing I’ve pissed off some random crackpots online?”
    . . . . . . . .. … . .
    This boy thinks he’s a real hotshot. He hasn’t the chops to make a successful counter argument but he can wisecrack like a juvenile delinquent.
    \\][//

    1. That’s one technique of an ignorant wussy who can’t make an intelligible counter argument to criticism – he compensates with wise-assed bullshit like this.

      Meanwhile he hasn’t noticed there isn’t a single comment in favor of his article on the page.
      \\][//

    2. I posted several replies to Adam Taylor’s blog which are now down the memory hole. I can say this about him now that I have observed how he operates. He is a TINO (Truther In Name Only) as far as I am concerned. He has the same snide arrogant tone in his remarks as just about every JREF’er I have ever come across. The fact that he deleted his own blog speaks volumes about his integrity as well. A genuine truth seeker would either debate the issues in good faith in the open or admit he was wrong and change his stance accordingly, he would never try to disappear the whole thing by flushing it down the memory hole. Adam Taylor as far as I am concerned is a TINO. Just like on 911blogger when he started to be exposed as wrong he censored everything in true Stalinist fashion. Very poor showing Mr. Taylor and if you ever want to regain credibility in my eyes (which I am sure you do not care about) you owe several people a public apology and a complete retraction of your baseless attack article on Mr. McKee. A genuine truther would do exactly that which is how I know at this point that you are not a genuine truther.

        1. Ok fair enough I was wrong about Taylor flushing the whole blog down the memory hole and I retract those statements here and now. Upon reading what is still posted on his blog though much of what I just said about Taylor stands. I freely admit however that Taylor did not delete his blog.

        2. Yes indeed Mr Ruff,
          This comment about Adam Taylor is spot on:

          “He has the same snide arrogant tone in his remarks as just about every JREF’er I have ever come across.”~Ruff

          Taylor’s dismissive hand waving seems to be his calling card. He couldn’t debate his way out of a wet tissue straight-jacket. And this is certainly the MO of the JREF crowd … a pack of chimpanzees on crack!
          \\][//

      1. By the way Mr. Taylor you can still show your face here and debate this issue like an honorable man. This blog is where the rubber meets the road in the truth movement which is why I post here and almost never anywhere else. My litmus test for real truthers is now the pentagon evidence and how well the persons arguments stand up here on Truth and Shadows. Ken Doc is also welcome here to test his metal along with any other pentagon official story believers.

        The fact that certain people referred to by some as truthers refuse to debate us here or anywhere for that matter on the pentagon issue is a testament to the power and importance of Truth and Shadows. Craig you should be proud of what you have created here, it is an anvil and hammer where real truthers are forged and where fake ones are destroyed.

          1. That must have really sucked, to not receive even one supportive comment to your article. I can understand why Talboo at the 911debunkers blog has commenting disabled. Your GL arguments re the Pentagon would have been soundly defeated there years ago.

          2. thejumblies – June 21, 2014 at 11:49 AM
            –“@Adam Taylor
            A good critique of Mr. McKee’s article, and Mr. Mazzucco’s film dealing with the videos of the plane at the Pentagon….”~A.Wright
            . . . . . . . . . . . . .
            Hahahaha!! Isn’t that precious? Taylor’s one positive comment is from Mr Stooge himself!!!
            Too funny.
            \\][//

          3. I just noticed this one that Taylor slid in just before shutting down the comments. I think it is well worth exposing here on this thread as well:

            Adam Taylor — June 21, 2014 at 7:51 PM
            “You evidently don’t know that my opinion of Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis is that they are both insane. I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them, and you shouldn’t either.”
            ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

            This goes even beyond the use of the term “nutcases”, that it is his opinion that Ranke and Marquis are “insane”. Taylor needs to spend a couple hours in a hot highspeed tumble dryer. Maybe that would meld his two faces together into one.
            \\][//

        1. Thanks, Ruffadam. I am proud of the fact that such serious and well-informed truthers comment on this blog so regularly. This group, if I can call it that, can be counted on to show where the official story is provably false in all aspects of 9/11, but especially with the Pentagon evidence that shows so clearly that a plane did not hit the building. Most importantly, this group relies on facts, not the kind of empty attacks we’ve seen from Mr. Adam “tell someone who cares” Taylor.

  65. To be crystal clear here, what I am saying is that the ONLY evidence that was not controlled by the government is the individual witness testimonies gathered by individual researchers.

    That witness testimony is Best Evidence in light of the MO of the government as a lying, murdering syndicate, well known for staging false flag events and corrupting crime scenes.

    This Best Evidence contradicts the government story of a plane crash at the Pentagon.

    These “scientists”, Legge, Wyndham, and Chandler have dismissed with prejudice, the clear and rational conclusion that a north of Citgo trajectory of the witnessed plane cannot have caused the known damage path through the Pentagon.
    \\][//

  66. In their letter to Mazzucco, Legge, Chandler, and Wyndham have an addendum of resources, among which is included this:

    Frank Legge’s Spreadsheet:
    https://dc1.safesync.com/LMGxbsCs/Conspiracy%20911/My%20contributions/Papers/Pentagon%20witnesses/PentWitnesses120416.xls?a=BSNFLFuZHZI

    . . . . . . .. . . . ..
    As has already been discussed, it is well known that the origin of this spreadsheet is, Mark Roberts aka ‘Gravy’ on the JREF forums.
    As I pointed out Legge wouldn’t cop to me where this spreadsheet came from that he was using for the article at the time of our email exchange.
    And now as late as this letter being written to Mazzucco he is still mum on that fact and taking credit for it as, “Frank Legge’s Spreadsheet”.
    This is not only dishonest as to the known history of this item, it is also a clear case of plagiarism to take credit for another’s work… unless of course, Mark Roberts aka ‘Gravy’ has been Legge all along.
    I think there are reasons to doubt that last point, and would say that it is actually plagiarism and dishonesty we are dealing with in Legge.
    \\][//

    1. http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

      This link is provided as well in the letter to Muzzucco. This list by Aarabesque is literally useless, as Muzzucco himself noted.

      Anyone who compares the witness lists offered by the Legge clique to the detailed analysis done by CIT, P4T -especially the work of OSS, must come to face that the former stuff from the Legge clique is just junk.
      This so-called “controversy” on the issue of the Pentagon is manufactured agitprop, clear and simple.
      \\][//

      1. Wllly

        They KNOW it’s crap.

        Throwing the words “WTC7 freefall” about once in a while is all they feel they need to do when people start raising eyebrows at their JREF tactics, lies and pointing to the OS as proof. That and the fact that many who are on the fringes of the “Pentagon issue” immediately recoil at the thought of having to check the facts for themselves. Whether through laziness, genuine burn out or the fact that these shills have made it look so messy and complicated.

        They use the same tactics as GLs when discussing WTC7.

        “You’d need hundreds of operatives.”
        Everybody must have been in on it”
        “You’d need tons of explosives”

        Exaggerated horseshit of course.

        I was actually asked in private by a researcher who isn’t too “convinced” about flyover or the implications of NOC and he asked me how the poles were down. And how’d the taxicab get damaged. The generator trailer. Then finished off by asking if it was a group of “sooper dooper agents”

        I gave him my speculation on how this was done (not that difficult btw), asked him exactly how they rigged WTC7 to come down. I mean, throwing a few poles down, causing the damage at local level and planting a stooge in their own back yard Is supposedly “sooper dooper agent” territory but bringing all three towers down, 2 on live TV was a piece of piss?

        I followed independently verified evidence and drew my own conclusions. Same as him. The “hows and whys” aren’t ours to give.

        What a joke.

      2. Willy,

        From Arabesque’s blog. He receives praise from just about every shill under the sun, almost. I don’t put Rolf Lindgren or Janice Matthews in the shill category, and I frankly think Jon Gold is just painfully dim, rather than a shill. The rest of the characters are pretty suspicious and shady.

        “Arabesque is the best writer in the movement, bar none. Arabesque writes with great clarity on all areas of the 9-11 cover-up, meticulously documenting each point through the use of extensive endnotes. Arabesque has also proven that he isn’t afraid to take on the disinformation specialists who would serve to discredit legitimate questions, research, and evidence which would directly contradict the ‘official conspiracy theory’ about the events of September 11th, 2001. This, I believe, is one of the most important issues facing the 9-11 movement today.” — Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9-11

        “I just want to read a quote from my colleague Arabesque, who is a brilliant researcher and great writer, very meticulous, and also in possession of what my friend Scott Nobel calls ‘superhuman civility’. He says: “The official story of 9/11 is disinformation, which means that the subject of disinformation is a vital and essential topic of 9/11 discussion. The opinion that disinformation is ‘extraordinarily low’ in this movement misses the mark by a long-shot since the very purpose of our movement is to expose the disinformation of the official story of 9/11. We cannot avoid the subject of disinformation.” I think Arabesque says it very well right there.” — Cosmos, 9/11 truth activist, and founder of the Eleventh Day of Every Month Campaign and TruthAction.org

        “Your 9/11 blog is amazing! Allow me to give you a belated and barely adequate compliment on the mass of information you have collected and presented so discerningly and attractively on your blog! I have been to your site a few times before tonight, but it just hadn’t sunk until now what a great job you’ve done. I think on my earlier visits, I must have been very focused on some writing/research task (the charitable interpretation) or just got overwhelmed by everything that there is to look at there (the more likely interpretation).” — Gregg Roberts, 9/11 Research Associate Editor, from an email message sent to Arabesque, October 20, 2007

        “Arabesque: Talented 9/11 truth blogger – in a massive and thoroughly detailed critical review of the PentaCon, my favorite passage so far is: ‘Even more significant is that the structural damage inside of the Pentagon aligns perfectly with the flight path as suggested by the light pole damage and generator as shown above. The filmmakers even acknowledge this point when they claim that the plane could not have caused the structural damage inside of the Pentagon if it approached from north of the CITGO gas station. This is very strong evidence that the PentaCon eyewitnesses are wrong.’ Exactly!” — Caustic Logic: The Frustrating Fraud

        “I would like to take a moment to mention and thank some researchers and activists who have made careful, unique and meaningful contributions to the effort to expose the role of mis- and disinformation in the 9/11 community… Arabesque [has] contributed numerous unique and comprehensive analytical essays and addresses the key logical errors and fallacies surrounding techniques often associated with the false claims.” Victoria Ashley, 9/11 Research

        “This discerning site has substantial analysis on the Pentagon attack and misinformation surrounding it. It provides evidence not commonly referenced in the ‘9/11 truth’ literature, such as: 9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described.” — Jim Hoffman, 9/11 Research

        “Arabesque [is] a thoughtful, painstaking researcher” — Jim Hoffman, 9/11 Research

        “You do great work!!” — Janice Matthews, Executive Director of 911truth.org, from an email message sent to Arabesque in response to the article, “Explosive and Revealing Quotations about 9/11 Completely Ignored by the Mainstream Media”, November 23, 2007

        “Dear Arabesque… I’ve [been] studying 9/11 for only six or seven months now and I’ve encountered things like CoIntelPro, disinfo or the “big tent” maybe three months ago, so this is all relatively new to me and I still have to develop my exact stances on many points… I… want to take this opportunity and thank you for all your fantastic work! When I started reading about 9/11, it was very hard for me to separate the wheat from the chaff and a few times I mistook chaff for wheat just like so many others have done. But people like Jim Hoffman, Mike Ruppert, Paul Thompson and [Arabesque] helped me a great deal with getting to the right points and ignoring the bad ones. I’m definitely not the first to tell you this, but you indeed are one of the most reasonable and reliable researchers among us! Your extremely informative blog as well as your always thoughtful and inspiring comments on these forums identify you as one of the sharpest and clearest minds in the movement. Your careful documentations of information and disinformation are invaluable for everyone seriously researching and they are really setting the standards for all of us… I’m currently working on a German paper in which I’m trying to address all the important points in a readable and perfectly sourced manner – I have just finished the chapter about the 9/11 promotions and there was no better single source for that than your respective article “Cui bono?”, so thank you for having saved me a lot of time with this brillant piece of work! Sincerely, John Schröder.” 9/11 activist and writer, June 9, 2008 in a message to Arabesque

        “My thoughts and support go out to the great Cindy Sheehan, my friends Jon Gold and Michael Wolsey, the fine writer Arabesque, and those others who were unfairly treated in this incident.” Kevin Ryan, 9/11 Whistle Blower

        “I was not the only one to take on this extremely important topic in an attempt to educate ALL activists on the reality of, and the history of COINTELPRO in the United States. Below is a short list of some who have taken the lead in educating YOU on the destruction occurring within our [9/11 Truth] movement.

        Jim Hoffman
        Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice
        Truthmove.org
        Arabesque” — Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9/11

        “Arabesque has completed an interesting expose’ on the CIT crowd.” “I really like the thoroughness of your work” 9/11 Researcher, John Farmer, from his blog and email respectively in November 2007, Statistical Process Control Engineering Consultant and author of 911files.info

        “Arabesque… You are a talented researcher.” — Jon Gold, Prominant 9/11 activist and family member/first-responder advocate

        “More helpful info for us from Arabesque’s fine blog.” — 911truth.org

        “Arabesque is one of the best bloggers out there.” — 911blogger, art V

        “Proving once again that the 9-11 Deniers are capable of solid work when debunking theories that they don’t agree with, Arabesque does a masterful job of demolishing the PentaCon movie.” — Screw Loose Change

        “Arabesque… You’re doing a great job fighting for 9/11 Truth… Once again, we all here in Wisconsin and the entire Barrett Campaign appreciates your great work for the Truth.” Rolf Lindgren, Kevin Barrett’s PR representative

        1. Thanks Mr Syed,

          That is some pretty loonified nonsense to crown Arabesque with such laurels. Frankly I missed the party. I mean, I never heard of most of these people until I ended up on T&S. I had read Hoffman’s WTC stuff early on, but the other people were not on my radar.
          Of course one of my main venues for info was Journal of 9/11 studies, so I was into Professor Jones in particular. I respected Kevin Ryan’s work of the time. Even liked the early Legge stuff.
          It wasn’t until Jones left the picture that I started seeing ‘questionable things’ being published there.

          I only occasionally read 9/11 Blogger.

          During this time I was mainly involved in refreshing up on Physics, and as usual into the craft of “Intelligence and Counter Intelligence”, and a lot of background study on the NWO. As well as keeping up with Global Research, and all of the up to date info of the phony war on terror that 9/11 had instigated.

          Also I was involved at COTO, which turned out to be a menagerie of woowoo jerks spinning conspiracies out of thin air in a lot of instances. And it was around that time that I was looking for something more serious as far as a group of researchers I could relate to – and that is around the time I discovered T&S, which I consider the cutting edge of 9/11 research at this time.

          So I missed a lot of the ‘blow-up’ and the infighting of the movement as it first took off.

          \\][//

          1. Willy,

            Back in 2006, when I was showing colleagues DVDs of Loose Change, I’d sometimes observe their facial reactions when Dylan’s narration covered a startling fact. One such moment in the film was when Dylan covers Kevin Ryan’s days at UL, and how Ryan questioned the official version of the steel’s destruction. Dylan concludes: “As such, Kevin Ryan was fired from his position.”

            Little did I know then that in 2013, I’d be authoring a stinging critique entitled “The Kevin Ryan paradox: the way to show the 9/11 official story is false is by accepting as much of it as possible.”

            Strange how things change.

          2. Willy,

            If you have some interest in catching up, here are the links. I can’t look at them without getting angry though (namely, the way the comment voting turned out). Remember that while all these were published, Dwain Deets’ and Barrie Zwicker’s video endorsements of CIT’s findings were rejected.

            I suggest fixing yourself a stiff martini first.

            http://911blogger.com/news/2013-04-12/new-paper-scientific-method-911-supports-large-plane-impact-pentagon
            http://911blogger.com/news/2012-06-14/renovation-revolution-was-pentagon-attacked-within
            http://911blogger.com/news/2012-01-08/pentagon-attack-problems-theories-alternative-large-plane-impact-john-d-wyndham
            http://911blogger.com/news/2012-01-08/further-examination-evidence-confirms-pentagon-flyover-theory-be-impossible
            http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-19/fbi-pentagon-911-attack-investigation-photos
            http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-04/new-paper-refutes-pentagon-flyover-claims
            http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-10/jim-hoffman-discusses-pentagon-research
            http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-08/richard-gage-completely-withdraws-support-cit
            http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-05/dr-frank-legge-visibility-9-11-mounting-evidence-shows-boeing-757-200-impact-pentagon-probable
            http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-16/david-chandler-talks-about-his-new-dvd-911-analysis-and-rationalizes-pentagon-debate
            http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-28/debating-what-hit-pentagon-exaggeration-namecalling-and-threats
            http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-08/new-paper-journal-911-studies
            http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-01/joint-statement-pentagon-david-chandler-and-jon-cole
            http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-22/new-pentagon-videos-foia-release
            http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-30/crooked-creek-censorship-and-civility-truth-movement
            http://911blogger.com/news/2010-01-29/version-7-what-hit-pentagon-misinformation-and-its-effect-credibilty-journal-911-studies

  67. I posted the following on Taylor’s blog a few moments ago. I post it here since Taylor may not actually publish it:

    “Mr. Taylor,

    You have just exposed yourself as a TINO (Truther In Name Only) as far as I am concerned. I will add you to the list of TINO’s who do not have the courage or personal integrity to honestly debate the pentagon evidence. My posts above stand without rebuttal from you by the way. There was no jet fuel cleanup at the pentagon Adam because there was no jet fuel. The facade damage was NOT consistent with airliner impact either. In point of fact your entire position on the pentagon is a house of cards. Deal with it.”

    1. He did publish it, but now comments are closed. I will correct one thing I said in an above comment: Taylor did have ONE person drop by to leave a favorable comment. Taylor thanked the commenter, referring to it as a “drop of reason in a pool of insanity.” LOL!

      1. “Here’s all the rebuttal I need:
        http://www.scientificmethod911.org/pentagon.html“~Adam Taylor

        Lol, of course we all know that “rebuttal” is the Legge clique mumbo jumbo.

        I guess no one noticed that “the jumblies” – the one favorable comment Taylor received, is our “favorite stooge”, A. Wright.
        So the one positive response Taylor got was from an unvarnished supporter and shill of the official story.

        Yes indeed, you can be so proud of that Mr Taylor … Hahahaha
        \\][//

        1. So Agent Wright is aka “the jumblies”, making his mission statement into a nom de plume. “Clever” in a rancid sort of way isn’t it, as his mission is to “jumble”; scatter, scramble, distract, disrupt and cause cognitive dissonance in discussions of 9/11.

          And now when some fool of a punk kid is flushing his head over and over in his toilet bowl, in his own delirium says that the jumbling Agent Wright was “one ‘drop of reason in a pool of insanity”, we must be reminded by the stooge itself; this is indeed a goats play.
          \\][//

          1. @HR1
            “That’s one technique of an ignorant wussy who can’t make an intelligible counter argument to criticism – he compensates with wise-assed bullshit like this.”

            You ought to know that the Jumblies were characters in an Edward Lear poem and they reminded me of people such as yourself whose theory about 911 is so full of holes that it could technically be called a sieve , in which they had gone to sea..

            The water it soon came in, it did,
            The water it soon came in;
            So to keep them dry, they wrapped their feet
            In a pinky paper all folded neat,
            And they fastened it down with a pin.
            And they passed the night in a crockery-jar,
            And each of them said, ‘How wise we are!
            Though the sky be dark, and the voyage be long,
            Yet we never can think we were rash or wrong,
            While round in our Sieve we spin!’
            Far and few, far and few,
            Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
            Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
            And they went to sea in a Sieve.

            1. I “ought to know” that you will keep on yapping nonsense no matter what anyone says to you Agent Wright.

              Your same old joke repeated over and again is such a bore.
              \\][//

      2. @Adam Syed
        Praise at last! You could correct another thing ,where you said on Facebook you were debating with me about the video and what it shows, which is the subject of this article. You haven’t debated it with me at all just, ‘LOLed’ and dismissed even the idea of debating it and not even made an effort to examine it.
        I don’t know when the penny might drop with you or others on this forum that if other people say they think your conclusions about the Pentagon are foolish, that they might actually think your conclusions about the Pentagon are foolish. I know you find it hard to imagine but other people can come to different conclusions to the ones you have arrived at. You seem to find it perplexing, and rather than asking yourself if there might be a reason for that, you reach for every reason except the reasons that involve asking yourself anything. You just add more people to your list of ‘shills’ or fake truthers, whose purpose is to expose the truth about the ‘inside job’ evidence at the WTC just so they can discredit you and the ‘real truthers’, the only honest men with honest views, beset by dishonest enemies on all sides. If others criticise then it is more evidence you are right.
        You seem to be one of those who think the quote about ‘all truth going through three stages, first it is ridiculed..’ means that if what you say is ridiculed then it must be true.

        1. A. Wrong,

          Wrong again.

          Here’s the FB post you speak of:

          I clearly put the word “arguing” in scare quotes. I was not claiming to be holding an actual serious debate with you, because you’re someone who can’t be taken seriously. Your very argument proves it. There’s no bother in actually debating someone who makes such a hollow, vapid, and asinine claim such that a 757 is clearly visible in the frame.

          And I HAVE “made an effort to examine it.” I’ve seen the “analysis” of the pixely zoom-in, and where Taylor wishes for us to see a 757. What utter nonsense. There’s clearly no plane visible and you only discredit yourself further with every additional minute you attempt to defend this nonsense with a straight face.

          1. @Adam Syed
            So you are not even arguing, just dismissing it and ridiculing the idea having tried not very hard to see anything there. You were very quick to dismiss it and put up facebook posts etc. Do you not think it’s worth having a careful look at rather than just dismissing and ridiculing it.
            What I suggested you do was not examine the image of frame 23 , but to compare it with the previous image frame 22 from camera 2, (or any frame preceeding 23 because they are all more or less the same). You probably know how to do that. ( pause the video on full screen at frame 22, ‘print screen’ and paste it into Paint – then ‘print screen’ frame 23 ,and paste that over the previous image in Paint.) You can then zoom in closer to the area and flip back and forward as many times as you like between the two frames. Ask yourself if you can see a difference between the two frames in the area to the left of the smoke trail. I can look at this just as easily as you can and so can anyone else. It’s just undeniable that there is something there and you can say it’s photoshopped or whatever you want to say about it, but there is an image there that Mr. Mazzucco and this digital expert do not mention or notice at all.
            His conclusion that there is an inconsistancy between the two frames is because there is no image of a plane there. His conclusion is that the image of the plane has been covered by photoshopping. If it was covered then there was a plane to cover. That isn’t even logical. Are you agreeing with Mr. Mazzucco’s film when he is saying there was a plane there?

          2. “His conclusion that there is an inconsistancy between the two frames is because there is no image of a plane there. His conclusion is that the image of the plane has been covered by photoshopping. If it was covered then there was a plane to cover.”~Agent Wright

            The essential thing about this Mr Jumbles, is that there is MANIPULATION of the frame 23. Whatever postulation as to ‘why’ that manipulation is not the issue, as much as you would dwell on it. As this is technical proof of despoiling evidence, the video is inadmissible as evidence.

            Having looked closely, as all of us here obviously have, I will tell you straight up again Agent Wright, one must hallucinate a plane out of the blur of the background – there simply is no image of a plane in ANY of the frames. There is a smudge of white that appears to be the remnants of some sort of attempt at adding digital animation.

            This has become a tempest in a thimble. All the material controlled by and then dripped into the public realm by the authorities is ‘agitation propaganda’, or, Agitprop.

            And it is part of your mission to promote such agitprop by ballooning every instance of this bullshit into a major issue while handwaving the essential points we have been stressed here: NOC plane TRAJECTORY and the incompatible interior damage path of the Pentagon.

            \\][//

            1. There was either a plane there or there wasn’t and the videos were either manipulated or not manipulated

              If there was a plane then
              either
              A :the videos were not manipulated : video 1 shows the tail of the plane and video 2 shows the image of the plane
              or
              B: the videos were manipulated : video 1 shows the tail of the plane and they then manipulated video 2 to remove the image of the plane. This is what Mr. Mazzucco says and this is what you regard as ridiculous.

              If there wasn’t a plane then
              either
              C: the videos were not manipulated : there is a tall object like the tail of a plane that isn’t the tail of a plane in video 1 along with a smoke trail that was there, and they released video 2 showing that there wasn’t a plane.
              or
              D: the videos were manipulated: video 1 was manipulated to add a tail of the plane and video 2 was released years later without being manipulated to add the image of the plane, all to convince people that there was a plane. So they add the tail to one video but then don’t add the plane to the other – having added a smoke trail that wasn’t actually there in either image in the first place, with the plane ahead of the smoke trail in video 1 and no plane ahead of the smoke trail in video 2.

              The other alternative of course is that there wasn’t a plane and both videos were manipulated and there is an image of the plane in video 2. But that would require you to see the image of the plane in video 2 but of course you say there isn’t one…Adam Syed is convinced there isn’t one , he thinks its utter indefensible nonsense to suggest that there is…

              The fact of saying that there is a discrepancy between the two videos and that they have been manipulated in itself is a contradiction, especially when the discrepancy is that there is supposedly not an image of the plane. Even more absurdly someone is suggesting the plane wasn’t there by saying that they removed the image of a plane that was there -to convince people that it was.

              quote HR1:
              “The essential thing about this Mr Jumbles, is that there is MANIPULATION of the frame 23. Whatever postulation as to ‘why’ that manipulation is not the issue, as much as you would dwell on it. As this is technical proof of despoiling evidence, the video is inadmissible as evidence.”

              In other words you are just saying they were manipulated but it doesn’t have to make any sense. And this is after you saying that what Mr.Mazzucco says is ridiculous , i.e doesn’t make sense.
              The why is the issue. What doesn’t make sense is nonsense.

              1. “The why is the issue.”~Agent Wright

                Wrong. This is a false assumption. The FACT of proven manipulation is the issue.

                Guessing as to the motive for the manipulation will only be postulation. The proof of manipulation is a known FACT.

                Mr Wright is incapable of deductive reasoning, or is trying to blow smoke up our collective ass.
                \\][//

                1. @HR1
                  The why is the issue. You are the one presenting the ‘why’. You are the one suggesting the motive for manipulating the videos.

                2. You are taking my argument backwards. I am not saying that my analysis proves an airplane didn’t crash at the Pentagon. I am saying that since it is already proven that an airplane didn’t crash at the Pentagon, mine would be the explanation for this particular manipulated piece of evidence.

                  That the piece of evidence is proven to be manipulated is the main point in this context.

                  It is just like Adam Taylor whining “why? why would they fake a plane crash when all they had to do was crash a plane into the building?”
                  All sorts of postulations might be formed to “guess” at why – but the facts of airplane trajectory damage path in the building proves there was no crash.

                  I never postulated that the manipulation was to hide an airplane that was already in the footage – that was Murru’s blunder, and the reason I questioned the dialog at the beginning of this thread. Murru didn’t “prove” that there was an image of a plane, it was an assumption based on the fact of the manipulation. What Murru did prove was the manipulation.

                  I think Murru was working from the false assumption that something else hit the Pentagon, a smaller plane or a cruise missile – thus his false assumption as to the motive for the manipulation.

                  I agree that the proof of manipulation is solid. I disagree with his assumption as to “why” the manipulation was carried out.

                  \\][//

            2. “There was either a plane there or there wasn’t and the videos were either manipulated or not manipulated..”~Wright jumbles

              The videos were manipulated, and there was no plane. Simple as that.
              \\][//

              1. @HR1
                Quote : ‘The videos were manipulated and there was no plane’
                That eliminates A and B from the list in my previous post, since you say there was no plane. It also eliminates D since you say the videos were manipulated. Then there is ‘F’ the other alternative I suggest where there wasn’t a plane but they manipulated the videos to put in the plane. But since you say there isn’t an image of the plane there -Adam Syed says it is a hollow asinine claim to say there is a plane there – so that rules that out. That leaves you with D which is the ‘ there is no plane but they manipulated the videos to put a tail in one video and a smoke trail, and in the second video, a smoke trail but no a plane in front of it’ theory. Obviously you think it doesn’t have to make sense.

        2. http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-28/debating-what-hit-pentagon-exaggeration-namecalling-and-threats

          “Reading through this excellent thread again
          I was struck by one small sentence. After quoting Jim Hoffman pointing out that the evidence about what hit the Pentagon was inconclusive, and saying that this should not be surprising, given that the authorities have denied access to a lot of material, Gregg said:

          ” We need to be willing to let the official story stand unless the proof to the contrary is extremely solid.”

          That is such a simple, irrefutable proposition. It is the recipe for harmony and a unified front in the 9/11 Truth and Peace movement. Why is it so difficult to accept and follow? There is no solid proof that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. It is not supporting the official story to let it stand provisionally. Still I am attacked for simply letting it stand.

          I observe the efforts by P4T to find proof that the FDR file was not from AA77. Their argument is based on the finding that the plane did not appear to depart from the correct gate. It is obvious however that the position reporting system drifts while the plane is on the ground so it cannot be relied upon. It drifts so badly that the plane appeared to taxi over the top of a building on the way to the runway, but that apparenlty does not bother those who try to find reason to dispute the idea that a plane hit the Pentagon.

          Sadly the dispute continues. What will be the next illogical argument to divide us?”~Frank Legge on Thu, 03/10/2011 – 3:17am
          =================================================
          Let me run this one by again;
          “” We need to be willing to let the official story stand unless the proof to the contrary is extremely solid.”~Gregg

          “That is such a simple, irrefutable proposition.”~Legge

          An “irrefutable proposition”?

          This is absurd in a case where NOTHING has been proven as to the official story. It is base acquiescence to take such a position.

          Anyway Mr Syed, reading this garbage on 9/11Blooger just pissed me off all over again!
          \\][//

          1. Yes, it makes me mad too, and the sentence that makes me maddest:

            “It is the recipe for harmony and a unified front in the 9/11 Truth and Peace movement.”

            – Dr Frank Fuckface

  68. “And I HAVE “made an effort to examine it.” I’ve seen the “analysis” of the pixely zoom-in, and where Taylor wishes for us to see a 757. What utter nonsense. There’s clearly no plane visible and you only discredit yourself further with every additional minute you attempt to defend this nonsense with a straight face.”

    Says Adam Syed. And then Agent Wright answers:

    “So you are not even arguing, just dismissing it and ridiculing the idea having tried not very hard to see anything there.”

    When Mr Syed just got through saying he DID indeed make the effort to examine it.

    WTF Wright? You continue to repeat this bullshit here over and over, but you won’t address a single thing brought forward on this forum by the rest of us; ‘just dismissing it and ridiculing’ the information without acknowledgement or examination. Your head must be a Jack’o’lantern – an empty pumpkin with a face carved on it.
    \\][//

    1. @HR1
      Quote Adam Syed
      “I clearly put the word “arguing” in scare quotes. I was not claiming to be holding an actual serious debate with you, because you’re someone who can’t be taken seriously. Your very argument proves it. There’s no bother in actually debating someone who makes such a hollow, vapid, and asinine claim such that a 757 is clearly visible in the frame.”

      Even from Mr. Syed’s initial dismissive reaction it’s obvious that the idea that there was a plane there was not even worthy of argument let alone debate. It’s now ‘where Taylor wishes for us to see a 757.’ He is not going to see a 757 if it’s Mr. Taylor or me suggesting that there is one. He is going to refuse to see it on principle.

      Quote Adam Syed:
      “And I HAVE “made an effort to examine it.” I’ve seen the “analysis” of the pixely zoom-in, and where Taylor wishes for us to see a 757. What utter nonsense. There’s clearly no plane visible and you only discredit yourself further with every additional minute you attempt to defend this nonsense with a straight face.”

      He has seen the analysis of the pixely zoom-in … That is not what I suggested he do. Every picture is made up of pixels. Does he want a HD image of a plane in a low quality video? What I suggested he do was to compare the frame 23 image with the frame 22 image and see is there a difference between them to the left of the smoke trail. I detailed how to do it and it just takes a minute. If you do it , or he does it, and says there is nothing different in that area then I’ll know something about your and his credibility. I am looking at the same images here and anyone else can look at them too.

      Quote HR1
      “WTF Wright? You continue to repeat this bullshit here over and over, but you won’t address a single thing brought forward on this forum by the rest of us; ‘just dismissing it and ridiculing’ the information without acknowledgement or examination. ”
      The title of Mr. McKee’s article and the subject of this thread is
      “Doctored Pentagon video proves 9/11 cover-up and inside job”.
      The first line of the article says
      ‘A single frame gives it away’
      Quote HR1 : “This is why he focuses on one little matter obsessively and will not account for the entire case of evidence.”
      It seems that discussing the ‘single frame’ is only ok if you don’t discuss it.

      1. –“Quote HR1 : “This is why he focuses on one little matter obsessively and will not account for the entire case of evidence.”
        It seems that discussing the ‘single frame’ is only ok if you don’t discuss it.”~Wright
        . . . . . . . . . . . . .
        Agent Wright, we HAVE discussed the single frame exhaustively. But what we are also pointing out that this frame, and the entire video must be put in the context of the entire body of evidence of the Pentagon event.

        Urge as we may, you refuse to do so. The single prescient point in the analysis of the video is that there was digital manipulation. That is the single point to be drawn from the article. Beyond that are the penumbra of proofs of a NOC approach by the aircraft, and the impossibility of that trajectory causing the damage path through the building.

        You will not address this but “obsess” on the video frames exclusively. Now you say we are saying it’s “only ok if you don’t discuss it.” And this Agent Wright is spurious rhetorical bullshit, as much of this page is clearly a discussion of the video frames.
        Again, it is your refusal to place the argument in context which belies your disingenuous argumentation.

        These points in general have been made to you for some 2 and a half years on this blog.
        The fact that you do not accept that you have been outed as a rank apologist for illegitimate authority simply does not sink into your thick skull.
        \\][//

  69. Agent Wright clings to these little fragments of bullshit, when in fact the whole case of 9/11 has been blown wide open for years.

    This is why he focuses on one little matter obsessively and will not account for the entire case of evidence. Repetition-Repetition is the PR game, The Big Lie attended by legions of small lies as bodyguards. The psychological operation of 9/11 continues from Mr Jumble/Wright’s corner like an old scratchy 33-rpm record.
    . . . . . . .
    Propaganda by Edward Bernays

    Carroll Quigley on the Bank for International Settlements

    Aldous Huxley: The Ultimate Revolution

    How Darwin, Huxley, and the Esalen Institute launched the 2012 and psychedelic revolutions

    B.F. Skinner’s Shaping Experiment (“Skinner’s Box”)

    José Delgado stops a bull in its tracks with electromagnetic mind control

    “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” by Étienne de La Boétie

    Etc, etc…

    http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-906-social-engineering-101-with-james-corbett/
    \\][//

  70. Wright,

    I find it amazing that it took, what, 8 or 9 years to suddenly notice this blur that you call an aircraft. I mean, think of the spectrum of personalities poring over this footage frame by frame

    You talk about “video experts” when the ASCE Report was the first to “identify” the white blob as the “nose” of the aircraft (was included in their report until recently anyway) using the “5 frames”. They used this to derive the alleged speed of the aircraft as it crossed the lawn. They said that it was 320ft from the facade and it was “0.4 seconds” until the alleged impact – @780fps – so there’s yet another case of where the official story tries to hammer a square peg in to a round hole. According to the blur, the entire aircraft was in view, so they’re just 155ft (length of a 757) out.

    It’s the same as where NTSB chief Jim Ritter claimed that based on multiple radar data and the alleged FDR data that the alleged impact occurred at 09:37:45 but somehow “extra seconds” were found on the FDR dataset and that it now should be 6-8 seconds later according to government loyalists and not the 9/11 Commission Report, NTSB nor FBI.

    Do you see where I’m going with this? What are you actually defending these days? It’s your own “conspiracy theory”! Government loyalists have long given this fairy tale up and make up their own crap with the likes of your friend Adam filling in the blanks.

    Secondly, I can see the blur Wright. And now that you’ve brought it to my attention, I can see how other GLs and the likes of your friend Adam would drool over it. It’s nothing more than a Rorschach cheap trick using blurry footage and suggestion. It was probably inserted prior to Judicial Watch midwifing it to the public only they downgraded the footage so much people who’ve gone through this for endless hours and frame by frame (including the whole spectrum from govt loyalists to missile theorists – which included myself at one time long ago) hadn’t even noticed it! Why? Because it took somebody to suggest what the blur may be!

    What are the origins of this “clearer” footage Wright?

    Thirdly, and I’m still waiting on an answer to this

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-23930

    Repeated request for an answer from Wright

    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-23930

    How does this supposed aircraft not contradict the “tail” footage and the alleged steep left bank at impact (where’s the raised right wing)? How does the “tail” footage depict an alleged aircraft just above the lawn when the blur is well above the lawn?

    Why is there no shadow under the alleged smoke trail (the fireball has one)?

    Why is the blur practically transparent yet the shadowless smoke isn’t (the “smoke” lasts for one tenth of a second, so speed isn’t a factor here)?

    1. @Onesliceshort
      Quote OSS: “I find it amazing that it took, what, 8 or 9 years to suddenly notice this blur that you call an aircraft. I mean, think of the spectrum of personalities poring over this footage frame by frame”

      That amazes me too. Did you not notice it?

      Quote OSS : “You talk about “video experts”

      The video experts in Mr. Mazzucco film who failed to notice it.

      Quote OSS: “..when the ASCE Report was the first to “identify” the white blob as the “nose” of the aircraft (was included in their report until recently anyway) using the “5 frames”. They used this to derive the alleged speed of the aircraft as it crossed the lawn. They said that it was 320ft from the facade and it was “0.4 seconds” until the alleged impact – @780fps – so there’s yet another case of where the official story tries to hammer a square peg in to a round hole. According to the blur, the entire aircraft was in view, so they’re just 155ft (length of a 757) out.”

      They mis-identified the nose of the aircraft. Are you saying it is the nose of the aircraft?

      Quote OSS: “It’s the same as where NTSB chief Jim Ritter claimed that based on multiple radar data and the alleged FDR data that the alleged impact occurred at 09:37:45 but somehow “extra seconds” were found on the FDR dataset and that it now should be 6-8 seconds later according to government loyalists and not the 9/11 Commission Report, NTSB nor FBI.”

      The plane hit the building when it hit the building not when someone estimated it hit the building.

      Quote OSS: “Do you see where I’m going with this? ”

      No.

      Quote OSS “What are you actually defending these days? It’s your own “conspiracy theory”! Government loyalists have long given this fairy tale up and make up their own crap with the likes of your friend Adam filling in the blanks.”

      The fact that you are obsessed with ‘attacking’ one thing and ‘defending’ another says more about you than anything else. You regard it as a kind of war where facts are used to ‘debunk’ one side or the other and where the actual truth is , as in war, the first casualty.

      Quote OSS: “Secondly, I can see the blur Wright. And now that you’ve brought it to my attention”

      Amazing after 8 or 9 year. How many times have you examined it and not seen it?

      Quote OSS: ” I can see how other GLs and the likes of your friend Adam would drool over it. It’s nothing more than a Rorschach cheap trick using blurry footage and suggestion. It was probably inserted prior to Judicial Watch midwifing it to the public only they downgraded the footage so much people who’ve gone through this for endless hours and frame by frame (including the whole spectrum from govt loyalists to missile theorists – which included myself at one time long ago) hadn’t even noticed it! Why? Because it took somebody to suggest what the blur may be!”

      It obviously never occured to you that it might be a plane. If you have compared frame 22 with frame 23 you will see there is something there in frame 23 that wasn’t there in frame 22. I suggest it is the plane , as every witness in a position to see it described it.

      Quote OSS: “What are the origins of this “clearer” footage Wright?”

      Ask Judicial Watch.

      Quote OSS: “Thirdly, and I’m still waiting on an answer to this”
      “How does this supposed aircraft not contradict the “tail” footage and the alleged steep left bank at impact (where’s the raised right wing)? How does the “tail” footage depict an alleged aircraft just above the lawn when the blur is well above the lawn?”

      The blur isn’t well above the lawn. Since it only a blur to you how can you tell? Did the right wing and engine hit something before it hit the building?

      Quote OSS: “Why is there no shadow under the alleged smoke trail (the fireball has one)?”

      When you say you can’t even make out a plane, that is just a ‘blur’ ,you expect to see a shadow – of a smoke trail? ! In a low quality video?!

      Quote OSS: “Why is the blur practically transparent yet the shadowless smoke isn’t (the “smoke” lasts for one tenth of a second, so speed isn’t a factor here)?”

      If the blur was transparent you could see things through it. What can you see through it? Are you saying it isn’t a smoke trail and there isn’t a plane? So they invented a smoke trail that wasn’t there and put in a ‘blur’ of a plane that you never noticed for 8 years?

        1. “I’m not wasting any more time on this bullshitter.”~OSS

          Yes I agree, the bullshitter’s time has long been up here. I have made my last response to him here as well [JUNE 22, 2014 AT 3:24 PM]

          I also agree that Wright should go fuck himself. Lol
          \\][//

  71. Quote OSS: “What are the origins of this “clearer” footage Wright?”

    “Ask Judicial Watch.”~Jumbling Wright

    No no no Wright, what are the origins of your fancy wide screen production? That is the question here. We know the origins of the 5 images are denied by the FBI as their release, and they claim it was leaked in some way. The ONLY footage claimed as “official” is the newer release of both gate cams’ footage, which is the footage analyzed in the Murro investigation for Muzzucco’s film.

    What I want to know, and I think this is OSS’ question as well, is where the brilliantly colored wide screen enhanced version originated. This is clearly something created by another party, and NOT a government release {officially}.

    Where did this video come from Agent Wright?

    All the other issues, radar, black box, etc are self contradicting bullshit, with no proper chains of possession.
    In fact the whole ‘official story’ and the variations on it are self contradicting bullshit as well.
    You yourself Jumblebunny, are full of self contradicting bullshit.
    \\][//

    1. Willy says

      No no no Wright, what are the origins of your fancy wide screen production? That is the question here. We know the origins of the 5 images are denied by the FBI as their release, and they claim it was leaked in some way. The ONLY footage claimed as “official” is the newer release of both gate cams’ footage, which is the footage analyzed in the Murro investigation for Muzzucco’s film.

      What I want to know, and I think this is OSS’ question as well, is where the brilliantly colored wide screen enhanced version originated. This is clearly something created by another party, and NOT a government release {officially}.

      That’s exactly what I meant. Wright knows this. He also knows that the blur I was referring to was the one “enhanced”, coloured and basically inserted into the video that he linked to. His “I know I am but what are you” tactic (wow) is to say, “well, if you acknowledge the blur (that you see enhanced in the video Wright linked to), or the alleged smoke trail (that you see in the both videos), then you’re acknowledging that there was an aircraft”.

      Fucking wow.

      He’s even trying to insinuate that the alleged smoke (seen in the video) isn’t at ground level and that maybe it’s coming from the alleged right wing of the alleged aircraft!

      He’s also claiming that the blur (that you see enhanced in the video Wright linked to) isn’t higher than the alleged smoke trail.

      How can I tell? Watch around the 48 second mark of the original Judicial Watch released video for a car that allegedly passes the far end of the lawn heading towards Rt 27 (you may need to watch a couple of times) then compare to what you see in the foreground. That alleged smokeplume is supposedly about 20ft tall (at least as tall as the first floor anyway). The blur in the video Wright linked to has the supposed fuselage more than twice the height of the alleged smoke plume.

      It contradicts the “tail” video, the physical damage and the alleged left bank.

  72. I just sent an email to David Chandler about the so-called “Frank Legge Spreadsheet”

    I also added the URL to this page. I hope he drops by to get an eye-full of this.
    \\][//

    1. Well, we know that Chandler never responded to CIT’s response to his and Cole’s hit piece back in 2011. But up to current times, he’s definitely still messaging people behind the scenes and urging them to stay away from CIT. As recently as this past October (i.e. not very long ago), check out this screen shot from a prolific FB 9/11 activist.

      I messaged his son Daniel Bland to ask who the “leader was.” You guessed it right.

      I’ll be interested to hear if Chandler responds to your email Willy.

      1. Mr Syed,

        I don’t really have much hope that Chandler will respond to my email.
        It would certainly be interesting if he would… but you know the chances are slim.

        I do think there is a chance that he and the Legge League might check out this blog page however. They might get a clue as to how exposed their nonsense is becoming.
        \\][//

  73. aneta.org/theories/Pentagon/witnesses/PentWitnessesJREFGravy.xls

    Original Gravy PentWitnesses spreadsheet.

    Yes the exact spreadsheet now claimed to by “Frank Legge’s Spreadsheet”
    or should that be; Frank Legge’s Spreadshit?
    Lol
    \\][//

  74. Just to give the coup de grace to this Wright fool…

    The car at @50s leaving south parking

    Notice it’s solid appearance and its size

    The alleged smoke plume

    Notice its solid appearance, that it’s at ground level and its size

    The blur, linked to in Wright’s video, is transparent and at a higher altitude than the plume.

    Here’s the alleged view scope from the “tail” cam a split second later

    Now here’s what the cam allegedly showed according to Mike Wilson, whose cartoon is linked to at the 9/11 dot gov site (minus the required steep left bank and the engines almost the same size as the fuselage and the wings are level – no sweep).

    The aircraft fuselage was allegedly inches above the lawn.

    Wright’s video is just another contradictory subplot.

  75. The following is the end of the email conversation with Frank Legge.
    I have a 81 page word doc on this, so I am just going to post this last part, as it speaks to the relevance and summation of that discussion:

    Willy Whitten May 13,2012
    to Frank_Legge
    Just one more note Frank,
    Consider Deb Anlauf, at the Sheraton Hotel. If the plane went right over her position as per her testimony – She is north of the official path as well. But you seem to site her as a south path witness. How can this be? Like the Annex and Citgo and cemetery witnesses, she is north of the official path.
    The helipad tower witness also says the plane came over the Annex straight at the Pentagon. If the plane witnessed went over the Annex, it is north of the official path.
    You and I have both looked at the Google Earth view with the line showing the official path as compared to the witness POVs, ALL of these are north of the official flight path. The Sheraton is just west of the Annex…a straight line to the Annex – on over the Citgo and straight at the Pentagon. At that angle the official damage to the Pentagon is impossible – the only way to posit that it could be is for the extreme banking maneuvers, which would end with the plane banked so hard left that the wing would be perpendicular to the ground and the right wing pointing up at the sky.
    And this has been your question; “did any witness report such an extreme bank, “pitch, roll”? And of course the answer is no, none of them did.
    That should be all that is needed to be pointed out.

    You know Frank, when one compiles your multiple versions of the ‘Debunking’ papers on the Pentagon, plus the dialog we have had in these email conversations, and then add in some of the commentary on blogs by you and ‘snowcrash’; it all comes to a load of horseshit.
    Just recently you told me you are not relying on official government data, that all you are relying on is the witness testimony. You want to go back and compare that statement with your Pentagon articles? Go ahead Frank compare, and see if this most recent admonition from you doesn’t sound like a load of bullshit. Your commentary seems to come in two flavors, horseshit or bullshit – and they both stink.
    And so now, like so many others, I am wondering just what your game is. What could be your motivation in all of this? What caused this U-turn into the field of weeds? You are obviously not a stupid person, but you have made a lot of contradictory statements just in our email exchanges. And this latest one is a fucking doozie – after going through all this for weeks, reading your papers – arguing tight points…Now you tell me that all you are relying on is the witness testimonies? Jesus man, WTF?
    I can think of only two choices in trying to figure you out – you are loosing your mental facilities, or you are a mole and your earlier work was your ingratiating period.
    I don’t see how you can escape seeing how bad this makes you look.
    Are you el Topo Frank?
    Deb Anlauf, Sheraton—–>plane traveling due east —>> Hemphill, Annex>>—–due east—>> Lagasse, Turcios, Brooks,>>–Williams, Stafford and Prather ——->> due east >>———–>>Helipad tower “straight in from Annex” >>— due east—>> straight in at Pentagon…
    >>——-{ due east path }——>> straight into Pentagon?
    Bells ringing in your head yet Frank? They should be, that would mean the damage path in the Pentagon would have been straight in — same due east damage pattern.
    We all know the official damage angle Frank, don’t we?

    “If you look upward out through a south facing window your gaze will go both outward and upward.”~Legge

    No shit Sherlock. How FAR outward is the question. Isn’t it? – why yes it is.

    If I look down from my second story window I see about five feet beyond that wall of my place. If I look upward out that window I am restricted from about the same five foot view. If a 757 flew diagonally along my roof line, 20ft above, I would see the entire wing, engine and part of the fuselage [L or R depending on flight direction]

    “Ask a child” – kiss my ass Legge. ~ww – 5/16/2012
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Willy Whitten 12:32 PM May 16, 2012 – 12:32 PM

    to Frank_Legge
    Frank,

    No matter how you play it, you do not have the angular damage path of the official story

    Grimoire el Topo Flambe
    \\][//

    1. I can think of only two choices in trying to figure you out – you are loosing your mental facilities, or you are a mole and your earlier work was your ingratiating period.

      1. Urm, didn’t mean to “post comment” so soon. ^^ LOL. Anyway, after citing the above, I was going to say:

        It could be both. A mole AND losing his facilities.

  76. This first one is commentary based on Frank linking to his other PDF on the FDR analysis:

    –“One has to ask whether the traumatic image of the plane hitting the Pentagon, or the image of the prior path of the plane, would be more reliably held in memory.”~Frank Legge – Jan. 2011 ‘New FDR Analysis’

    My Reply:

    Well let us reframe this situation in a more reasonable manner:

    These witnesses have hours – days – in some cases months to have established their own bearings {other than those traveling in traffic}. These people know exactly where they are in relation to their surroundings. This is set. For them to have this wrong would be to assert that they are lacking any lucidity at all.

    The incident is however a matter of split seconds. So the question of what “would be more reliably held in memory,” is clearly the first; their awareness of place and bearings. This is such a natural and self evident conclusion that the assertion made above is an obvious attempt to present the ambiguous as certain, and a certainty as ambiguous.~ww – 5/15/2012
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~“
    Willy Whitten May 11,2012
    to Frank_Legge
    Why won’t you accept what actual pilots and aeronautical engineers have to say?
    You are using 10th grade Physics, not aerodynamics.
    Does that last sentence sound familiar?
    Why can’t you get a single pilot or expert in aerodynamics to sign on to your work?
    Do you have an adequate answer for those simple questions Frank?

    Frank’s Reply:
    If you want to know what real pilots think about Balsamo’s math, read:
    http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/446123-roll-rate.html

    http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/463565-altimeter-calibration.html

    Balsamo’s ID is A320Slave. You will see the deceptive, damaging nature of Balsamo as he tries to undermine my argument by saying that I support the view that explosives were used at the WTC. He thus jeopardizes our whole 9/11 campaign in the hope of persuading the reader on a single point. He is a threat to society.
    Regards, Frank

    [NOTE: none of these exchanges with these pilots at PPR ever came to addressing Balsamo’s math… The only direct answer was a pilot who gave a “psychological profile of “conspiracy theorists” .. Lol ww]
    ~~~~~~~~
    Willy Whitten May 11, 2012
    to Frank_Legge
    Dewdney was Balsamo’s math consultant on his paper North Approach* – along with: Jeff Latas, Aeronautical Engineer, Core Member, Pilots For 9/11 Truth. “dMole”, Engineer, Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum Moderator. Craig Ranke, Citizen Investigation Team.
    *Why don’t you already know this about Dewdney if you are so up on Balsamo’s work?
    ~~~~~~~~
    Willy Whitten May 12,2012
    to Frank_Legge
    “gravity32
    I wouldn’t worry too much what a few borderline psychos have concocted. Reasoning, thinking, men can hear these stories and discard them. Those that embrace these strange theories have an emotional need. That is their problem. All you need to do is firmly state, “That is BullSh*t,” to indicate you do not want to play their game.”~Machinbird

    Ah so…Pilots giving you psychological information, as they have no clear aeronautical answers for you.
    Gotta love it Frank…
    . . . . .
    And so it went for page after page of emails…
    \\][//

    1. “He thus jeopardizes our whole 9/11 campaign in the hope of persuading the reader on a single point.” Frankie Legge

      This coming from a proven liar who uses the same contradictory “data” provided by those he accuses of dumping 2 million tons of rubble on their own citizens.

      And from somebody who has used the work, cooperated with and conspired with (in the true meaning of the word) people openly hostile to AE911T, DRG and Richard Gage himself. Namely Snowcrash, Jeff Hill and JREF shills. FACT.

      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24058

      Response to Wright’s new subplot here:

      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24358

  77. –”One has to ask whether the traumatic image of the plane hitting the Pentagon, or the image of the prior path of the plane, would be more reliably held in memory.”
    ~Frank Legge – Jan. 2011 ‘New FDR Analysis’

    This is a key assertion here from Legge. This has to be one of the most spurious statements I have ever heard from a so-called “leader of the Truth Movement”. This is so because as Frank would have it “the traumatic image of the plane hitting the Pentagon” is his answer to his own question. And that is the height of absurdity.
    \\][//

    1. The sense of place and surroundings is at the very core of cognitive awareness in a human being.

      The assertion by Legge above denies this very obvious fact of consciousness.

      These witnesses have hours, days, months, in some cases years to have established their own bearings {other than those traveling in traffic}. These people know exactly where they are in relation to their surroundings. This is set. For them to have this wrong would be to assert that they are lacking any lucidity at all.

      The incident is however a matter of split seconds. So the question of what “would be more reliably held in memory,” is clearly the first: their awareness of place and bearings. This is such a natural and self evident conclusion that the assertion made above is an obvious attempt to present the ambiguous as certain, and a certainty as ambiguous.

      \\][//

    2. Oh my goodness, I’m having an awakening of enlightenment after those words of wisdom by Legge. I think I’ll start on a writeup reversing my position on the Pentagon. OF COURSE they would remember the impact and be wrong about the flight path!!! Legge’s words are words of wisdom being offered from the lips of Buddha.

  78. Over at FB, Adam Taylor has posted the following video in an attempt to “debunk” the idea that the 9/11 Pentagon plane can’t fly that fast and low.

    However, while this “debunk” falls flat on its face for a number of reasons, I was glad that Taylor posted it. As I said there:

    But actually, it’s a good thing Taylor posted the video of the low flying planes. Goes to show how obviously gigantic a 757 flying that low would appear on camera.

    1. Actually, other than the fact that the bank is to the left rather than the right, I bet the first shot is exactly what the Pentagon plane flyover probably looked like. The speed, the altitude, everything.

    2. This also shows that even with this crack pilot, how wide the turning radius is to get back around for another pass, giving a good perspective on how the trajectory from the Citgo could not have been adjusted to make the damage path. Nor able to hit the light poles.
      \\][//

    3. Taylor just needs to find a video of an aircraft going nearly 300mph faster, coming out of a steep bank and pulling up.

      1. Taylor just needs to find a video of an aircraft actually hitting the Pentagon.
        . . . . . . . . . .
        This reminds me of the “crash of the Constellation” – a prop plane hitting a firmly planted pole, as “proof the wings would just be cut off hitting the light poles”.

        There are allegories and there are fudgagories and the second is brown.
        \\][//

    1. Just to give the coup de grace to this Wright fool…

      The car at @50s leaving south parking

      Notice it’s solid appearance and its size

      The alleged smoke plume

      Notice its solid appearance, that it’s at ground level and its size

      The blur, linked to in Wright’s video, is transparent and at a higher altitude than the plume.

      Here’s the alleged view scope from the “tail” cam a split second later

      Now here’s what the cam allegedly showed according to Mike Wilson, whose cartoon is linked to at the 9/11 dot gov site (minus the required steep left bank and the engines almost the same size as the fuselage and the wings are level – no sweep).

      The aircraft fuselage was allegedly inches above the lawn.

      Wright’s video is just another contradictory subplot.

      Just in case the above gets buried.

      Other links:

      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/#comment-24271

  79. Great point about the video Adam!

    Taylor’s treatment of the witness testimonies is no different from the treatment of the first responder and basement explosion witnesses in. Manhattan by duhbunkers.

    Most of those witnesses experienced things that don’t tally with what all of us were told happened. Molten metal and explosions particularly. Those incidents point to malfeasance. Yes, the towers came down. We have multiple videos seen by millions. No, the physics doesn’t add up (at all).

    Witnesses in Pentagon repeatedly describe the northern trajectory. Per capita, more than the witnesses in Manhattan. Yes, the area appeared to have been a result of.a plane crash hours after the event. Nobody in an official position claimed an aircraft crash for hours afterwards. Yes, some of those witnesses claimed to see the aircraft hit the building, but the physics doesn’t add up.(at all). The directional damage from lightpoles 1 and 2 onwards is the alleged impact. It doesn’t begin at the facade.

    And no, there is no video of an aircraft striking the building. We’re just told what supposedly happened.

  80. I said

    Witnesses in Pentagon repeatedly describe the northern trajectory. Per capita, more than the witnesses in Manhattan.

    That should read “witnesses at the Pentagon repeatedly describe the northern trajectory. Per capita, more than the number of witnesses who contradict the official spoof in Manhattan”

    I hate I Pads lol

  81. David Chandler, B.S. (Physics), MS (Mathematics) still hasn’t responded to my email. And although I really didn’t expect him to, it still pisses me off to high heaven that these guys won’t come out of their bunker and face the music.

    Every mature person knows the consequence of remaining aloof “holding court” and surrounding oneself with sycophants. In such circumstances arrogance blooms into full hubris. And hubris is a form of psychosis, one that puts the afflicted in a state of delusion and blindness to reality.

    “Out here in the fields we fight for our meals…” ~The Who

    There is a certain humanity, and even “manliness” to the humility of having to answer for ones position, to face up to ones bullshit. And this clique of arrogant pricks surrounding Frank Legge, of which Chandler is one, are liable to ever escalating criticism for pretending to their positions as “Leaders” in the 9/11 Truth community, while isolating themselves from the reality “on the streets” of ‘mainland Trutherville’.

    I will end with this challenge to these punks, with the words of Alex in Clockwork Orange:
    “Come and get one in the yarbles – it you have any yarbles”

    ~Willy Whitten \\][//

    1. Every mature person knows the consequence of remaining aloof “holding court” and surrounding oneself with sycophants. In such circumstances arrogance blooms into full hubris. And hubris is a form of psychosis, one that puts the afflicted in a state of delusion and blindness to reality.

      1. All of us here are aware of and familiar with Agent Wrights 6th grade schoolyard taunt of “I know you are but what am I”, that he uses here with the consistency of jejune punk.

        The ‘variations on a theme’ of this technique is no less boring and misplaced.

        As Mr Jumbles Wright is already exposed him/itself as a stooge and shill, it is not out of bounds to remind the entity of his utter irrelevance here.
        \\][//

        1. @OSS
          “Some of you have voiced some concerns about The Plan to pretend a plane has hit the Pentagon so I’ve asked Mr. Short here to reassure you all how plausible and believable the whole thing is.”

          1. I see that Agent Wright has taken our advice to dilate his sphincter, something just dropped out of it!

            Please Mr Bumbling Jumbing, not here in public!!
            \\][//

      2. That is plagiarism for Agent Wright to quote my words without the quotation marks. The jumbling one is not only a shill, a liar, and a stooge, but now becomes a thief.
        He is reminded here now of his task, to be performed offline for decency sake, and that is to go fuck himself.
        \\][//

    2. “I’m seeking the truth no matter where it takes me. Nothing more, nothing less. If we never get a new investigation, it will be because of people like you. Proud of that?”
      ~Adam Taylor – June 21, 2014 at 7:58 PM [last comment before closing comments]

      What a naive and childish twit. If “we” never get a new investigation? Who the fuck is “we” monkeyboy?
      There will never be a new investigation because the authorities have moved on beyond the questions of 9/11 – because the bulk of the Amerikan people don’t give a shit about 9/11 – because the psyop worked and the case is closed in their minds.

      As far as this jejune punk’s claim of; “I’m seeking the truth no matter where it takes me.” This is just rhetorical bullshit. He has been offered more than enough evidence that it is impossible for the aircraft observed to have hit the Pentagon due to the trajectory being in conflict with the damage path. Taylor has hand-waved this evidence without due consideration or counterargument. This indicates that Taylor will not follow “the truth no matter where it takes”…him, but in fact has closed his mind prematurely based on the misdirection of charlatans that he follows mindlessly.

      The fact the Adam Taylor was incapable of counterargument to defend his spurious attack piece on Truth and Shadows, and found it necessary to shut down the comments section on his page to save himself further embarrassment, makes all of this perfectly clear.
      \\][//

  82. J’ACCUSE

    The question arises as per Legge, Wyndham, Cole, and Chandler et al:

    When does “misinformation” sink to the point of “disinformation”?

    INTENT, is the key. And repetition of misinformation in light of serious criticisms thereof, indicates such intent. And this is especially so when such valid criticisms are left on the table unanswered for years now.

    Human fallibility is a universal aspect. This is why serious discussion is demanded, and why open back and forth dialog is essential in arriving at the truth.

    This is why, at this late date it is fully within our rights as critical commentators to declare that Legge et al have crossed that threshold of purveyors of misinformation, and can be fairly charged with propagating disinformation.

    \\][//

  83. “Therefore the Pentagon is a dead-end for research. The puzzle of the Pentagon might be fascinating or intriguing, but as an avenue to determining the truth, it seems doomed to failure. The ones who want it covered up literally hold all the cards.”
    ~Joint Statement by David Chandler and Jonathan Cole , 2011
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    This is false.

    Those who want it covered up do NOT hold all the cards. The cards in our hands are the Witness Testimony, and especially the Best Evidence witness testimony, which is the “NOC witnesses” {those with the proper POV to determine the flight path} and in particular the testimony of Sean Boger, and Hemphill, who bookend each other’s POV from Hemphill’s POV to Boger’s. These would be the gold star witnesses in my view, although backed up with all of the relevant witnesses.

    That the cards that “the ones who want it covered up” are all from a marked deck, makes those cards illegitimate. All there is to the Pentagon case that has any bearing is the witness testimony gathered by private investigation entirely out of the purview of the authorities that hold all of these illegitimate cards. Ours are the ONLY cards that matter in this case.

    \\][//

  84. Because of the original works of the Legge League that were so well conceived and worthy of praise, I truly despise this deplorable situation that the Legge contingent have promulgated, wherein they say that the Pentagon issue is a distraction and should be ignored; but then spend so much time and energy on vast verbiage on the very subject they claim should be dismissed.
    It is these very clowns themselves who have put up the big-top for the circus they say should not be attended. And they continue to this day with their tepid acts with colored hot air balloons.

    Such hypocrisy is repugnant enough in itself, aside from the absolutely asinine argumentation put to these ongoing series of insults to intelligence and continued blog banter amounting to flaccid stand-up comedy.

    There is in fact no controversy but the one these disingenuous pretenders have engineered themselves.
    \\][//

  85. “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” — William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

    “The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.”
    – J. Edgar Hoover, ex-FBI director on the New World Order conspiracy

  86. There are some things … like The PRINCE by Machiavelli, that reading it once and ‘getting it’, gives one a firm foundation for grasping political realities.

    Another such book is PROPAGANDA by Edward Bernays. Simple, universal concepts here. The architecture of political power is systemic. Personalities are designs from central casting. Design masquerades as diagnosis. All is theater – a passion play.

    People who think for themselves are the most dangerous threat to tyranny.
    \\][//

  87. Ahh…coming clean is painful. But I fucked up:

    “The PentWitnesses 12041[1].xls” is NOT the same spreadsheet as the Gravy spreadsheet of the same name “PentWitnesses.xls”

    I apologize to this forum for not making a comparison myself until this morning. Although this makes no substantial difference to the argument, and the core issue of Trajectory v Damage Path. I think the air should be cleared on this mistake which is entirely my own.

    Willy Whitten, \\][//

    1. Hah…now I know where I got the idea that the spreadsheet used by Legge originated with Mark Roberts; it says so right on the “Author Tag” to the OS xls doc.

      Obviously Legge did a major overhaul, but as the history of the document is in the open-tag, it is the Roberts doc that Legge began with.

      My notes from that time:

      ~SPREADSHEET by Mark Roberts

      I have had this spreadsheet for close to two months now…and the more I look at it the more useless it seems. It is badly arranged, the categories seem arbitrary, and testimony is sacrificed for the authors commentary in many places. The biggest deficit however is being able to determine exactly where the witnesses were during the event.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
      Sun, May 27, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Frank_Legge wrote:
      Mark Roberts appears to be a shill. That does not mean that his calculations are incorrect. If you really have balls you will take the calculation to someone with brains and take the risk of finding that he is right and you are wrong.

      My reply, 10:38AM – May 27, 2012:

      You say, “Mark Roberts appears to be a shill”?

      Appears to be?? 

      Mark “Debunker” Roberts…”appears to be a shill…”

      WTF???

      I have had a hard time taking you serious for some time Frank, but this takes the cake. Someone who has lost their judgment as profoundly as you have – how can the correctness of calculations be judged one way or another by such as you?
      ________________________________________
      Yup
      \\][//

  88. Willy

    Have you got a link to this file or Legge’s bs? I think I was the ome who first mentioned it being Gravy’s. I guarantee it’s the same crap though.

    1. OSS,

      They are different from one another. Legge’s is much more ‘complete’, but no less dishonest as per leaving out portions of testimony we all know so well.
      Gravy’s is slight on testimony, zero on position, etc…
      \\][//

    2. As you will recall OSS, the email exchange between Legge and I took place over more than a month. In that time he sent me at least five revisions of the paper he was working on and several updates of the spreadsheet.

      I think he began with the Gravy spreadsheet, and then began altering it to his own needs, adding in more detail etc, until it became almost a totally new document. The giveaway is in the title; “PenWitnesses” .

      The bottom line however remains the same…

      Quite a few people were tricked by the magic act at the Pentagon, and thought they saw the plane impact – even the witnesses who had the best view to tell the flight path. Many of these swear to this day that they “saw the plane hit” … but the bulk of their testimony proves it could not have. A north of Citgo – over the Navy Annex approach cannot have caused the damage path in the Pentagon. Case Closed.
      \\][//

  89. Jesus, yeah, same old same old.

    I had just started to look through it and it gave me a sore head. Examples:

    Allan Wallace [and Mark Skipper](ran when plane came in, admits DID NOT see impact) This is a false argument. He ran away because he saw the plane was very low and coming toward him, therefore impact was inevitable. Marked as confirming impact because he ran. (haha)

    D.S. Khavkin (saw small commerical craft from back on Columbia Pike in highrise) One mile away in high rise, no reason to doubt seeing impact.

    (Apart from the fact that one of the CIT guys went to the address and took photos from the roof. No view. Fact. Never been interviewed and describes a “small plane” even though he/she/it was just behind the Sheraton)

    Mickey Bell (did not know what had happened) Marked only as seeing parts embedded in his ute. He really should be marked as confirming impact as he experienced the violence of the explosion even if he can’t remember it. (OSS: brilliant)

    David Battle Very close. No reason to doubt seeing impact. (OSS: apart from the fact that he never mentioned witnessing it and never discloses exactly where he was!)

    All of the witnesses he mentions are covered in detail here if you want to check:

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

    And one interesting witness whose full media snippet is always cut when mentioned by these people. Deb Anlauf

    This “swoop” would entail a hard bank and it going over the Navy Annex

    1. http://s1067.photobucket.com/user/cademartatu/media/3cd4299b9b6ae79ee4cffba62d8af3d3.jpg.html

      URL above, photo from view from room 1404 Sheraton Hotel

      “Watching from floor 14 window of her hotel room in the Sheraton Hotel”
      Deb Anlauf:
      QUOTE
      “Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. Then it shot straight across from where we are..”
      “It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon).”
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      From this portion of her quote; “Then it shot straight across from where we are..”; I can’t help but conclude she means what she said, it went straight from where she was to the Pentagon, which would obviously be right over the Navy Annex – by that token the Citgo beyond…

      Legge interpreted Anlauf as looking out of a south facing window. The shot from this room faces east. This gives an entirely different slant to her testimony than that Legge tries to promote.
      \\][//

      1. Sheraton Pentagon City Hotel
        3207 Columbia Pike, Arlington, Arlington, VA 22204-4305 United States.
        Room 1404 faces east, looking over the top of the Navy Annex.

        \\][//

  90. Yea OSS,

    I spent the last few days going over the {some} links you have been putting up. I read the “z3Invision” day before yesterday, and followed up with P4T pages, as well as reading some of the Wyndham/Legge stuff {trying not to choke on my tongue, laughing so hard…} And have spent 2/3rds of that time watching the dial spins as pages load … voodoo bullshit called “hi tech”.

    The ones that really get me on Legge’s spreadsheet are Hemphill and Boger partial testimonies, both leaving out the Navy Annex to Citgo part.
    Because as you know; according to Frank, that doesn’t count because they were too stupid to know where they were and identify the familiar landmarks around them. All of that was some sort of “false memory syndrome” caused by the intense trauma of seeing a plane crash…
    The dishonesty there is just mind-blowing.
    \\][//

  91. Boger and Hemphill are the killers for Legge. Even though they are both adamant that the aircraft hit the building.

    For my part, I accept all of their testimony, but the “NOC impact” theory has no legs whatsoever, they are corroborated beyond reasonable doubt on the trajectory and I have problems with Boger’s claim that he more or less played chicken with a large aircraft. Hemphill did say that he “ducked” when he first saw the aircraft come over the Annex and was “knocked against his desk” at the explosion.

    Look just how far off to the left the official entrypoint on to Route 27 is from the heliport:

    I can’t remember how many times Boger said to his “right” throughout the interview. And at no point whatsoever would the aircraft appear over the “middle of the Navy Annex” in accordance with his perspective. Just as at no point would the aircraft appear “over the gas station” to Hemphill from his perspective (even when he was emailed the official path during Hill’s disgusting interview!)

  92. “Therefore the Pentagon is a dead-end for research. The puzzle of the Pentagon might be fascinating or intriguing, but as an avenue to determining the truth, it seems doomed to failure. The ones who want it covered up literally hold all the cards.”
    ~Joint Statement by David Chandler and Jonathan Cole
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    This one is still the turd on the icing to me. The fact that these guys make this statement, and still attempt to use the marked cards thrown on the table by “The ones who want it covered up”: The ‘FDR’, the ‘Radar Data’, the photos asserted to be taken inside the Pentagon as it was initially, the video we discuss as the topic of this page. All of that is gone through by these clowns, after they admit that all of this originates from the perps themselves.

    And worse, they will not acknowledge the core issue of NOC witness testimony and the impossibility of an aircraft strike on that trajectory causing the damage path.

    To claim as they do that this is the “proper scientific approach” just boggles the mind, science is not totally irrational as these pretenders at it make it appear. Science is a method leading to experimentation. The proper science to be used here is ‘Forensics’, and that is the route we have taken, and one that they refuse to follow. Accepting diktat from authority in the form of analysis, or evidence of any kind from a crime scene controlled by the perpetrators breaks any semblance to adherence to rational investigation.

    Again we hold the strong cards, not the marked cards from the deck stuffed up the sleeve of the perpetrators.
    \\][//

  93. Sunstein Productions © Brings to you:

    Luther van Truther & the Squids from Uranus

    Staring Franky “Legs” Legge, as Luther, on lead vocals
    Davy “CanCan” Chandler, as CanCan Moran, on drums
    Kevin Ryan, as Kevie Kelvin, on maracas and fish
    Johnny Wyndham, as Windbags Amok, on rams-horn and pickle-low
    Markie Roberts, as Gravy-Boy , on boy-toy and woopie-cushion
    Adam Taylor, as Atom Bomber “Boom-Boom”, go-go dancer and tambourine

    Now Playing at The Pentagon Lounge

    Tickets available at Speeding Tickets Inc. or on the Internet

    \\][//

    1. “Dermatologist? :)”

      Hohoho, that was some good stuff Mr Syed.

      “ADVICE: Never make an enemy of a clever satirist.” ~Luther Van
      \\][//

  94. 9/11 Pentagon Smokescreen – Stage Magic

    In stage Magic, each trick has three parts:

    [1] The Pledge, where the audience is presented with an ordinary object;
    [2] The Turn, where the object is turned into something extraordinary;
    [3] The Prestige, where the object is brought back.

    If the third element of a magic act is missing, doesn’t occur, it results in dissatisfaction and disappointment, as well as uncertainty.

    The event at the Pentagon is analogous to a Magic Act: [1]The plane, a seemingly normal commercial aircraft. [2] Quickly becomes something extraordinary as it flies so low over the terrain.[3] the Prestige; an explosion and smoke pouring from the Pentagon as if the plane had struck it.

    But all 3 of these elements are part of the trick (1) a decoy aircraft painted in commercial livery. (2) A flightpath that will not actually come to the point where the explosion occurs. (3) A phony Prestige appearing as though the explosions were caused by an air-crash. Whereas the smokescreen was a medium that the plane had flown through and over the building.

    So now, when it is discovered that the actual flightpath of the craft seen could not have caused the damage, because of the conflict of vector, and angle of damage; this lack of the Prestige creates the dissatisfaction and disappointment, as well as uncertainty. This is emotionally upsetting to any who are first introduced to the concept, and is therefore resisted.

    “Then what happened to the plane?” is the first question to be exclaimed in perplexity. “Why didn’t anyone see it fly away?” The answer to that is simple, those who thought they had seen the “crash” weren’t looking for a plane flying away. Those who didn’t see the “crash” would have no reason to suspect there was anything unusual for a plane flying low so near an airport. The chances are strong that many people at other POVs saw the plane and didn’t even acknowledge doing so, as they were fixed on the smoking building. That is how a magic act works; ‘distraction’.

    We are asserting that this event was staged as an analog to a stage magic act. That the plane flew in towards the Pentagon, and just as it was reaching the facade, bombs went off, possibly set by a beacon broadcast from the aircraft itself. The first to go off were large flash bang smoke bombs – creating a smoke screen that the plane could fly through and over, giving the impression to the audience that it had hit the building. the real percussive bombs inside went off as the plane cleared the building…all of this in the matter of a split second.

    This would have worked successfully for most of the angles it was witnessed from on the east/south side of the Pentagon. Most of the rest of the witnesses were in spots where there were obstructions for portions of the event, and many were at distances where they were ‘projecting’ much of what they thought they were seeing.

    So it is not in ‘rejecting’ the witnesses, it is in ‘assessing’ what they saw relative to what they likely ‘projected into’ what they saw.

    \\][//

  95. An audience at a stage magic show KNOW they are at a show to see tricks, they assume they are tricks no matter how deceived their eyes may be and no matter how “real” the effect was to them.

    But take such a person and put them in normal surroundings, in broad daylight and present a sophisticated magic act as the performance at the Pentagon on 9/11, and such a person isn’t going to make the same assumptions as attending a show. When their eyes are deceived they will not automatically assume that it must have been a trick. They are in an entirely different mindset, and will assume the opposite, that what they saw was real.
    \\][//

  96. AN OPEN CHALLENGE TO COWARDS

    Our case is elegant in its simplicity. NOC has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    NOC proves a trajectory that is incompatible with the damage path of the Pentagon.
    Therefore a plane did not crash into the Pentagon.

    Our opponents will not address this very simple equation. They refuse to debate the issue in a fair and open dialog.

    This in itself says much.

    Just like Adam Taylor tucking his tail between his legs and shutting down the comments on his hit piece against T&S.
    There is no valid argument against our case. This has been shown time and again for years, since the very first papers by Frank Legge were published.

    Legge, Chandler, Cole, and Wyndham have been publicly challenged herein. They have been challenged over and again in other venues. It is time to make an open charge of COWARDICE against them. That is the only conclusion a reasonable person can come to in such obvious circumstances.

    \\][//

    1. I have issued the same challenge several times on a few different venues including direct e-mails to some of these charlatans and they play the stone wall game. Long ago I concluded that they are cowards and have said so in public many times. I add Kevin Ryan to this dubious mix of pentagon official story advocates as well. I consider it a damning indictment on them all that they refuse to debate the pentagon evidence. The stone wall routine is the hallmark of corrupt politicians, criminals, and disinformation operatives alike.

      Any real truther with integrity and honor would not only debate this through in the open but would also admit it when proven wrong and retract whatever statements/papers that promoted the wrong theories. A real truther would apologize to those he/she attacked and make every effort to promote the correct information from then on. Because none of those mentioned above have done so I consider them all TINO’s (Truthers in name only). I am disgusted by their behavior actually and because several of them are on the consensus panel I totally reject the consensus panel as being a valid representation of the truth movement or the truth. The fact that DRG and Elizabeth Woodworth refuse to deal with this issue and still allow these TINO’s to operate on the consensus panel is also extremely disappointing to me and reflects poorly on them as well. There are other issues with the consensus panel but the blatant failure to address this issue is paramount in my mind. The longer this goes ignored the more suspect all of them are.

      1. I have to agree with you Mr Ruff,

        It is most disturbing in that it seems to have seeped into the main fabric of the truth movement and at the heart of it. I hope that DRG turns out to be less naive than President Wilson who sold the store to the bankers in 1913. Wilson had the lips of traitors whispering in his ears too.
        \\][//

  97. Meaningful comments on the Pentagon topic have petered out. The “challenged” aren’t going to come.

    *Sigh.* With Mr. OSS’s stellar work off-list and targeted URL bullets, the Pentagon debate was wrapped up four or more times over in as many or more other T&S threads. Somewhat *yawn* to see the two or three A.Wright carousel spins in this very thread necessitating a dizzying dive into “SOC/NOC” witness nuances, before GOTO links are applied to handle the heavy-lifting. *Snore.* But now a new crank to the merry-go-round with a “challenge to cowards.” *Snooze.*

    Mr. Adam Ruff brags about skipping my comments unread. More power to him! He and a few others should not read any further. Get a head start on ignoring me right now! Certainly don’t bother writing a jejune response, because it’ll only engage me and allow me to make more nookiedoo-ish comments!

    Simply let this comment pass, unaddressed. Win-Win!

    Mr. Ruff wrote on June 21, 2014 at 6:27 pm:

    My litmus test for real truthers is now the pentagon evidence and how well the persons arguments stand up here on Truth and Shadows.

    Guess I passed that litmus test of my “real trutherism.” No issue there. No debate.

    But there are at least a couple of fundamental insights being missed, because truth isn’t afraid of circling back around to get its due acknowledgment.

    First insight: imagery manipulation. The discussion above proves an instance where it did happen with regards to 9/11. It isn’t an isolated case. Yet the eifer that many had to dismiss the entirety of September Clues (and its premise of imagery manipulation) without proper rescue of valid nuggets of truth stands testament that participants in this forum could stand more practicing what they preach and being open-minded. What other imagery manipulation nuggets should be re-visited, and what distracting purpose did they serve? What would they have been masking?

    Second insight: The culprits successfully attacked the very symbol, if not center, of US military power even after ample advanced notice (e.g., two attacks at the center of financial power) and radar tracking. The attack at the Pentagon was very precise in terms of what it destroyed (ONI investigative efforts into the missing $2.3 trillion) and killed (ONI investigators into the same) and the high-tech, thoroughly-practiced, redundant defenses that the attack circumvented.

    Worse, the culprits made everyone believe that a real plane crashed into the Pentagon (while at the same time propping up disinfo about no planes at the WTC), even though they have yet to convincingly substantiate it with video evidence (that they themselves were Johnny-on-the-spot to confiscate), with the bulk of witness testimony, or with even sufficient serial numbered airplane parts from the crash site and untainted flight data recorders.

    What does this say about the abilities of the culprits?

    It is a bit of the same game that the culprits would propagandize the pulverizing WTC destruction — a massive energy sink — as a gravity-driven pile-driver acting at physics-defying gravitional acceleration. However, that doesn’t have to be the extent of the games.

    Genuine truth seekers need to validate their assumptions with regards to controlled demolition, particularly when such assumptions rule out exotic means. [Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices are real-world and match much of what Dr. Wood’s work drives at, although she doesn’t come out and say it.]

    If the WTC bomb-sniffing dogs took their holidays starting September 6 (Thursday before 9/11), the resulting window of time by all accounts of demolition experts would have been too short for the implementation of the observed overkill controlled demolition using chemical-based explosives and incendiaries, radio detonation, etc. Assuming such to be the primary mechanism of destruction begins to fall apart even before the evidence (e.g., comparatively low decibel readings, low seismic measurements, duration of under-rubble hot-spots, the tritium circus, the blatant errors and omissions by 9/11TM’s resident nuclear physicist, etc.) shoots holes in it.

    P.S. Mr. Rogue has >46% of the total 396 comments to this thread, which makes it STFU-time in anybody’s book and reason number one why he should ignore this comment.

    Mr. Rogue above all others should simply let this comment pass, unaddressed. Win-Win!

    //

  98. “P.S. Mr. Rogue has >46% of the total 396 comments to this thread, which makes it STFU-time in anybody’s book and reason number one why he should ignore this comment.
    Mr. Rogue above all others should simply let this comment pass, unaddressed. Win-Win!”~the Señor entity

    What the fuck does the disinformation about Nookiedoodoo have to do with the Pentagon?
    Why the fuck does this asshole mention me and then suggest I ignore his bullshit technique of wanking every thread that comes along with both his attacks on myself and Mr Ruff as well as promotion of his agitprop about DEW and Nuclear?

    I suggest the obvious answer is that the Señor entity is part of the Sunstein infiltration movement. Never one to actually partake in the discussion in any meaningful way this blowhard entity is always willing to pop up for a commercial interruption for Nookiedoodoo, and another swipe at me.
    And this just lit the fire for more commentary on his favorite thread on HR1blog.
    \\][//

  99. I have removed the last several comments because I have no interest in another installment of the war between Senor El Once and Hybridrogue1. Please, no more mention of nukes and no more mention of either of these contributors by the other or the comment will be removed.

    1. My strategy in making a challenge to the cowards who have been hiding in their bunkers rather than facing their challengers is not so much to induce them to actually show up here for that debate.

      No, my purpose is in lighting a fuse that will spread to other venues as well, to keep the pressure on this crew of disingenuous characters to finally submit to such a debate, or retract their nonsense and throw in the towel on their spurious take on the Pentagon issue.

      \\][//

    2. Dear Mr. McKee,

      I had “no interest in another installment of the war” either, which is why I respectfully asked that my comment pass, unaddressed and even unread in cases.

      For the record, I had been composing my contribution [published June 26, 2014 at 10:46 am] since first reading Mr. Ruff’s June 21, 2014 at 6:27 pm posting. It went through several revisions, and the last one hacked out 50% of it leaving that portion to languish on the cutting room floor. How was I to know that I’d be able to re-purpose that excised portion not even two hours after being edited out, so I guess it wasn’t in vane except in now being relegated to the moderation queue?

      Be that as it may, my heavily pruned comment is legitimate and relates to the topic at hand at multiple touch points.

      My assessment of the low-activity, end-of-life of this thread was valid. My comment took nothing away from any of the discussion, and only added insights to it in a positive fashion.

      Thank you, Mr. McKee, for your moderation efforts and in making it win-win. [I got my important say, and a nasty war was nipped in the bud.]

      //

  100. “If you look upward out through a south facing window your gaze will go both outward and upward.”~Legge – email to me, May 12,2012

    Legge is speaking of Deb Anlauf watching from a 14th floor window of her hotel room in the Sheraton Hotel. There are no “south facing windows” at this Sheraton Hotel. Anlauf’s window was in fact facing east, directly over the Naval Annex – she couldn’t see to the south from this window.

    Legge was pulling assumptions out of his ass during our entire conversation. And even when I nailed him point blank on this he was unrepentant.
    \\][//

    1. Willy

      That’s exactly the kind of tripe Legge repeats throughout his “witness analysis”. The same lack of attention to (vital) detail filled tripe he applied to his “FDR analysis”

      He also ignored her description or perception of the aircraft having to “swerve” to avoid hitting the hotel. A second hand description also given by employees (unverified media piece) of the VDOT center across the street from the Navy Annex.

  101. We are reminded here that this issue has been in play since at least when Shelton Lankford made this comment, SEPTEMBER 25, 2011 AT 10:53 PM:

    “The Consensus Process has, in practice, served to neutralize arguably the most significant evidence that elements of the military faked a plane crash at the Pentagon. The stakes for getting this right could not be higher.

    We ask “cui bono” in other connections when evaluating actions and events around 9/11, so I believe it is proper to ask it here. Who benefits from the attacks directed at Pilots for 911Truth and CIT? In whose interests do those act who write “scholarly” papers that attempt in somewhat desperate tones to defend the idea of a plane passing north of the Citgo gas station, then doing the impossible – crashing into the Pentagon while creating directional damage consistent with a straight line path much further south. Who benefits from the controversy generated when unfair attacks on CIT are levelled from alleged truthers, who lobby truth community leaders urging them to withdraw support, but who absolutely refuse to engage in debating the issues?

    The obvious answer is that the only beneficiaries of these actions are those propagandists working to preserve the marginalization of the truth community and whose interests are advanced by division and dissention within the ranks. Cass Sunstein’s purpose is served. None in the Truth movement who are really interested in arriving at the truth would engage in the blatant attempts to discredit honest researchers that we have seen.

    The leaders who aired the consensus panel’s timid offerings, should follow it up with a disciplined, exhaustive, and fair look at the Pentagon evidence with a view toward answering the question “Did elements of the U. S. Government fake a plane crash at the Pentagon and attempt to cover it up?”
    They should invite the best research relevant to this question and do so in a transparent process.”
    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/griffin%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98no-plane-hit-the-pentagon%E2%80%99-arguments-eclipse-%E2%80%98consensus-approach%E2%80%99/

    \\][//

    1. “Did elements of the U. S. Government fake a plane crash at the Pentagon and attempt to cover it up?”
      I’d say no. I’d say most people would consider that to be a foolish idea. Anyone who considered themselves a ‘truther’ who thought this was a foolish idea and who thought it reflected badly on their movement would justifiably think it wasn’t helpful to see others promote it, as it would make them all look foolish.

    2. “Did elements of the U. S. Government fake a plane crash at the Pentagon and attempt to cover it up?”~Lankford

      “I’d say no. I’d say most people would consider that to be a foolish idea” ~Agent Wright
      .
      Wright, you have shown yourself to be a stooge and a shill, and so what you think is of no concern to this forum whatsoever.
      \\][//

      1. @HR1
        Just to look at what I said there.
        “Did elements of the U. S. Government fake a plane crash at the Pentagon and attempt to cover it up?”
        I’d say no.

        That, it will come as no surprise to you, is my opinion.

        “I’d say most people would consider that to be a foolish idea.”

        That is also my opinion – of the opinion of other people. If other people didn’t think it was a foolish idea you wouldn’t have any trouble convincing them otherwise. Most people think it is a foolish idea.

        “Anyone who considered themselves a ‘truther’ who thought this was a foolish idea and who thought it reflected badly on their movement would justifiably think it wasn’t helpful to see others promote it, as it would make them all look foolish.”

        Do you disagree with that? If someone thinks your ideas are foolish and that they make the 911 truth movement look foolish, would they be justified in not wanting to see people promoting this foolish idea? Isn’t that what you would expect them to do? Isn’t that a praiseworthy thing from your point of view?- to not want the 911 truth movement to be ridiculed and marginalized by being made to look foolish? Do you disagree with that?

        Your problem and that of others on this forum is that you don’t think it’s a foolish idea at all so you therefore think these people are only pretending that they think it’s a foolish idea. So they have an ulterior motive for not wanting to see this idea promoted, it’s for this nefarious reason or that nefarious reason – every reason except the one that they keep telling you – that they think you are wrong and promoting a foolish idea.
        I think you should ask yourself if you are promoting a foolish idea.

        1. Wright,

          Here is the bottom line, that is the real answer to your spinning bullshit question here:

          We expect “Truthers” worth their salt to be honest researchers who use rational lines of thinking to come to reasonable conclusions. We do not expect them to be ignorant assholes like you that handwave that evidence and promote the official story like a stooge.

          We expect honesty in debate. And when we get spinning bullshit like the rhetorical handjive you just laid down, we have the same reaction to their bullshit that we do to yours.

          Of course we expect a government apologist such as yourself to go through the mental contortions and bend over backwards to buy the nonsense that authority claims with no proofs. That is what we see as the distinction of someone seeking the truth, and someone falling for bullshit because the phony media promotes it, and because the ignorant masses fall for it. So your false argumentum ad populum “most people believe” as a reasonable excuse for accepting absurd stories doesn’t cut it here.

          So when in the course of all of these threads you continue to promote and apologize for the official story through every form of fallacious argument there is, we the members of this forum reject you as an obvious stooge and shill for false authority. We reject your phony bullshit arguments, as we equally reject the same type of arguments by those who claim to be members of the Truth Movement.
          \\][//

          1. I second everything HR1 just said. I will also add to that the reality that all the shills and scoundrels such as agent Wright will have to answer to their maker some day and answer for what they have done. Just to be clear about what it is these agents and scoundrels are doing: They are attempting to assist mass murderers in covering up and getting away with their crimes of mass murder, mass theft, mass fraud, and sabotage. Their further crimes include wars of aggression and genocide and the attempted overthrow of the US Constitution using 9/11 as the pretext. So that is who they are giving aid and comfort to just to be clear.

            Karma is real and everything counts and these traitors to humanity are going to find that out the hard way sooner or later. They will pay for their part in these heinous crimes. They will pay regardless if they believe they will pay or not and regardless if they believe in karma or a higher power. They WILL pay.

            1. @Adam Ruff
              I suppose considering what I have written on this thread , a number of things need to be added to my ‘rap sheet’, which I would like to be taken into account at the time of sentencing.

              1: Writing comments about what is or isn’t in these video frames, after an article discussing what is or isn’t on these video frames.
              2: Pointing out that Mr. Mazzucco missed something obvious in the video he was examining , as did his digital expert. It just takes two minutes to confirm this.
              3: Saying that I thought that the thing he missed looked like an image of a plane.
              4: Pointing out that what Mr. Mazzucco says in this film means that there was a plane , followed by a smoke trail, at the Pentagon on 9/11 and that it would have therefore hit the building.
              5: Pointing out that this was illogical if Mr. Mazzucco thought a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon.
              6: Pointing out that it was illogical for people on this forum, like you or Adam Syed or HR1 or OSS or Paul Zarembka or anyone else to agree with what Mr. Mazzucco said in this film , as it would mean that you also think there was a plane at the Pentagon on 9/11 and that it hit the buliding.
              7: Actually suggesting a logical alternative for someone who thought the plane didn’t hit the building i.e. that there was an image of the plane that was added to the video. I see that you are adamant that there is no image of a plane. So that just leaves you with the fact that the plane hit the building.
              8: Pointing out that those who thought that promoting foolish ideas harmed the truth movement would be justified in not supporting their promotion.
              9: Presenting the list of videos that the FBI gave in answer to the FAOI request.

              If there are any other crimes to be added you can go and find them, but since you obviously didn’t read what I said the first time around I doubt if you will.
              As a matter of supreme indifference to me, what do you think would be a just a fair sentence to be imposed on me for the crimes of posting comments on this blog?

              And then we have HR1 who only a short time ago agreed that the argument of CIT ignored a basic principle of evidence assessment , on this thread posts exactly the same argument again -as if he somehow forgot what the basic principles of evidence assessment were. I know he can count on others on this blog to forget.

              1. It is obvious here that agent Wright is attempting to influence any future jury and judge with the appearance of insanity; to use his latest post as evidence if such a trial should arise.

                And yes a plea of “Insanity” might be A Wright’s best bet in such circumstances.
                \\][//

      2. Look Wright,

        It is coming on 13 years of investigation on the events of 9/11. The essentials of the case have been solved.

        Key witness testimony proving NOC trajectory of Pentagon plane in being in discrepancy with damage path is the proof beyond reasonable doubt that a flying object did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

        Key witness testimony of bombs going off in the WTC towers, plus video footage of demolition waves, squids blowing out, sequenced flashes of charges going off; plus physical evidence such as sol-gel nano-milled explosives in the dust as well as microspheres, and eutectic corrosion of steel beams; prove beyond reasonable doubt that the towers were demolished by chemical explosive demolition.

        These two cases are solved to the point of final determination.

        Shanksville is not debated much because it is so obviously a staged set where the “air-crash’ was said to occur.

        Building 7 at WTC is also an open and shut case of explosive demolition.

        The proven lies of the military as per the “response” to the emergency is proven beyond reasonable doubt as well.

        All of these detailed cases are now part of the public record, proving 9/11 to be a systemic psychological operation of the military industrial media complex.

        CASE CLOSED.
        \\][//

  102. Now, I saw Willy and SEO at it a while back (boys will be boys lol) but the latest comment by Wright? In the context of all of the information posted here and time spent thoroughly countering every lazy, half arsed claim’made by Wright (and pointing out where his Frankenstein theory contradicts itself) I see that post as the most offensive. You don’t need swear words in a post to see somebody is sticking his finger up and saying “fuck you, fuck the truth and fuck this blog”

    1. @OSS
      My latest post here:
      quote “Anyone who considered themselves a ‘truther’ who thought this (NOC=flyover idea) was a foolish idea and who thought it reflected badly on their movement would justifiably think it wasn’t helpful to see others promote it, as it would make them all look foolish.

      Do you disagree with that?

      1. “(NOC=flyover idea)…a foolish idea..”~Wright

        This very construction shows that agent Wright has no clear concept of the physics [ballistics] that he is attempting to address.

        Unless it is proposed that the plane vanished into thin air, a NOC flight path necessarily means no impact. For anyone to not get this clear cut reasoning after confronting it for so long is pure idiocy or prevarication.

        Trajectory vs damage path = flyover. Simple physics.
        \\][//

      2. The jingo jangled demented fascist mind-set of agent Wright is so obviously deplored on T&S. And yet he harasses on, spewing anal hurlant and corporatist sludge.
        When asked what his impetus for such a constant and persistent campaign, he can give no rational answer.

        I can think of the most reasonable answer of all that someone would put up with being utterly reviled and constantly come back for more; MONEY. If Wright isn’t a paid agent, he’s a masochist.
        \\][//

  103. I propose we here at T+S compose a letter/petition to DRG and Elizabeth Woodworth challenging the validity of the consensus panel and it’s De-fact o censorship of pentagon evidence. We need to challenge them head on to remove Chandler, Cole, and Ryan from voting on any pentagon related consensus points due to severe conflicts of interest. We need to further expose the fact that they refuse open and honest debate and that we find that to be completely unacceptable.

    Adam Ruff

    1. I second that suggestion by Mr Ruff of ‘a letter/petition to DRG and Elizabeth Woodworth challenging the validity of the consensus panel and it’s De-fact o censorship of pentagon evidence.’

      I propose that the lead author of such letter be Mr Craig McKee, as he is the most obvious candidate for such a composition.
      \\][//

      1. Well I don’t want to seem like I will not do the work to carry out my own suggestion so I will gladly write up a draft for review by the esteemed T+S contributors. Not only would I love to see how Craig would compose such a letter or edit mine I would also love to get Shelton Lankford to contribute as well as the regulars here. I think it is past time to say something LOUDLY!

      2. I certainly did not mean to suggest that Mr Ruff would not be capable of composing such as letter as that in discussion here. I suggested the pen of Mr McKee because it is proposed to represent a position paper of Truth and Shadows, which is of course Mr McKee’s site.

        I would hope all of us interested in such a project would have opportunity for some input.
        \\][//

  104. Adam Syed, OSS, Anyone,

    Does anyone know who this “hdog” entity is on the CIT forum?

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1646&st=15

    He/she/it sounds like a pot calling a kettle black, that is an agitprop skunk.
    In this thread the entity has accused Prof. Jones, AE9/11T, as well as the Chandler/Cole faction of being ‘agents’.

    I do not accept that any of these are agents, but for Legge, and Hoffman.
    I think Chandler and Cole, even Ryan have been duped. Of course we know this is the case with Gage as well.

    The dig at Prof. Jones from “hdog”, is the same tripe as spawned by Reynolds and Wood about Jones “debunking cold fusion”, which is entirely spurious bullshit .. junk based on empty rumor.

    So again, who is this character?
    \\][//

    1. Willy,

      I generally agree with your assessment. I don’t know who hdog is.

      I’m skeptical of the idea that AE is so successful because it is “controlled opposition” though, as hdog suggested on that CIT thread. Yes, AE was/is infiltrated, no doubt. But I tend to agree with your conclusion that Chandler, Cole and Ryan have been duped.

      Basically, it all harkens back to an allegiance to personalities and “friends.”

      I don’t presently have a link to back this up, but from what I can remember, it was Hoffman’s WTC research that turned Jones on to 9/11 truth. Hoffman and Jones became close. Then Kevin Ryan’s name started emerging rather popularly, thanks the mention of his name in the viral 2nd edition of Loose Change. Ryan quickly became good friends with both Hoffman and Jones, and both Ryan and Jones felt a deep sense of respect for Hoffman.

      Then, a couple things happened within a few months: Jim Fetzer went bonkers for Judy Wood and basically blew up the original Scholars group, and Webster Tarpley publicly accused, in a speech, several of the folks from Truthaction (Arabesque, Michael Wolsey, Vic Ashley, Cosmos, Jenny Sparks) of being agents. This caused Ryan to react by henceforth always aligning himself with the “careful, responsible” truthers as well as the talking points they promote, and so he feels that it is the ‘responsible’ thing to avoid promoting anything other than the plane crash at the Pentagon.

      1. Thank you Mr Syed,

        I take your points and agree with your overall assessment.

        I wasn’t aware that Hoffman played such a central role in Dr Jones turning on to 9/11. But I am aware of the initial blowup at Scholars and Fetzer’s central role in that.

        I can’t point to anything other than intuition in my thinking that Ashley was a real bona fide agent set upon Mr Hoffman in order to “control the opposition’. But let me say that if I were to write a novel on the movement, that would be the angle I would play with the Jim Hoffman situation. No more far out than any other true science fiction scenario. Her entry into the movement just as it buds is only incidental to my read on her though, it is in the complex and well constructed agitprop she writes. The sophistication of that is what would indicate a real professional in deep cover counter ops.
        \\][//

        1. Thanks Willy,

          I also have speculated that Vicky “got to” Jim via the love and sex route. Not to speculate too wildly, but maybe with the assistance of a teaspoon of MK-Ultratussin in his drink.😉

          David Chandler said in an A/E email in 2010:

          “By the way, I spent an evening with Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley (Hoffman) when I was in Oakland on the weekend of 9/11 and came away with a heightened appreciation for their work. Both of them are deep thinking, well informed, and insightful, and should not be dismissed lightly. I recommend that anyone serious about 9/11 issues read what they have written. Let’s put it this way. Anyone who says they are serious about 9/11 but hasn’t at least grappled with what they have written is on the fringe, in my estimation.”

          Maybe he was given a teaspoon of MK-Ultratussin too?

      1. I’m sorry futuret,

        But I don’t understand your need for bullhorn caps in your commentary, nor the relevance to the Pentagon issue this thread is about as per the URL you posted.
        \\][//

  105. Subject: 9-11
    Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
    From: “Lagasse, William”
    To: “‘apfn@apfn.org'”

    Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path. It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down, it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is…well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen photos of other aircraft accident photos…there usually isnt huge amounts of debris left…how much did you see from the WTC?…are those fake aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a diffrent sort of thinker.
    The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse AFPN; June 24, 2003
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    This is from Victoria Ashely’s hit piece ‘To Con A Movement’.

    All of those who have seen the original CIT interviews and the hand drawn NOC paths drawn by the witnesses themselves KNOW beyond a doubt that Lagasse is “misremembering” at best, and lying his ass off at worst.

    His view of the Pentagon that day was such that he could not have seen the actual impact, as he could not see the building but for the top floor and roofline. He couldn’t possibly have witnessed the plane striking the downed light poles from his vantage point. He is angry because his testimony proves the NOC, and frustrated because he knows damn well by now the implications of that trajectory.

    Ashley herself has written a classic Argumentum Verbosium in this hit piece, one that is so long and complex, and full of contradictions hidden in the length that it is simply useless. We have seen this technique used on this very forum addressed to various issues. She speaks to “science” as a rhetorician – because she is not a scientist.

    I would say that along with Legge, the now Victoria Hoffman is a prime candidate for being agitprop and a Mata Hari honeypot set to lure Jim Hoffman from his quest for the full truth of 9/11.
    \\][//

  106. Willy

    Re the letter, just hit me up for any links you guys need. No problem.

    Re “hdog”, the guy is straight up from the years I’ve seen him post on the NOC witnesses. Apart from that I don’t know the guy.

    A lot of people who have/had respect for Gage and Chandler initially came out swinging because their actions confused the crap out of them and inevitably raised suspicions. Gage I think was stuck between a rock and a hard place (but should have said “no comment” on the matter) whereas Chandler has been slowly poisoned by these people IMO.

    Hoffman and Ashley are shills. No doubt.

    2 issues should be pointed out to these people

    1. Even if they don’t agree with the conclusions reached re the NOC evidence, they have used proven disinfo (Legge, Hill, etc). And they are using “official story” sources who are accused of bringing the towers down.

    2.The excuse that the Pentagon is “bad” for the Manhattan research is flawed because most of the same people quoted, particularly Hill, Snowcrash and the entire TruthAction forum from where this pressure surely came, are on record as openly criticizing the work/research of Gage, Chandler, Jones and DRG to the point of calling them “liars”, “charlatans”, etc. Nobody within the Gage camp has ever commented on this.