Going full debunker: Chandler devotes most of Pentagon talk to boosting 9/11 official story


David Chandler

Chandler thinks the Truth Movement will look ridiculous if we don’t agree with him about a large plane crashing at the Pentagon.

October 3, 2015

By Craig McKee with Adam Syed and Adam Ruff

With truthers like this, who needs debunkers?

David Chandler, who has received well-deserved praise for his research on the destruction of the World Trade Center, has once again turned his attention to muddying the waters of Pentagon research, delivering a presentation at the recent 9/11 Truth Film Festival in Oakland, CA, ironically called “Going Beyond Speculation: A Scientific Look at the Pentagon Evidence.”

If the presentation was Chandler’s audition for a staff job at Popular Mechanics then I think he must have made a very good impression. But as a supposed attempt to resolve the contrived “controversy” about what happened at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, it is one of the lowest points yet in the 14-year history of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

In fact, there is so much wrong with this presentation it’s hard to know where to start. But one place might be the arrogance of its title: It suggests to us that for 14 years now, researchers who make the case that the Pentagon was not hit by a large airliner have just been speculating and not addressing actual evidence. This is not the case.

Chandler and his Team of intrepid Pentagon researchers (among them Frank Legge, Jonathan Cole, John Wyndham, Jim Hoffman, Ken Jenkins, Kevin Ryan, John Farmer, and assorted supporting members) claim they are the ones introducing “science” into the discussion and that they are alone in using the “scientific method.” They use that term a lot.

The implication is that anyone who doesn’t agree with the Team’s conclusions is not using science. It’s not enough that they claim to be using the scientific method to assess the evidence, they have to tell everyone that this is what they are doing, over and over, so that the concept sticks in your head like an annoying radio commercial. At the Oakland event, Jenkins used it four times in a six-minute introduction to a preview of his unfinished film The Pentagon Plane Puzzle, which he intends to premiere at next year’s film festival.

But more on the Team later.

After some introductory remarks, Chandler spent all but a few seconds of his talk reinforcing

Chandler says this is the scene of a plane crash.

Chandler says this is the scene of a plane crash.

element after element of the official story. It seems there is very little evidence put forward by the government to back up its version of events at the Pentagon that he doesn’t find genuine and completely convincing. With the exception of a couple of sentences, you wouldn’t know you weren’t listening to a “debunker” trying to set straight a group of “conspiracy theorists.”

There is a great deal that is disingenuous in the talk. He repeatedly refers to the “no-plane theories” about the Pentagon when no one that I am aware of has suggested that no planes were involved in the event. He does concede at one point that he really should refer to it as the “no-impact theory,” but then he goes back to calling it “no planes” several more times. Clearly, “no planes” has a connotation in the Truth Movement that most don’t want to be associated with. So, if you don’t want to be called a “no-planer” you’d better rally around Chandler and the Team.

Who were these guys?

Who were these guys?

Not only does Chandler claim that a 757 hit the building, but he says it was likely Flight 77. He believes there were really bodies of plane passengers found inside the Pentagon. He believes the C ring “exit hole” was actually an exit hole. He also believes that the scattering of bits of debris on the Pentagon lawn was what was left of the wings and tail section of a 757. He says nothing about the illegal contamination of the crime scene by unidentified men in dress shirts and ties walking around the lawn right after the event picking up (or putting down) pieces of metal.

Chandler wants to convince us that the bulk of witnesses who support an impact are genuine and reliable but those who contradict the official flight path are not credible—and not worth mentioning. He thinks all physical evidence is exactly what it appears to be. He doesn’t seem to entertain the possibility that those who perpetrated 9/11 might have staged evidence and planted witnesses to deceive us about what really happened.

No one in the Movement questions that the perpetrators went to the trouble of rigging three towers in New York City with explosives to “stage” a scene that is supposed to have been caused by two plane impacts. We have no problem believing that the “crash” scene in Shanksville did not really involve a plane crash. But, Chandler would have us believe that a crucial element of proving 9/11 was an inside job—the Pentagon—could not have been staged.

He claims that the fact that the fallen light poles, the alleged entrance hole, and the alleged exit hole all “align perfectly” is evidence that a plane crashed into the building. Once again, he seems not to even consider that deception might have been involved.

He claims he is pushing this position because he doesn’t want the Truth Movement to look ridiculous. And this will happen, he seems to suggest, if we depart too much from the official government account. In his conclusion, he says:

“With all the new information we now have, the question of what hit the Pentagon has essentially been answered. It’s a large plane, consistent with a 757, probably AA77 itself. Continuing to insist that it’s something else makes us look foolish and paranoid in the eyes of the world.”

Apart from the fact that the question has never been “what hit the Pentagon” but rather “did something hit,” I think he was saying that the majority of 9/11 truthers look foolish and paranoid. Actually, I think he’s really saying that if you don’t believe a plane hit the Pentagon you are foolish and paranoid.

Chandler and Cole, in their 2011 Joint Statement on the Pentagon, try to convince us we should forget about Pentagon research because it is a “dead end.” And yet ever since they published it, Chandler and the Team have been busy doing the opposite, supposedly because of “new information.”

Foolish and paranoid is just how “debunkers” would describe us. And the common ground between Chandler and the “debunkers” doesn’t end there. Here he is talking about the “flow” of material through the Pentagon after the alleged plane impact:

“Columns are bowed and abraded showing evidence of a flow of material in line with the flight path. The plane would have been shredded by this time, but the momentum of the debris carried it forward past the interior columns in a manner similar to the flow of a fluid.”

Here is Popular Mechanics editor James Meigs as shown in Massimo Mazzucco’s film September 11: The New Pearl Harbor: “The mass of this plane penetrated the building with enormous energy and continued into the building in a state almost more like a liquid than a solid.”

I’ll let readers draw their own conclusions about this.

 

Damaging the Truth Movement

Does Chandler not see that he is weakening the Truth Movement’s case by making this statement about us looking “foolish and paranoid”? Do he and his Team not see that by spending most of their Pentagon research time opposing the majority of the Truth Movement instead of opposing the perpetrators of 9/11 that they are doing damage?

They have convinced some people that we should abandon the Pentagon because it’s too “divisive.” Well, they are the ones making it appear divisive. In truth, the Pentagon evidence is an essential element of the case against the official story.

Why would this small group want to remove this evidence from consideration? Why would they so clearly want to act against the interests of the Movement? Why would they want to rally everyone behind evidence that backs up important elements of the official story, particularly when the case they make is so weak?

They are quick to point out that not everything about the official story has to be false. I agree. They also say that it’s not necessary to claim there was no plane impact to show that 9/11 was an inside job. That’s true also, but if you eliminate the evidence of a faked plane crash then you have a much weaker case. Chandler wants us to stick with the much weaker case as if telling the world that Hani Hanjour wasn’t really flying the plane will bust the case wide open.

He suggests that “no-plane theories at the Pentagon” are among what he called in his talk “implausible claims based on speculation and sloppy analysis,” right alongside holograms, video fakery, energy beams and pods under planes. He and Cole make this link even more overtly their Joint Statement.

He talks like a “debunker” again in suggesting that the no-impact position is something that just started, in the absence of any credible evidence, with the publication of French researcher Thierry Meyssan’s books 9/11: The Big Lie and Le Pentagate.

 

Ignoring inconvenient evidence

Chandler is fond of citing a paper by Team member John Wyndham called “The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact.” In the article, Wyndham talks about what it means to apply the scientific method to evaluation of a theory.

“The scientific method requires that a theory address all or most of the available relevant evidence. This is particularly true for competing theories. Any theory that fails to address the evidence and explain it is discarded in favor of one that does address and explain the evidence.”

Chandler himself falls far short of this standard. The main part of his talk is remarkable both for what he claims as “scientific” evidence and for what he completely ignores.

Over the past several years, Chandler and his Team have done everything possible to brush aside the very credible witnesses interviewed by Citizen Investigation Team in their presentation National Security Alert. These witnesses state very clearly that the plane they saw flew to the North of the Citgo gas station, a flight path that is irreconcilable with all the “damage” (the five downed light poles, the alleged entry hole, the interior damage, and the alleged exit hole).

In his Oakland presentation Chandler went beyond dismissing these witnesses, he ignored them entirely. The dozen or so witnesses interviewed on camera by CIT were very credible, and the interviews were thorough and transparent. They describe an almost identical flight path, which was to the north of the gas station. They also all described a right bank by the plane (the official flight path in the approach to the Pentagon is straight and requires the plane to be south of the gas station and south of Columbia Pike at all times).

Yes, it is true that they also believe the plane hit, but when you watch the film you see how they could have been fooled and why it is impossible for the plane to have hit the Pentagon from the north of Citgo trajectory.

Chandler ignored evidence that the radar data is fraudulent, (among other things, C-130 pilot Steve O’Brien’s description of the flight path he took contradicts the radar data as does his description of the path of the plane believed to be Flight 77). Chandler prefers to take government controlled evidence as valid even when it was released years after the fact.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth have also revealed evidence that the 9/11 flights were still airborne after they are supposed to have crashed and that the plane depicted in the FDR data could not have descended rapidly enough to level out and hit the building at ground level.

Chandler ignored the stunning revelation in Massimo Mazzucco’s film September 11: The New Pearl Harbor (at 18:30 of DVD #2) that the video footage released by the government purporting to show Flight 77 crossing the Pentagon lawn was doctored. Mazzucco showed that the synchronized video from the two similar perspectives were identical frame by frame except for the frames where we see the white blur that is supposed to be a plane.

He ignored the serious inconsistencies and outright impossibilities in the account of taxi driver Lloyde England, whose cab supposedly was impaled by a light pole hit by the plane. One important piece of evidence he also ignores is a photograph showing the cab and the downed pole along with a scratch mark on the road surface that appears to have been made by the pole being dragged into the roadway.

Also ignored was the fact that the animation released by the National Transportation Safety Board, supposedly based on the Flight Data Recorder of Flight 77, showed the plane to be on the north side of the Citgo gas station and too high to have hit the Pentagon.

Further ignored was the fact that there were no time-change plane parts found at the Pentagon that could be linked to Flight 77 through serial numbers. This includes the alleged Flight Data Recorder itself. As Mazzucco shows in New Pearl Harbor, the NTSB aircraft accident report, which always lists the serial numbers of the Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder, does not in the case of flights 77 and 93. The government has denied Freedom of Information Access requests for an explanation.

 

Focus on clocks, missing foliage

Instead of addressing all of this evidence, Chandler spent time rebutting Barbara Honegger’s theory that stopped clocks in the Pentagon and the heliport indicate that the event took place at 9:32 a.m., almost six minutes before the official story says. He cites a study done by Team member John Wyndham, who dropped a number of battery-operated clocks to see what would happen to the minute hand and found that it could fall towards the “6.”

“He did this repeatedly, and recorded the results in great detail,” Chandler explained.

He also said the clock issue is part of the “current theory” touted by no-impact researchers, but that’s not true; it’s part of Honegger’s theory. This can be argued on its merits, but it hasn’t supplanted any other theories. While Chandler and Honegger can duke it out over battery-operated clocks, the evidence that no plane impact took place remains as strong as ever.

But that wasn’t the last side trip in Chandler’s talk. There was the mysterious case of the missing foliage.

“So a fraction of a second later the starboard engine appears to have cut a circular notch out of the top of the foliage of a tree standing beside the roadway. These events have lower certainty than the following events but they are consistent with these other events. If the starboard engine actually clipped and ingested the foliage from the top of the tree it could account for the smoke cloud seen in the Pentagon security camera video.”

Are you following this? There was a circular notch in the top of a tree that might have been caused by a plane’s engine. He doesn’t really know, but he thinks it might have happened. He thinks it might have “ingested” the foliage. He thinks this might have caused the smoke cloud that was seen.

Is this what he means by “going beyond speculation”?

Fortunately, the scientific method comes to the rescue. Chandler cites another study by another member of the Team. This time it’s Jonathan Cole, who calculated the speed of the blades in his heavy power mower at home and found that they would cut the foliage even if the blades were dull. Chandler explains how this is relevant:

“The power takeoff rotates at 550 rpm based on the gear ratio on the length of the blade. He calculated the tip of the blade moves at about 175 miles per hour. Even with a dull blade it will easily trim brush. The Pentagon plane was moving at about 550 mph in the last seconds; it was accelerating as it went into the Pentagon, so despite the relatively dull edge of the engine wall it would trim foliage at least as easily as the mower.”

The speculation keeps coming.

Another study was done by Cole about the alleged exit hole in the wall of the C ring. Refuting the idea that it is a round hole, Chandler says that Cole found that “only the surface bricks have the rounded appearance, more like a rounded cornered rectangle really.”

“The appearance suggests that something broke through from the inside out and tension forces pulled the surface bricks away giving the rounded look.”

I don’t know, but that kind of sounds like speculation, too.

He also points out that the distance between a damaged concrete barrier on the Pentagon lawn and damage to the generator trailer is roughly equivalent to the distance between the two engines of a 757. So, he concludes, that damage is “consistent” with a plane impact.

Notice that anything he and the Team choose to study is aimed at challenging claims by truthers and supporting elements of the official story? In studies, papers, presentations, and films in the last several years, this group has done more to push critical parts of the Pentagon official story than the government has.

Chandler said that the fact that the wings were full of fuel when they hit the light poles added to the likelihood the poles would be knocked over. In case you’re wondering whether the fuel in the wings should have exploded when they hit the light poles, he offers this:

“… the wings were full of fuel; that just adds to their inertia and makes them more able to make a substantial impact. Liquids have mass. I just wanted to throw that in.”

Chandler departs from the official story on one point. He says that flying at high speed and low altitude is not likely to have been possible for a human pilot, which would mean that Hani Hanjour was not behind the controls.

“One does not have to postulate a no-plane scenario to find evidence of insider involvement. The extremely difficult high-speed, low-altitude approach is evidence in itself of external control hence insider involvement.”

Chandler cites the Sandia National Laboratories test done in 1988 where an F4 Phantom fighter was propelled on a rocket sled at 480 miles per hour into a 10-foot-thick concrete barrier. The result, it appeared, was that the plane was blown into bits as it collided with the wall, which sustained little damage. We never see the aftermath, however, so we cannot verify what the wreckage looked like.

Chandler uses this test to justify his position that the wings, tail section, and rear stabilizers were similarly turned into “confetti” when they hit the Pentagon’s two-foot-thick reinforced wall while the fuselage, the weakest part of the plane’s frame, was able to penetrate the building along with the “heavy parts” of the plane. By this, I guess he primarily means the engines. But where is the evidence that the engines entered the building? If they did, why didn’t they keep going and create two exit holes? They certainly would have been more likely to do that than the fuselage would have been.

The Sandia F4 test is not comparable on many levels: the aircraft are completely different, the F4 had water in its fuel tanks instead of fuel, and the F4 hit the wall straight on, not at an angle. But the most important difference is that the F4 did not penetrate the barrier, which is not what Chandler claimed happened at the Pentagon. He does not explain how the plane could both penetrate 300 feet into the Pentagon while very large parts of it were turned to confetti outside. Let’s not forget that the tail section would have had to turn to confetti without breaking windows right in its path.

Does anyone really believe that no recognizable part of the wings, tail section, and rear stabilizers would have been left outside the building?

Chandler likes to talk about things being “consistent” with a 757 plane impact. But whether it was a real crash or staged to look like one, it would have to appear consistent otherwise it would not fool anyone. This doesn’t mean that we don’t consider the evidence that appears consistent with a crash, but we do have to factor in all the evidence.

But Chandler likes to tie things up as if he has provided all the proof necessary, as demonstrated by this statement:

“It turns out that the size of the hole and other damage to the façade is consistent with a high speed 757 impact.”

 

Chandler and the ‘Team’

This small group has devoted a puzzling and disturbing amount of time and effort to convincing us that most of the Pentagon official story is true. I think we should ask ourselves why they are doing that.

These researchers are clearly co-ordinating their efforts and have made it their mission to convince the Truth Movement that it should abandon Pentagon research because the evidence we have all points to a large airliner crashing into the Pentagon, just as the official story says. And all this to keep us all from embarrassing ourselves in the eyes of the world.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with researchers working together and following a co-ordinated strategy, but they should be honest that this is what they are doing. These researchers don’t really say they are collaborating as a group (although they often co-author papers and statements), but instead they leave the false impression that they are acting independently but that they just respect each other’s work.

The all-too-familiar divisions that we see on the question of the Pentagon are, I believe, a direct result of what this Team and its supporters have been doing. The Team behaves like a secret political party that is very good at staying “on message” and repeating talking points that serve as doublespeak like: speculation, credibility, scientific method, consistent with, scholarly papers, and foolish and paranoid.

Chandler isn’t taking us “beyond speculation” at all. He is taking us backward. He is telling we should abandon all the incredible research that has been done over 14 years to establish that the official story of the Pentagon event is filled with lies, deception, and misdirection.

To give you an idea of how much damage this group has done to the 9/11 Truth Movement, many people are now hesitant to say out loud that they don’t believe a plane hit the Pentagon even though they’ll admit privately that this is what they think. It has become “controversial” to say so even though the vast majority of truthers clearly believe it. Some are afraid their strong position on controlled demolition at the World Trade Center will be compromised if they say anything about the Pentagon. They’ve been conditioned to believe that the subject leads to endless infighting and that they should avoid it.

This must change.

The effort by this Team is not about the scientific method or going beyond speculation, it’s about trying to neutralize some of the strongest evidence the Truth Movement has that 9/11 was an inside job. And it has done enormous damage.

When I read what they write or listen to what they say, I have the feeling I’m being marketed to, that I’m being manipulated. They claim they are trying to protect the Truth Movement from losing credibility, but what they are doing is undermining the effort to prove the official story false. It is this group—not the movement as a whole—that is promoting and perpetuating the perceived divisions over the Pentagon.

I think it’s time that the quiet majority of 9/11 truthers—who understand how strong the evidence is that a plane did not hit the Pentagon and why it is so important—stand up to this group and not be afraid to state loudly and clearly that we aren’t buying what they’re selling.

790 comments

  1. Amen. For one thing, there are too many things missing that would be present if the OCT about an airliner striking the Pentagon were true — such as no actual plane parts identifiable by serial number.

  2. There is obviously not going to be any reconciliation with these Pentagon-Truther-Shills.
    It is tragic, as some of them such as Chandler and Cole have made such outstanding contributions on the WTC issue. I suppose it gets down to the matter of hubris and the arrogance of position in their imagined hierarchy of the ‘Truth Movement’ – which they have been so instrumental in splitting, despite their contrary claims.
    \\][//

    1. I think that’s the point. You do a seemingly good job, and then totally undermine everything by claiming something like a plane really hit the pentagon.

      You have to be suspicious about everyone, people. Not so much that you become neurotic or paranoid, but enough to keep your eyes open, and see the truth. There have been many dodgy people in 9/11 research until it, of course, got decimated by the likes of Jim Fetzer, Bollyn, Hufschmid and others in 2007/8, and this Chandler guy (sorry not heard of him before today. I pulled out of the field a long time ago.) seems to fit the pattern of disinfo or limited hangout.

      [Side note: Interesting that someone in the article with the name of John Wyndham. Same name as the guy who wrote Day of The Triffids. Real name, or “pseudonym”?]

      Oh and further down, the sobriquet, “Dynamic Duo” comes up. Some may remember that Fetzer and his sidekick Kevin Barrett used to call themselves that. Funny since they were as dynamic as logs of wood, and more disengenuous.

      1. curiousegypt123,

        John Wyndham wrote science fiction, perhaps that is why he was chosen as author and coauthor with Legge and his crew of merry pranksters. [No, I don’t know for certain he is the same author, but if it is a pseudonym, that would be telling as well.

        Chandler and Cole, on the other hand have made outstanding contributions to the matter of thermate and controlled demolition. They are the most mysterious of the present crew claiming an airplane hit the Penatagon.

        You realize that the term “Fetzer” is considered a filthy word in these parts pardner…(?)
        \\][//

        1. The real John Wyndham died in the late 60s … so it probably isn’t that one(!) … probably. But it may indeed be an inside joke of some kind. I don’t know. The powers that be do like to rub our noses in it, after all.

          Still … just because Chandler and Cole have made great contributions to the matters concerned still does not make them entirely above suspicion when they come out with something like a plane hitting the pentagon. It cannot have happened … it is just not possible, and they should know that. So … we have to then go with the “they’ve got an agenda” thing.

          Fetzer is a real piece of work. I was fairly close to a number of fairly prominent people in the 9/11 truth community around 2007/8, and saw what happened when the field imploded around then. Fetzer was in the middle of it, and remember his extraordinarily awful podcasts with some not small amount of horror. The guests couldn’t get a word in at all. Not even his sidekick, Kevin Barrett could … and they were supposed to be a “dynamic duo”. Hilarious stuff.

          And he continues to this day, committing outrages, and still getting away with it. The last worst one was implying that the late great Michael Collins Piper staged a heart attack. Some time later of course, Mike Piper died … of a heart attack, I believe. Did he stage that too? Complete arsehat in my opinion.

          Anyhow, I believe that Fetzer is an establishment guy. His job is to go into all the little details, and distract attention from the bad guys. He mentions zionism now, I believe, but he certainly wasn’t doing that in 2007/8. Not a single word about the Israeli connections to 9/11, then, but now?

          Anyway, I can understand totally why Fetzer is a bad word around these parts. He is bad … full stop. I just wish someone could get something on him, that’s all. We’d all have quieter lives if someone did!

          Kind regards,

          Harvey P.

          1. “Still … just because Chandler and Cole have made great contributions to the matters concerned still does not make them entirely above suspicion when they come out with something like a plane hitting the pentagon. It cannot have happened … it is just not possible, and they should know that. So … we have to then go with the “they’ve got an agenda” thing.”
            ~Harvey P.

            I have to agree with that, something is squirming in the shadows here.

            Fetzer is such an obvious mole and charlatan that anyone buying his oink has some missing marbles.
            https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/
            \\][//

            1. “Fetzer is such an obvious mole and charlatan …”. Indeed, like Alex Jones, but people still support them. There must be some sort of disorder that some people have that gives them blinkered vision, and follow obviously dodgy people/agents. I just don’t know.

              The funny thing is that skeptics will say that “there is so such thing as an agent” or whatever, but there is. That’s what COINTELPRO was all about. But, of course, that doesn’t happen now. That was all sorted out long ago … so nothing to see here, move along.

              In the end, it’s like banging your head against a wall. That’s why I withdrew from the 9/11 truth field some years ago. You can only do so much, and say so much. People will get the idea in the end that there are controlled oppositions, there are false flag events, there are no real terrorists. It’s all a game to bring fear to the masses, and keep them in control.

              Fetzer is just one of the people involved. The more people stand up to people like him, the better. For the most part, these people are bullies and cowards, and those kinds of people tend to fold when you confront them.

              Best wishes

              Harvey P.

        2. You got the wrong John Wyndham. The science fiction author died in 1969. This John Wyndham is a retired astrophysicist who was in on the discovery of neutron stars.

          1. D Chandler,
            Well as I surmised previously we weren’t seriously asserting it was the same John Wyndham.

            So being a retired astrophysicist is supposed to give him some special authority as to the event at the Pentagon? Your own work, well admired and appreciated, still doesn’t give you the authority to challenge the findings of facts as discussed here.

            As much as I appreciate your earlier works, I still am baffled at your position. How is it that you dismiss the findings of CIT and Pilots4Truth? Why don’t you answer with a point by point rebuttal the counter argument Craig Ranke put together? Why do you avoid this debate here?

            Does your sudden appearance today mean you ARE willing to discuss these matters now, or is this to be a drive by shooting?

            Or is this a case of mistaken identity and you are NOT the David Chandler I assume you are?

            ~Willy Whitten \\][//

              1. But Mr Chandler, I have read what you have written. I am speaking to the Pentagon event. I am disputing you directly on your position on that matter.
                As mentioned Craig Ranke has written a scathing rebuttal of your position, one that tears your position apart with laser sharp accuracy.
                What we are all looking forward to is your response to both Ranke, the witness assessements by Onesliceshort on Pilots4Truth, as well as the FDR data analysis for the airplane alleged to be Flt 77 by Pilots.
                You have left this meal in your plate to get cold. I know how difficult it is to eat cold crow. But you must have out with it sooner or later. Your past laurels will wither brown and leave you naked in the eyes of posterity otherwise.
                As you may know, I was having a long email discussion with Frank Legge while he was writing his infamous paper meant to debunk the CIT position. I am well aware of his tendency to force square pegs into round holes. Perhaps you have missed the fact of how disingenuously he treated the witness testimonies of the confirmed North of Citgo witnesses?

                You will have nothing further to say here? No response to Ranke? I find that a tragic stance for you to take Mr Chandler. You are splitting the movement you claim you want to heal. It may dawn on you one of these days what a dire mistake you have made.
                \\][//

                1. Willy said:

                  “You will have nothing further to say here? No response to Ranke? I find that a tragic stance for you to take Mr Chandler”

                  His handlers won’t allow him to engage in open debate; he would be made to look like a fool.
                  His job is to spread propaganda on forums where his opponents are unable to reply.

                  “You are splitting the movement you claim you want to heal”

                  That’s the mission allotted to him by his masters.

                  1. Eh, I’m still not 100% convinced of that beyond a shadow of doubt.

                    I actually like what Mazzucco said about Jenkins, and I think it likely applies to Chandler too. (Legge, on the other hand, I’m convinced is an agent.)

                    “The problem is not Ken Jenkins,” Mazzucco said. “Ken Jenkins is just the victim of this problem. Somebody must have worked his brain and other people’s brains enough with this scientific bullshit that they actually fell for it. He’s probably a real truther doing it in all honesty. And if he’s not, he’s doing a really bad job.”

                    1. Adam Syed said:

                      “Eh, I’m still not 100% convinced of that beyond a shadow of doubt”

                      Me neither…..I’m kinda hovering around 95-97%, and not beyond a shadow of a doubt, but only beyond a reasonable doubt.

                      I don’t go for the mind-melding abilities of Legge…..I like to stick with Occam’s Razor most of the time.

                      If Chandler can be swayed so easily by nonsensical arguments, then he is a weak-minded, infantile person who should NEVER have been teaching High-School Physics.

                      I admit that there is that possibility; I just don’t think it’s the case with Chandler.

                    2. If Chandler’s an agent he’s doing a bad job.

                      I actually don’t think he is. It’s not just about him getting NIST to admit freefall. He made many excellent YouTube shorts which scientifically explain how the buildings were CD. Even if the govt had not admitted freefall, DC’s videos stand on their own. They are the perfect answer to people who ask for a scientist’s take on this.

                      I think that he does deeply care about the credibility and public image of the movement.

                      I think that he sincerely believes that the “flyover conclusion” looks stupid to the average public.

                      As such, he emotionally clings to any “information” that points toward the plane hitting instead of flying over.

                      It is unfortunate that in this “clinging,” he supports some entirely nonsensical arguments propagated by Frank Legge.

                2. Craig Ranke interviewed 13 eyewitnesses who say the saw a plane. One of them said it was United Airlines another said it was American Airlines. Regardless they all saw a plane, Some of them even saw it hit the pentagon including the one who identified it as an American Airlines flight. Even it came from the North side, in the end you still have a plane hitting the Pentagon. There are over 130 eyewitnesses who saw it coming coming from the south side. So what does the weight of evidence rule require?

                  1. “Craig Ranke interviewed 13 eyewitnesses who say the saw a plane.”~themockingbirdpost

                    You are behind the times Mockingbird. There are many more North approach witnesses at this point in time.

                    As far as the the claim; “There are over 130 eyewitnesses who saw it coming coming from the south side.” — This too is behind the times. There was no distinction made between North & South side witnesses until the CIT revelations. All witnesses were bundled together into a single group, regardless of their POV, distance from the event, obstructions between them and the event, whether they were stationary of moving, etc.

                    “So what does the weight of evidence rule require?” You ask. It requires that each witness be assessed by the criteria I mentioned above; and fully articulate thus:

                    The Criteria for Assessing the Reliability of Witness Testimony

                    The most critical would be:

                    1. — POV — and Distance from event witnessed

                    2. – Consideration of obstructions a witness’ position would encounter

                    3. – Human perception of events that occur in a matter of seconds and less – the likelihood of a duck response to a nearby explosive event.

                    We might add to these:

                    4. — Possible conflict of interests

                    5. — Obvious conflict of interests

                    6. — Internal conflicts of a single witness’ testimony, and a detailed analysis of how this might be (see 3rd critical criteria point)

                    7. — Established history of lying

                    8. — Conflicts with known and established empirical evidence.

                    Plus; particular circumstances of specific witnesses, that could effect the reliability of a certain witness.
                    \\][//

                  2. For the sake of clarity, you are Ed Brotherton, right? It’s important that people don’t think these Pentagon comments are coming from two different sources.

                    First of all, Ed, everybody saw a plane. That is not the issue. The issue is whether it hit the building or not. Perhaps you should better familiarize yourself with the research not only of CIT but also of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. If it came from the north side, there is no impact. The north side path is irreconcilable with the damage path. Also, there are NOT 130 eyewitnesses who saw it coming from the south side. Is it your contention that we total up the witnesses and whichever story gets the most supporters wins?

                    1. That’s not what I’m saying at all. You have to weigh all the evidence including the totality of the circumstances. If 13 eyewitnesses say they saw a plane from the north then that is just evidence that eyewitnesses saw a plane coming from the North. That is just it, nothing more nothing less. It becomes irrelevant because of the plane that was seen coming from the South and striking the Pentagon. A Judge would ignore the 13 eyewitness testimony because it doesn’t confirm nor deny a plane striking the pentagon. Then he would turn to all the eyewitnesses who did see it and consider their testimony. He would also look at the photographs of the debris, the down light poles which is evidence of the path of the aircraft etc. and make a decision based on that. In order for evidence to relevant it must possess any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

                    2. Ed, if you want a do-over on this comment just let me know. Because what you wrote makes no sense at all. They would ignore the north side witnesses? That would be idiotic. The very credible north side witnesses are crucial because they demonstrate that the plane was on a path that did not match the damage.

                    3. Ed Brotherton,

                      You are blatantly making predictions on what a judge would or would not do in the case of the Pentagon witnesses. You are not a seer, nor do you have a crystal ball.

                      Since the possibility of the issue ever getting into court, lets deal with the issue as it stands now, in the Court of we who will make a full analysis of the evidences, including the proposed evidence of a plane crash, and an analysis of ALL of the witnesses.

                      Your side [that being the Chandler-Legge side] – have NOT analyzed all of the witness statements in a rational manner. When this is done, we find there is no such thing as a South Side Witness. There was only ONE PLANE to witness Ed.

                      So far neither you nor any other on ‘your team’ have gone through the exhaustive analysis by Onesliceshort, that has been published on both the CIT site and the P4T site. Anyone who hasn’t digested this material is simply ignorant of the facts concerning the Pentagon witnesses.

                      You will forever be at a disadvantage when you are ignorant of the actual argument your adversaries are making.

                      It is this willful ignorance on you display that leaves us with no choice as to see you as suffering from ‘Confirmation Bias’. By you, I mean all of your “team”.

                      Do not think that we do not know your side’s argument inside and out. That argument’s variance between the official narrative is nominal at best. We have all understood the official narrative for 14 years! The few caveats to that narrative offered by Chandler are trivial. His, and your argument IS the official narrative in the most part.

                      Again, the truth is found in the trajectory of the plane being impossible to cause the damage path within the Pentagon. Impossible, Period.

                      \\][//

                    4. Craig – I’m sorry but you’re incorrect there are eyewitnesses who state they saw it coming from the south or southwest. Secondly I won’t be needing a do over on my other message because I was very clear. I was simply going by the evidence code and what it requires. A Judge is bound by these rules of evidence and therefore can predict with a fair degree of accuracy how a judge would deal with witnesses who saw a non event. I’m still waiting on someone to explain to me the 1/2 piece of landing gear. Please indulge me. And don’t tell me it was planted ahead of time because anyone who knows how military security procedures work. It’s horse shit.

                    5. “I’m still waiting on someone to explain to me the 1/2 piece of landing gear. Please indulge me. And don’t tell me it was planted ahead of time because anyone who knows how military security procedures work. It’s horse shit.”~Ed Brotherton

                      The 1/2 piece of landing gear, like all other plane parts inside the Pentagon was planted ahead of time. Anyone who knows chain of command and compartmentalization knows this is certainly possible.

                      Brotherton, there was ONE PLANE and it flew directly over the Sheraton, the Navy Annex, and just north of the Citgo station. That trajectory proves that it had to have flown over the Pentagon. It is as simple as that.
                      \\][//

              2. David,

                A drive by and that is it huh? Pathetic. A genuine truther would face opponents in the open and if he was shown to be in error he would change his stance and embrace the truth regardless of personal considerations. That is what real truthers do.

                I for one am not going to beg you to debate this issue. As far as I am concerned the points made in this article and the points made in CIT’s response to your and Cole’s paper have gone UN-rebutted. The ball is in your court now. We have read your material and listened to what you have to say and we responded to it. Now it is up to you to either respond to our criticisms of your pentagon position or pretend they don’t exist and hide from the whole thing.

            1. Has anyone here been successful in finding out any information on, the “astrophysicist” John Wyndham? I have found only one single entry in my g-search, and that was a short entry by Wyndham himself on an astrophysics chat-room discussion. This seems remarkably odd if Wyndham was “in on the discovery of neutron stars,” to any appreciable degree.
              \\][//

              1. John Wyndham’s middle initial is D, so I searched for “Wyndham JD” at Google Scholar. After clicking around a bit, I hit upon this convenient query yielding 10 astrophysics paper (co-) authored by a J. D. Wyndham, all in the mid-1960s:

                http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?return_req=no_params&author=Wyndham,%20John%20D.&db_key=AST

                He has done work with Antony Hewish and on the Crab Nebula, both in 1967; both Hewish and the Crab Nebula are mentioned on Wikipedia in connection with the first observation of pulsars believed to be neutron stars in 1967:
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#History_of_discoveries

                So it seems plausible that Wyndham had some hand in that work towards the discovery of neutron stars, but his contribution, if any, was probably minor.

                It looks to me that his greater contribution was to the research on quasars, to which he provided the leg-work of matching radio sources and optical observations of these objects, which, too, were first discovered in that time-frame of the mid-60s.

                1. Thanks Jens,
                  It was on a discussion of Antony Hewish, that I found the single entry I mentioned.
                  I’m glad Wyndham had his telescope trained on the Pentagon on 9/11 — too bad he didn’t get photos. (grin)
                  \\][//

          2. Has everyone here actually read Wyndham’s paper on the Pentagon? It can be accessed here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Wyndham1.pdf

            From Wyndham paper above:
            Eyewitness Testimony

            There are a large number of recorded eyewitness testimonies to the event at the Pentagon and its aftermath. The vast majority describe a large plane approaching the Pentagon, hitting the Pentagon, resulting in damage and debris after the strike. These testimonies are on the whole remarkably consistent, as can be seen by dividing the Pentagon event into three sub-events:

            A. Plane approaches Pentagon from Sheraton hotel (6.5 sec). [gotcha]

            B. Plane travels across Pentagon lawn from highway and hits the West wall (1 sec or less).[simply an assumption]

            C. Damage and debris are inspected at the Pentagon (several hours to a few days).[wrong trajectory of damage as per plane flying over the Sheraton]

            My comments are in the brackets. As an initial starting place to assess the “scientific reasonableness” of this article by the Legge faction.

            Of course we have an intensely detailed rebuttal to those assertions as our total argument. I just wanted to show the proximate errors in Wyndham’s abstract.

            Know your adversary – everyone should actually read his paper.
            \\][//

            1. A. Plane approaches Pentagon from Sheraton hotel (6.5 sec). [gotcha]

              This is a “gotcha” for the simple reason that the Sheraton hotel where Deb & Jeff Anlauf were, is due east of the Naval Annex & Pentagon, and Deb Anlauf says the plane flew directly over here and then over the Naval Annex, before she saw the explosion that she assumed was caused by the plane hitting the Pentagon. Clearly she is a North of Citgo witness.
              \\][//

            2. John Wyndham said:

              “There are a large number of recorded eyewitness testimonies to the event at the Pentagon and its aftermath. The vast majority describe a large plane approaching the Pentagon, hitting the Pentagon, resulting in damage and debris after the strike. These testimonies are on the whole remarkably consistent…..”

              Out of the “large number of recorded eyewitness testimonies”, I would like to see his top five or ten that prove that a plane hit the Pentagon.

              I know…..we’ll be waiting for a long time.

              1. sockpuppet2012,
                It needs to be recalled that there was no distinction between North approach and South approach witnesses, until CIT entered the fray and proved that those with the best POV were all those who saw the plane approaching north of the Citgo station. Thus there never were any such thing as South path witnesses; only a witness pool that were all conglomerated together and taken at face value, regardless of the POV, nearness to the event, or whether they were in traffic and just caught a quick glimpse, etc.
                Legge and Wyndham seem to still be stuck in that false paradigm of non-distinction and framing their own jury-rigged distinctions in their disingenuous efforts to prove the official narrative\\][//

                1. Willy said:

                  “It needs to be recalled that there was no distinction between North approach and South approach witnesses, until CIT entered the fray…..”

                  Yes, I see your point exactly, but I would still like to see Legge/Wyndham’s, or Chandler/Cole’s top five witnesses that they feel prove’s a plane crash so we can analyze them.

                  But you and I and most of the people on this blog know that they are insincere; they don’t believe the bullcrap they are spreading…..if they did, they would gladly defend it in open debate.

                  Hey, Willy…..did it ever cross your mind that Chandler’s “drive-by” was a cry for help?…..kind of a way to get in the door?

                  Maybe Adam Syed is closer to the truth about Chandler; maybe he wants out of the clan…..Maybe he’ll do another “drive-by”, only slower.

                  Let’s see.

  3. At the very end of the “Joint Statement” page, Candler and Cole have this remarkable thing to say:
    “This is what happens to a plane (F4 Phantom jet) striking an impenetrable barrier at 500+ mi/hr. A plane moving at this speed has 25 times the kinetic energy of a plane moving at 100 mi/hr. All that kinetic energy must be dissipated by the time it comes to rest. The results are not intuitive. In the case of a passenger plane hitting the pentagon, or a plane hitting the ground at Shanksville PA, if it is traveling at the same speed it has the same kinetic energy per kilogram of mass. Therefore the same degree of destruction is to be expected. This is the major fallacy of exercises such as “Hunt the Boeing” at the Pentagon. Look at this video then I invite you to “Hunt the Phantom” – http://911speakout.org/?page_id=219

    This indicates to me that not only does this ‘Dynamic Duo’ think the Pentagon was hit ala Official Narrative – but that Shanksville is essentially the same, and 93 did actually crash directly into that old strip mine. That is as incredibly naive as their Penatagon views.

    *!!DESPICABLE!!*
    \\][//

    1. HR, it’s amazing that you would find this paragraph because I sent the very same paragraph to my collaborators to just confirm that Chandler and Cole were in fact saying they believe a 757 crashed in a field in Shanksville. I had thought of including it in the article but decided not to follow that tangent. So it’s gets in anyway, which is great. I find it incredible that anyone in the Truth Movement could believe the most ridiculous single element of the 9/11 official story. It really makes you wonder …

  4. Chandler and our host prove, albeit indirectly, an important 9/11 point: the 9/11 Pentagon conspiracy is not teachable, because either side can come up with non-stupid arguments and counter-arguments. Should the conspiracy ever gain traction among the public, the Master 9/11 conspirators will effortlessly turn it into another wedge issue, pitting otherwise reasonable activists against each other for a long time and with meager results.

    By contrast, the affirmation of the resemblance between the motions of Building 7 and of a controlled demolition is teachable. The Master 9/11 conspirators may even be afraid of it.

    As a case in point, our resident fanatic A. Wright can be predicted, if Craig has not fired her/him, to elaborate on Chandler’s arguments in a way that will not make fer/him look like the useful idiot that (s)he is to skeptical readers, whereas (s)he has consistently displayed clearly her/his fear of Building 7’s video record.

    Love,

      1. How do you plant a half ton piece of landing gear inside the pentagon during a fire? How do you plant the APU door? How do you plant the fuselage pieces that indicate an American Airlines flight. Did a bunch of government operatives wake up that morning, kiss their wives goodbye and walk out of the house with pieces of airplane parts, put them in their cars and when the time was right run around while all eyes are on them dropping plane parts everywhere? Please explain, someone because I’m actually burning calories trying to understand the logic.

        1. “How do you plant a half ton piece of landing gear inside the pentagon during a fire? How do you plant the APU door?”~Ed Brotherton

          You don’t plant the items during the fire, after the event has happened, you plant them prior to the event.

          Just like you don’t wire a building for explosive demolition during a fire. It is all taken care of beforehand.

          Burning calories is good, burning out your neurons is not so good. Take a deep breath and contemplate this more closely.
          \\][//

        2. Ed, who says the landing gear was planted during a fire? How do you know this? Are you seriously saying that the perpetrators can bring down three skyscrapers and convince the world it was because of office fires but they can’t plant some airplane debris? That one is costing me some calories. As to your quip about government operatives leaving the house with airplane parts, frankly this is not worth responding to because it is so absurd. Don’t we have to start with whether there is a plane at the site of the plane crash? Where are the wings? Where did the tail section and rear stabilizers go? Why didn’t the tail break windows that would have been right in its path? How could the fuselage break through 300 feet of building but the wings turn to confetti? If the opening is at ground level how come the engines didn’t leave trenches in the lawn and damage to the foundation? And how come the video that was released is provably tampered with? Why would they do that if it was a real crash?

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

          1. I’ve been a first responder to in-flight emergencies before thankfully the one in particular was a C5 landing with no front landing gear. Pilot was amazing and brought it within 50 feet from the end of the runway. What you are all suggesting with planting plane parts is not even in the vicinity of being possible. You are NOT going to plant a bunch of plane parts inside the pentagon ahead of the attacks and get away with it. You know they do have security at the Pentagon. I’m pretty sure you’re not going to be carrying a 1000 lb peice of landing gear in the building and just leave it there. What are you going to do? Bring in a few peices everyday over along period of time? Stuff them in a backpack? Excuse me folks, pardon me. Got this piece of fuselage here. Hey Col. can you help me with this airplane wheel I need to get it close to C-Wing? Are you all out of your fucking minds? The questions you are asking are ridiculous. Let me give you a little advice. STOP TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OUT OF CHAOS. If a firecracker blows up, you don’t ask, How come the wick is still intact? How come that piece flow 10 yards away when that peice only landed and inch away? Shit happens so stop trying to analyze. Where did the rear stabilzer go? I guess it blew all to hell. I don’t fucking know nor do I care. How could the fuselage break through 300 feet of building but wings turn to confetti? Ask a physics professor. For pete sake please stop with all this nonsense. Chandler is right and I don’t blame him for not engaging. He owes nothing to you. He put out the information and it’s there for those with eyes to see and ears to hear and unfortunately you no planers don’t qualify.

            1. Tell ya what Ed if you believe the perps could not plant plane parts at the pentagon then how in the hell did they plant thousands of pounds of explosives in the WTC towers and building 7?

              By the way Ed whenever those pictures were taken of the “plane wreckage” it was long after the fire was out and only after construction equipment was brought in to clear away rubble etc. So in your reality there is no way a couple heavy pieces of “debris” could have been brought in on a truck or tractor huh? Say prior to the time the pictures were taken? Not possible even though the perps have complete control of the entire crime scene and surrounding area? You live in fantasy land Ed if you think the perps of 9/11 could not plant a little evidence buddy.

              Also Ed where are the God damned serial numbers on those parts? If they are legitimate they should be easily traceable back to flight 77. The black box serial numbers have not been verified either so why the hell not Ed? Because Ed my naive man the evidence at the pentagon was staged and no plane ever hit it. It is proven conclusively by the north of Citgo flight path. If you don’t get it it is because you don’t want to get it.

              What bigger smoking gun could you ever have than the failure of the government to produce plane parts with serial numbers on them? Geezus man they were photographed walking around the lawn handling debris while the fire was still raging. Were they planting evidence or tampering with it because it has to be one or the other. Either one is illegal as hell and either one means the evidence is tainted and cannot be trusted. You DO NOT HANDLE EVIDENCE AT A CRIME SCENE!

              You and Chandler can trot out all the “debris” you want but it is all tainted and it is all supplied by the prime suspects of the crime. If you trust it frankly you are a moron. So you and Chandler put that in your pipes and smoke it.

              1. If you want to know how they planted explosives in the WTC then why not just ask these guys Yaron Schmuel, Paul Kurzberg, Sivan Kurzberg, Omer Gavriel Marmari, Oded Ellner, Domink Suter, Khaled Odtllah, Sakhera “Rocky” Hammad, Abdelmuhesen Mahmid Hammad, Mohammad Ali Fares, Mostafa Said Abou-Shahin. They know how it was done. As far as the Pentagon, that’s a different story entirely and I’m even willing to concede that they could have planted a bomb or two in the Pentagon but they are not going to plant plane parts either in part or in whole inside the Pentagon of the magnitude that was found. And don’t think that all the photos that you see online is the limit of what was actually collected by investigators. Where are they going to put the parts? How do you get past all the security and all the workers, We’re talking fully intact APU doors, landing gear, etc. Where are they going to put them? Inside the wall during the construction? You know how many people would have been working on that job site? You have building inspectors to get it past? As a former Air Force Security Specialist that scenario isn’t possible. Besides you still have the problem with the eyewitnesses who saw an American Airlines plane fly into the Pentagon. So why would they need to plant parts when people saw the damn plane fly into it?

              2. @Adam Ruff
                how in the hell did they plant thousands of pounds of explosives in the WTC towers and building 7?
                Are you sure they did?
                You make a double claim here about what was planted ahead of time in the WTC:
                1. Explosives
                2. Thousands of Pounds

                The Landmark Tower in Fort Worth was an office highrise that was imploded with merely hundreds of pounds of explosives:
                http://www.dhgt.com/PDF/A%20talented%20team%20of%20demolition%20experts.pdf
                The explosive charges used to bring down the Landmark Tower weighed only 364 pounds, consisting of 198 pounds of 60-percent nitroglycerine-based gel in 1-1/4 inch sticks, and 166 pounds of RDX (a C-4 derivative). The explosives were supplied by Buckley Powder Company. To break structural steel, 369 linear shaped armor-piercing charges were required. Concrete columns were broken with the larger charges of RDX ranging from 2 ounces to 12 ounces at a density of 600 grains to 4,000 grains per lineal foot.
                To repeat:
                * only 364 pounds of explosives
                * The larger charges were only 2 to 12 ounces
                * 369 charges to break steel
                All charges were fires within 6 seconds, with 120 distinct salvos.

                The Landmark was 30 floors / 380 feet tall, that’s 28% of the twin towers. I haven’t found numbers for width and breadth, but estimate they were about half those of the twins, to give the Landmark roughly 7% the volume of the Twins.

                And here is what those 364 pounds of explosives sounded like:
                * From close range: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZBXuyIE28
                * From about 0.4 miles away with a noisy helicopter oberhead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhaTHN3McXY&t=65

                I hope everyone here agrees that no explosions approaching in loudness those in Ft. Worth even remotely were heard in NYC on 9/11 just before and as the towers collapsed. We have all seen so many videos from near and far. Not a single one has these clear, loud, doninating bangs that are the defining characteristic of every explosive demolition that ever was.

                So either there weren’t explosives at the WTC
                Or the explosive charges were much much smaller and not associated with the collapses.

                What evidence do you cite that there were “thousands of pounds of explosives in the WTC towers and building 7“? Why explosives, and why thousands of pounds?

    1. The only reason it could be turned into a wedge issue is because of people like Chandler and the Team telling us over and over how divisive it is. But I don’t think it is. The divisions are contrived to get us to drop the Pentagon evidence. The results are meager because they’ve been allowed to get away with it for too long.

      1. “The only reason it could be turned into a wedge issue is because of people like Chandler and the Team telling us over and over how divisive it is.” With all due respect to Craig, it is not. Getting Chandler and the Team to affirm a Pentagon conspiracy is an easy challenge compared to the one that would logically follow. Should a grassroots 9/11 Pentagon movement gain strength, the Master 9/11 conspirators may align against it the innumerable watchdogs that have failed to teach the Twin Towers’ glaring terrorist controlled demolition, starting with the U.S. congress, the Washington Post, and the American Society of Civil Engineers.

        Now, the competition to lead humanity beyond this 9/11 hump is best kept friendly. Leaders and activists are welcome to lobby and to reach out using the Pentagon conspiracy. I humbly predict that they will be much more successful using the worldwide lapse of TV coverage of Building 7’s extraordinary disintegration by an office fire, but I’ll decline to argue the point. Should I be proved wrong and should it be the 9/11 Pentagon conspiracy that blows up the 9/11 censorship and ushers a historically unprecedented era of peace, harmony and prosperity, it will be good for everyone.

        Love,

        1. I believe it’s cumulative evidence against the official story that will advance the cause. We don’t have to choose. What sold me was all of it, including the Pentagon. As for keeping things friendly, I’m all for it, but I think it’s more complicated than that. This group I describe has been misleading us about the Pentagon for years now, and they keep doing it. Next year we’ll have Ken Jenkins documentary that will likely repeat the same themes we got from Chandler.

          1. Yes, let us keep our relationship friendly and let us avoid arguing. By all means, you and your friends are welcome to spend energy trying to persuade Chandler and others that their Pentagon analysis is badly flawed. But assuming you succeed, and further assuming that you manage to spur a significant grassroots effort on the Pentagon conspiracy, be ready to be confronted with a massive propaganda not only from TV, but also from “respectable” institutions like faculties of engineering. They will turn the Pentagon conspiracy into a wedge issue, line up an grassroots army of 9/11 skeptics and 9/11 fanatics against you.

            Accordingly, I’ll keep humbly advising 9/11-cognizant people to decline to take part in your effort and to instead reach out on the public’s lack of awareness of the sudden, rapid and complete self-destruction of a certain large World Trade Center skyscraper in the evening of 9/11. The same institutions that have promoted the official 9/11 superstition seem afraid of it. So do the 9/11 fanatics who infest the web, including our own A. Wright.

            Love,

            1. To say let’s avoid arguing is sounds fine but it assumes all parties are sincere and open to what others have to say. I have no interest in persuading Chandler of anything. That ship sailed long ago. I want to bring all the knowledge we have about the falsity of the official story to the world. It seems to me that to avoid pushing the Pentagon issue because of some possible propaganda campaign doesn’t make much sense.

              And your statement about humbly recommending that people decline to take part in this effort is really counterproductive. Why would you want to stand in anyone’s way who is trying to show how the official story cannot be true?

              1. “Why would you want to stand in anyone’s way who is trying to show how the official story cannot be true?” I wouldn’t. I might respectfully advise them that their system has fatal flaws.

                “It seems to me that to avoid pushing the Pentagon issue because of some possible propaganda campaign doesn’t make much sense.” Then, by all means, keep pushing it.

                Love,

            2. Perhaps we should avoid arguing with Shyam Sunder of NIST too? I mean since we all agree the towers were destroyed why not just be cordial to him and find that common ground and avoid arguing? Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

              Dan you and Robin Hordon both persist over and over with this “can’t we all just get along” BS. The answer is NO I CAN’T GET ALONG WITH PEOPLE WHO PUSH DISINFORMATION ABOUT 9/11. I don’t ever intend to get along with them. I intend to expose them for what they are. Now as to your constant attempts to get us all to drop the pentagon issue and focus solely on WTC 7 the answer to that is also a big resounding NO WAY IN HELL!

              The pentagon evidence does not in any way shape or form detract from the WTC demolition evidence in fact it compliments it and reinforces it. There is no logical reason on earth to discard the pentagon evidence. Just stop it man. You are free to devote yourself solely to WTC 7 if you wish to Dan. I intend to investigate every possible aspect of 9/11 and expose every bit of evidence that I can INCLUDING THE PENTAGON. Quit trying to talk us into dropping it Dan. WE ARE NOT GOING TO DROP IT!

  5. Craig and the Adam boys, excellent article! My hat’s off to you. I don’t think the Pentagon Goon Squad is going to sway too many away from the truth of the CIT-Pilots info.
    But the Chandler-Cole Ruse really pisses me off anyway.
    \\][//

      1. Thanks HR. Craig deserves most of the credit. He’s the main prose author save a few clauses here and there. Adam and I read drafts for him and supplemented him with additional ideas, as well as links that we had archived or remembered specific words and sites in order to pull them up via a Google.

    1. It’s pretty bloody sad, considering the work he did on the “collapses” of the WTC buildings.

      I must consider that he’s been given the Van Romero treatment.

      At any rate, we’ve been going round and round for over fourteen years. I think we can iron down some facts, and then work out some debunk-proof evidence.

      When we allow criminals to profit from crimes, those crimes will continue.

      1. It is in fact tragic! Cole and Chandler did such important ground breaking work. That can never be taken away from them. I applaud them for that, still do. But the minds that did that prime work have now somehow closed to new information. It is baffling.
        \\][//

  6. I cannot reconcile five things about the Pentagon evidence:

    1. Testimony of Sean Boger, located at the heliport tower, said the plane was north of the Citgo.
    2. Testimony of William LaGasse, located under the Citgo’s north canopy, said the plane was north of the Citgo.
    3. Testimony of Chadwick Brooks, located across the street from the Citgo, said the plane was north of the Citgo.
    4. The NTSB animation, based upon the FDR, shows the plane north of the Citgo.
    5. The NORAD animation, based upon radar data, shows the plane north of the Citgo.

  7. Have they gone “Charlie Veitch”? When will they start referencing “Dr.” Judy Wood’s contributions?

    As in Star Trek, have these heretofore leaders been assimilated into the Borg collective?

  8. Great article Craig, you knocked it out of the park!

    As compelling as the collapse of the WTC towers is, it will never lead to trials and convictions, whereas the faked crash at the Pentagon could. Real people ordered those light poles taken down and the bombs planted in the building. Those people want to live out their lives enjoying their wealth and not have to worry about public opinion shifting enough over the coming years to make them have to pay for their crimes.

    Seems obvious to me that the powers that be don’t care or aren’t threatened by widespread knowledge of controlled demolition at the WTC, but the faked plane crash at the Pentagon scares the bejesus out of them, and they have worked hard to persuade the truth movement to abandon the position that the crash was faked.

  9. I wonder sometimes how viral internet films like Loose Change could NOT have been seen by average web surfers. But what are you going to do? I guess a lot of folks just haven’t seen it. But for Chandler and co to ignore or somehow to have not seen the best 9/11 film going, The New Pearl Harbor, is a real head scratcher. Something tells me this article will similarly be ignored or not seen by Chandler and co.

    Superbly argued article BTY.

    1. I forgot, are not Chandler and co featured in The New Pearl Harbor? How modest and unassuming they must be to not to have seen themselves in a film.

      1. They are, and they are aware of his Pentagon section and actually tried to convince him to retract it, to no avail.

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

        “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.”

        Notice the buzzword, “scientists?”

        Signed by Chandler, Legge and Wyndham.

    2. Thank you, Jimbo. But we know that Chandler, Legge, and Wyndham have seen New Pearl Harbor because they wrote to the filmmaker, Massimo Mazzucco, to try and convince him to change the Pentagon section of the film.

      1. Craig,

        I see we are now being given a clown act in the person calling itself, “americanterrorists”. This clown seems to think that jokes are arguments, and tripe video hoaxes can replace reasoned debate.

        If this is the quality of mind that fall for the Chandler-Cole group, they are in BIG trouble!
        \\][//

        1. 3 days gone and not a peep out of ‘Constabulary for Pentagon 9/11’ in that time, typical but a pisser anyway.
          \\][//

            1. Bullshit Hufferd,

              They have no claim on being thinned skin on this manner, and your tepid defense of these weasels is tipping over into trash itself. They have had YEARS to face this music.
              \\][//

                1. “Trolls never ascend into a promised hail of bullets.”~Hufferd

                  What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
                  \\][//

                  1. Hufferd,

                    You know I have always taken you for a mole – a real deep cover one. You are never blatant about it. It is only these subtle underhanded taunts to nag at me and disrupt the tread.
                    Don’t say another fucking word to me.
                    You will get no response anyway.
                    \\][//

  10. This is sad. It is a piss off actually. There is no question that on the available lack-of-evidence, CIT carry the day. How anyone can accept the official pentagon account and argue it in the face of the scope and direction of the NYC and Shanksville deceptions utterly defies me-especially those who are predominant in materially proving the WTC lies in the first place! Whatever happened at PENTTBOM didn’t carry 77 on its tail is clear. Coles and Chandler and Ryan have punched science holes in the WTC agnotologies I remain in awe of–but….this macabre presentation of PENTTBOM ….Just to say of CIT “Their witnesses are not representative of the overall eyewitness pool” examples the folly. these were eyewitnesses completely giving lie to the aircraft strike at OCT. busting wide open a fabrication so big It destroys the credibility of any unable to accept it. OCT would never interview these witnesses in a million years! .just as Pinnochio Sunder would never interview the dozens witnessing explosive events at WTC. they are ‘outside the pool’ because they were never IN it .

    1. Just to be clear, when you say “this macabre presentation,” it you appear to be referring to the talk. But these witnesses were not even mentioned in the talk at all. The “not representative of the… pool” is from the Chandler/Cole joint statement from 2011.

  11. Excellent dissection of the Chandler presentation by Craig and Ruff and Syed.

    I sense that seasoned 9/11 researchers, like most contributors here at Truth&Shadows, stop a few steps short of calling Chandler&Co. agents of deception out of respect for his “invaluable contributions” to the truth movement on the WTC side of things. But, this kind of limited hangout operations, first earning respect and credibility only to irrevocably poison the well later, is a classic tactic that all of you are so familiar with. (I say “you” only because I’m not a 9/11 scholar or a researcher)

    The shameless belly dancing that Chandler is engaging in on the Pentagon issue, gyrating and bending around logic and science so blatantly in front of the entire truth community is certainly indicative of the fact that he is on a mission, and not merely engaging in faulty scientific research. Although, the level of blatancy of his insincerity is so stark that I am not able to rule out the possibility that it might be a case of a previously sincere researcher having been coerced or simply threatened to engage in this deception, with one of the team members acting as his handler. But this is pure conjecture on my part.

    Considering that some 80 plus cameras had that wing of the pentagon in their field of view, all that needs to happen to make not only the pentagon no-planers, but the entire 9/11 truth look “foolish and paranoid” is to show a couple of those videos that show a plane.

    Because, I feel the spinmeisters have a little more slack on the wtc and building 7 narratives I. The eyes of the general public, hiding behind the misdirections like the Saudi connection in those 28 pages even if it were to come out that someone had planted explosives in those buildings. But with the pentagon, one of the most secure buildings on the planet, any planted evidence or fake explosions would have to come from some government agency or another from inside the pentagon. There is really no way out for them. So, it is imperative that they keep the myth of a passenger plane alive.

    Lastly, I will have to concur with a comment someone had made on these pages on an earlier thread that it takes a lot of cojones on Chandler’s part to do such a presentation, knowing well that it will be met with extreme scrutiny by the community. Perhaps it is a sign of desperation on the part of powers that shouldn’t be.

  12. How does he explain the interior Pentagon fires that were burning at around 2,000 F? That’s way more than the temp at which jet fuel burns and a helluva lot more than what ‘contents’ fires, which is the contents of a room, like furniture, carpet, paint, paper, etc burn at.

    Investigators also found a part of Nawaf al-Hazmi’s driver’s license in the North Parking Lot rubble pile.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#Rescue_and_recovery

    Wow, he must of tossed it out the 757’s window right before impact?

    1. The coincidence of a personal ID of a “hijacker” for every event is more than a little suspicious; it is absurd considering the details of each alleged crash.
      I have a hard time buying that Cole and Chandler are acting as agents of any kind. I think it is hubris on their parts.The are willfully ignorant of the total evidence surrounding the Pentagon event. I think it has to do with attempting to retain their prominence in “the Movement”, they want the spotlight on themselves exclusively. Frank Legge is another matter altogether; his MO is of a deep covert mole is unmistakable.
      \\][//

  13. Why don’t you concider the secret services infiltration into 9/11 Truth Movement? It’s well known tactic of Ochrana ( russian political secret service 1881-1917) and it’s successors namely NKWD, KGB to infiltrate opposition ( let it be revolutionary movements in XIX or leftist parties on the west in XX c.) and their agents to pretend to be a part of them. All sec.services in the world learn from them. These guys, Chandler&co. fit perfectly to such a scenario. Or are you so naive that those behind 9/11can’t do that?

  14. You know, maybe they’re in a museum somewhere and I’m a conspiracy nut but could someone show me a seatbelt buckle from the day. Compact and made strong, a seatbelt buckle is the least destructible item I can imagine. One will do but a collection of dozens would be better. Maybe the men in black picked up a few from the Pentagon lawn.

  15. As Barrie Zwicker pointed out in our last conference call “omission” is a VERY serious issue with “scientific” papers and presentations. Well Chandler omits a hell of a lot of relevant evidence and as far as I am concerned that alone proves his presentation and papers on the Pentagon are not scientific at all.

    The fact that he refuses to debate the pentagon and refuses to respond to CIT’s thorough and decisive debunking of his and Jonathan Cole’s paper about the pentagon speaks volumes to me. I find it VERY troubling that this man and a couple other “team members” have been allowed to scuttle pentagon evidence and keep it out of David Ray Griffins consensus panel. Why is Chandler allowed to black ball the pentagon without a word from Griffin himself?

    1. Good points Adam. I have made my views on the subject of “consensus” known many times. So when I simply say; Fuck the Consensus Panel. It is not merely the 9/11 panel I am grounding that expression on, but the whole concept of consensus in the first place.

      Consensus by the very nature of known human interaction is temporary.
      Temporal-Time-Space-Variants, will philosophically apply.
      \\][//

    2. Four years ago, D. R. Griffin avoided altogether CIT evidence in his 45-page chapter on the Pentagon in his book “9/11, Ten Years Later”. What Chandler is ignoring has seeds earlier. When a movement leader like Griffin was not confronted effectively then, a path to Chandler’s presentation now was being built.

      Craig, your otherwise excellent presentation could have traced the current problem back historically, or at least suggested doing so. Thanks, in any case.

      1. Paul,

        Please see the last related article, linked at the end of this post, which elaborates on DRG’s surprisingly incongruent support for Chandler’s paper(s). I excerpted a paragraph from the end of this 9/16/2011 report below:

        “Griffin cites this Legge/Chandler paper but his positions don’t agree with it at all. Nor do they support the Chandler/Cole paper. So why is he basing his presentation to the important Toronto hearings on them?”

        I believe Craig effectively challenged DRG’s views then, it’s too bad DRG has not sufficiently explained his actions.

        Don

        1. Dr. Griffin’s views and sources therefor are fairly well elucidated in Chapter 2 of his 2008 book THE NEW PEARL HARBOR REVISITED. Assuming he did not extensively revisit the topic again prior to 2010, and that his views and sources therefor did not materially change, how much more explicit did he need to be? I certainly would have found his reasoning and what he concluded convincing. Surely we’re not more interested in bibliography and credits than we are in establishing truth and facts and touching all the pre- or post-determined requisite bases?

        2. “…it’s too bad DRG has not sufficiently explained his actions.”~dji9424

          For what it’s worth, I think DRG has gotten old and tired, and hasn’t the energy to be very much engaged anymore. I think Woodworth is now managing things for him.
          \\][//

            1. Hufferd,

              Did you reply and suggest to DRG that he might make a comment here and clear up the mystery of his determination as to the Pentagon event?
              \\][//

          1. I don’t know what to make of DRG, especially after his latest article about people skeptical of the government’s 9/11 explanation and their similar skepticism towards AGW. Here’s the conclusion from his article: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42827.htm

            Conclusion

            “I wrote this article because members of the 9/11 Truth Movement should not let themselves be deceived by the fossil-fuel corporations and the front-organizations they have created. Holding that the Bush-Cheney administration gave the public a completely unscientific account of what happened on 9/11, the members of this movement should not accept the completely anti-scientific denial of global warming and climate change. Seeing the official story of 9/11 as a self-serving lie sold by Big Government, the members of the 9/11 Truth Movement should not fall for the self-serving lie told by Big Money.”

            This is a very strange linkage, it seems to support the idea that his current thinking is getting rather cloudy.

              1. Hufferd asks, “You think they should be linked, then, or shouldn’t?” concerning “Global Warming — Climate Change”

                Personally I don’t think the issues are relevant to the 9/11 Truth issue. If DRG is concerned about these matters, linking them to 9/11 is a mistake. He is just trying to carry his weight as a 9/11 Truth leader to give that weight to a separate issue.

                I also think that there is more to the issues of climate change and so-called “global warming” than the surface issues reveal. The issues are now in the political, not the scientific realm.
                \\][//

                1. That statement, “the issue is now in the political, not scientific realm” is exactly what my NASA colleague told me when I tried to get him to respond to what I thought was very strong evidence the 2nd airplane into the tower couldn’t have happened as we have been told.

                  1. Dwain, if the meaning of political is broadened, as in your usage of it here, then that is precisely why perfectly intelligent, well-educated people who would agree with every scientific principle exemplified in 9/11 events in the abstract become utterly stupid when called on to recognize them in practice as evidence in those events.

              2. I’m merely asking what is the linkage? It’s a question for the author to answer, not for me to speculate about his reasoning for the linkage.

                But if I was to speculate, I would say it might have something to do with the application of consensus, or more precisely, how the author sees the application of consensus. Because he feels the scientific consensus for 9/11 is against the government’s explanation but is for AGW, we should not reject AGW.

                But if we are actually applying true science, consensus is a diversion. Just because everyone believes something does not mean they are correct, all it means is that there will be greater pressure applied on those who don’t believe the same thing. Consensus is a argumentative tool used to pressure/humiliate anyone that refuses to believe what is offered as truth.

                Consensus is subterfuge, plain and simple. Anyone implying or stating that consensus is synonymous with science is really not interested in the truth.

                1. I agree with you — I think. What he seems to be pointing out is that, in one case, there are good reasons to reject the imposed consensus, while in the other, in his view, good reasons to accept it. But, your point, I think, is correct beyond his — that we should always apply reason and not just go along. I think that’s what you are saying — that it should have no relation to a consensus. Galileo is rightly admired for rejecting and ultimately replacing the consensus view.

                  1. Please understand that I am not trying to denigrate DRG, I’m just stating that consensus is not conclusive, especially if it has been coerced, which is generally true when it’s been applied through the Delphi Technique (RAND). Clearly their goal was not scientifically oriented, at least not in a pure sense, but in manipulating the group to go along with their intended agenda.

                    1. I have thought the same thing all along. I suspect the 911 Consensus Panel DRG started is his attempt to come to terms with the fact that he, basically an establishment man, went rogue with his stance on 9/11, and is trying to bridge the gap by establishing a new normal. I have always openly opposed the concept, which would be all right if they just called it a study group. What I admire about him, though, is that he had the courage to go rogue and follow his convictions in the first place.

                2. “Consensus is subterfuge, plain and simple. Anyone implying or stating that consensus is synonymous with science is really not interested in the truth.”~dji9424

                  Excellent comment! I couldn’t agree more. Beautifully put.
                  \\][//

                  1. Thank you HR1, unfortunately it is the world we live in, especially with regard to 9/11. Even though some of us reject the idea of consensus implying truth, a majority of the public has been duped into accepting it, without question. After all, they don’t want to be exposed/labeled as an ignoramus, whether they are actually ignorant of the facts or not. It is a very powerful technique to counteract, even when the facts are on your side.

                    I’m sure you have seen it being used many times, but let me just share one example. When the POTUS told the American public not to believe wild conspiracy theories, that you’re either with us or with the terrorists, he set in place a very large obstacle for anyone pursuing the truth of 9/11 to overcome. The intent of his statement is patently clear, yet it remains as an effective deterrent to anyone that would challenge the official story, primarily because of the power of (patriotic) consensus.

                    1. dji9424,

                      The consensus argument is a classic logical fallacy known as, ‘argumentum ad populum’ or, ‘argumentum ad numerum’.

                      In the specific case of the Delphi Method, it would be “consensus gentium” or “agreement of the clans” ‘clans’ in this case being ‘guilds’ or ‘professional organizations’; exclusive clubs claiming expertise.

                      One can see that in these rules of logic originating in Ancient Greece, are long tested and validated in the field of critical thinking; an argument of consensus has always been viewed as false argumentation.

                      As those who know the history of the Delphi Method, it is not as is often claimed a method used primarily in the medical field. The original Delphi techniques were used for battle management in strategy and tactics for warfare. Much has gone down the memory hole as far as this technique is concerned, and critical thinking in general.

                      This has been true for the two hundred plus years since the introduction to the US of the Prussian “educational” system in the late 18th century. See Iserbyt, Sutton, & Gatto. Also:

                      https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/compulsory-schooling-indoctrination/
                      \\][//

                    2. Thanks for the information regarding the technique, I’m sure it has been used as long as there have been group discussions of one sort or another. It is used in almost every public arena, whether knowledgeably (intentionally) or not. It is especially true of what is labeled as scientific (expert) arguments. What people don’t seem to understand is the difference between a scientific argument (based on observed facts, reproduced by scientific experimentation) and an argument made by scientific consensus, which may not be supported by any facts. If a scientist is making his case on consensus alone, he should just admit he has no observable facts to support his belief. Of course, this is rarely done in practice, especially if his status in the scientific community is on the line.

                      It’s really quite insidious, the pressure to conform is so great that many are just not willing to put themselves in such a vulnerable position so they go along to get along. Unfortunately, the technique works quite well to squelch opposing thoughts, thus it is SOP for many that (mistakenly) call themselves scientists. Obscurantists, gatekeepers, yes . . ., scientists, no.

                3. The common link is the mainstream media and the deep pocket corporate interests are creating a false truth diametrically opposed to the real truth — in both cases.

            1. “This is a very strange linkage, it seems to support the idea that his current thinking is getting rather cloudy.”~dji9424

              Unfortunately advanced age can bring on muddled thinking. It is a shame if DRG is loosing some mental capacity. We cannot be sure that is the case on these few bits of his writing. So it’s best to wait and see.
              \\][//

            2. which only goes to show: To be convinced is not to know.

              Big Money resides in many places – corruptible scientists are just as likely to go after the UN for funding and kudos, as they are oil companies.

              I’m surprised he (DRG) has not picked up on the religious/cultish aspects of this AGW obsession – and the Media’s telling disinterest in following through on clear signs of fraud.

              1. DRG was interviewed yesterday on internet radio, and it got into this issue. He said, the idea that scientists would be corrupted by a few 10s of thousands of dollars on grants to falsely report about climate change, while having fossil fuel companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars to cast doubt on their findings, made absolutely no sense.

                I agree with this, but find the idea of virtually all climate scientists as being fraudulent even more outrageous. That would require manipulation of all climate scientists worldwide. Or, another way of stating it, it would mean there would be virtually no climate scientists worldwide of the calibre to be authoring peer-reviewed papers, also with the fortitude to insist on reporting truthfully.

              2. DRG has been on the “manmade” climate change campaign since fading away from the 9/11 issue.

                No doubt that the industrial pollution is immense and Earth sickening. However there is known “global warming’ on every planet in the solar system, even the moon. That is why water, so illusive before has now been found in unfrozen state on Mars. There has even been reports of detection of water on the surface of Luna.

                I would say this tends to indicate that there are other factors involved in climate change, including changes in the Sun, and the geoengineering of the atmosphere by chemtrails, as well as the HAARP interference with the upper atmosphere for attempted weather manipulation.
                \\][//

                1. I’ve read his latest book. He has a chapter on climate change denial, or more specifically, denial that human activity is affecting climate. (Many commenters I’ve read online don’t seem to know the difference between climate and weather.) He goes into the arguments used by those who say that climate change is a hoax, particularly the idea that natural variances alone i.e. the sun affect climate.

                  He also meticulously documents the big bucks that certain scientists and groups were given by the fossil fuel corporations in order to fudge the science. He shows how the campaign to do this is very much parallel to the corporate campaign by the tobacco companies to get health scientists to try and convince people that there was no link between smoking and cancer. In fact, in the case of one individual, the person was a participant in both campaigns!

                  1. He also meticulously documents the big bucks that certain scientists and groups were given by the fossil fuel corporations in order to fudge the science.”
                    There is also political misdirection, with the bullshit “carbon tax credit” scheme which does nothing to better the situation, and gives the impression that something positive is done by supporting what is just another corporatist scam. And the attempt to levy the very first global tax system – we should all realize where that leads.
                    \\][//

                    1. I would like to talk about this more later, but at the moment I have experienced are complete hard drive crash and am reduced to typing on the phone with one finger. time to head to Best Buy I think… I had almost finished typing a comment to you in response and then I lost it.

                      Real quick though: the carbon tax is a moot point if we get off fossil fuels and move on to renewables… and some “tesla free energy.” Oslo Norway is the world’s first city to divest from fossil fuels. I’d like to post it but fear I’ll lose this draft if I go to my other phone tab. Griffin shared it on his FB.

                    2. HR1, there is very sensible tax (or more correctly, fee) approach proposed were 100% of the fee is returned directly to American families. If 100% is returned, then it is by definition, a fee. The fee is determined based on the amount of carbon in the product, or for other Greenhouse gasses, the equivalent effectiveness in that respect to carbon dioxide. DRG presents it as Jim
                      Hansen’s recommended approach.

                      I will add, if the U.S. passes such a fee as a federal law (including a border adjustment for imports into the U.S.), all countries wishing to sell to the U.S. market would, as a practical matter, adopt a similar tax or fee immediately.

                      For most families, they would receive a greater share of the revenues than they would pay out as fees.

                    3. It’s the same scam as 1913 when the income tax was levied. No matter what lies they tell you to pull you into the scheme it morphs into your wallet getting sucked dry — this is a globalist scam to introduce a global governing body with the power of taxation. That DRG is promoting such a concept is tragic …on a global scale. It is TARP on steroids. This is a fools game and a mouse trap for Homo Vishnu Ignoramus.
                      Government is a racket; specifically a protection racket. And a global protection racket is the last step to Neofeudalism & the New World Order.
                      \\][//

                    4. HR1, quite the contrary. As it is now, the fossil fuel companies are allowed to, indirectly, dump their toxic trash into the commons free of charge. Kind of like dumping your trash in the street rather than paying the trash company to pick it up your trash on a weekly basis.

                      The proposed fee would correct this appalling practice. A fee would be charged a steadily increasing basis, eventually reaching the point where it was equivalent to the damage done at society’s expense. And again, if it is set up as a fee rather than a tax, it would not in any way be like the national income tax instituted in 1913. And, it would come back in equal shares to all American families, distributed to the way in which Alaska distributes the a share of the oil revenues to residents.

                2. HR1, there is no evidence (here on Earth) of any other planet, moon, or even of the Earth prior to humans, increasing its warming (or the GHG concentration levels, which lead to warming) any where close to the rates of increase over the past century here on this planet.

      2. @Paul Zarembka
        As an academic can you answer a straightforward question of logical deduction.

        There is an event with two possible explanations, A and B.
        They are mutually exclusive –
        If A is true then B is false. If B is true then A is false.
        There is evidence for A. There is evidence for B.

        Do you
        1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false?
        or
        2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?

        1. Agent Wright,

          As the answer to you benumbing& trite question is glaringly obvious; this is not a question at all, it is another of your disingenuous attempts at accusation that the people on this forum have not investigated all aspects of the case at hand

          Just more of your cheesy baseless insults. You are insufferably lame and transparent.
          \\][//

      3. @Paul Zarembka: A fair point. I did want to focus on the ongoing efforts of the Team, which as you point out go back before Griffin’s 2011 Pentagon chapter. But criticism is warranted, and as you know I have criticized Griffin’s elevation of Chandler, Legge, Hoffman, and Cole to a level far beyond where they deserve to be (in terms of Pentagon research). This was definitely damaging. I do, however, have to be fair and acknowledge that Griffin also concluded they were all wrong about the Pentagon and that the evidence indicates a plane did not crash.

        1. i realize that neither consensus nor DRG’s consensus panel (of which i am a member) is favored here, but i would like to point out that in the latest consensus point on the pentagon (released last month), there is this statement at footnote 7:

          “[7] When a statement is made about the Pentagon being ‘attacked,’ it is often assumed that this means that the Pentagon was struck by an airplane. But evidence has not been adequate to establish the nature of the attack. What is known for certain is that there was an attack of some type, resulting in dozens of deaths.”

          also, in the conclusion, the point also states: “The strike on the Pentagon (whatever its nature) requires a full, impartial investigation with subpoena power.”

          if i am recalling correctly, among others, former consensus panel member barrie zwicker disapproves of the use of the term “attack” in this type of context. i would tend to agree with him–to me, an inside job is not an “attack.” however, i think it is a good sign that most recently, the consensus panel did publish a “point” containing the statements above, which stand in stark contrast to what the david chandler “team” is pushing now–even tho “team” members david chandler and jonathan cole are also members of the consensus panel.

          for full text of the above referenced 9/11 consensus point, see here –> http://www.consensus911.org/point-pent-4/

          1. I just read that point-pent-4, and frankly I have no problem with it at all. Even use of the word “strike” is not enough to make me hyperventilate. It really has nothing in it that remotely stinks of the disingenuous malarkey from Candler and Cole.
            I don’t know if you would know Dennis, if there is a chance that their obvious biases have been noted and their opinion of a passenger plane hitting is being kept on the editing floor..[?]
            \\][//

            1. Thanks, Willy. No, I have no way of knowing what was edited. When we vote on what was written and presented, there is no indication of who the author is, or what others have said in response to the original, or the edits and comments that follow the original. It’s essentially a blind process. In essence, when I (and others) vote and suggest edits, I (we) am (are) operating in a vacuum.

          2. @Dennis What would you say is the consensus among the people who were at the Pentagon that day? That would be the consensus panel I would listen to, rather than a self-selected group of people who have one thing in common , not having been at the Pentagon that day.

            1. mr. wright,
              i wasn’t there, so anything i’ve learned is via hearsay. hard to judge. i re-watched the cit’s nsa documentary last night (link to follow). i again found it to be excellent in most respects.

              1. @Dennis Since you have watched NSA maybe you could answer the question I posed above and compare it to what is presented in NSA.

                There is an event with two possible explanations, A and B.
                They are mutually exclusive –
                If A is true then B is false. If B is true then A is false.
                There is evidence for A. There is evidence for B.

                Do you
                1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false?
                or
                2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?

                1. Mr.Wright,
                  I have neither the time nor inclination to address your concerns. around here, you are persona non grata. i see nothing to be gained by interacting with you here…or anywhere.

  16. Common-sense tells us that if the WTC building destructions were the result of an inside job – you would have to be completely ignorant of all the evidence amassed by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth​ to think otherwise – then for the Pentagon attack not to be an inside job, too, makes it the mother and father of incredible coincidences.

    As the above article points out, much of David Chandler’s team’s case rests on official evidence produced long after 9/11. There are clues aplenty (e.g. lack of black-box serial numbers) that indicate that the evidence has been tampered with. I fear David and his team have fallen into a fairly obvious trap and would be well advised to take a few steps back from it.

    David Chandler and his associates are all highly intelligent people, so I am left wondering if they could have been infiltrated or ‘got to’ in some way. Let’s face it, there has to be an explanation for why Popular Mechanics’ personnel, who are far from stupid themselves, still hold the views they do despite the overwhelming evidence that insiders were heavily involved in 9/11. Some of the evidence that the WTC collapses were brought down by controlled demolition rests on fundamental science that has stood the test of centuries.

    My conclusion is that David Chandler and his associates would be well advised to read my opening paragraph and re-examine their position on the Pentagon attack with it in mind. Perhaps Occam’s razor would come in handy when they do so. My own view is that the case for WTC 7 being an inside job is irrefutable and that the twin towers’ destruction was likewise, especially WTC 1. (The collapse of WTC 2 seems to employ magic.) Widening the investigation beyond what happened at the WTC only serves to muddy the waters. In short, prove WTC 7 to have been an inside job and you prove the whole 9/11 event was also.

    1. Excellent article Craig, AdamS, AdamR.

      Mel,
      Thanks, this an excellent point I’m not sure I’ve ever heard articulated before: “Common-sense tells us that if the WTC building destructions were the result of an inside job – . . . – then for the Pentagon attack not to be an inside job, too, makes it the mother and father of incredible coincidences. . . In short, prove WTC 7 to have been an inside job and you prove the whole 9/11 event was also.”

      Willy,
      I’m not sure what the team’s motive is, but I think it has to be something other than hubris. Wouldn’t an exalted ego prevent one from making idiotic claims?

      –D

      1. Dennis,

        ‘Hubris’ is subtly, but crucially different than simple ‘Arrogance’. Hubris is an arrogance so thorough that it blinds cognition. The “exalted ego” is prevented from recognizing idiotic claims as such.
        Ancient Greek literature refers to hubris, a form of arrogance in which a person thinks himself to be higher in status than other ordinary mortals.
        \\][//

        1. Willy,

          If via hubris, “The ‘exalted ego’ is prevented from recognizing idiotic claims as such,” then I would say that hubris can’t be ruled out.

    2. Indeed, who or what got to Chandler’s team? Ryan’s complicity especially shocks me. Actually, given the deep intrigue involved in all of this, I’m not surprised at all. This will all come out in the wash… Someday.

  17. The work Chandler, Ryan and others have done about the Pentagon appears to be consistent with an objective, scientific analysis. It also corroborates with Jeffrey Latas’s observations related to us in in Tucson on February of 2007. Latas saw a circular gouge among nearby structures that appeared to be from an engine. That’s what squarely placed the Pentagon into the “honey pot” category for many of us. Latas, a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, was an accident investigator at the Pentagon. I took the time to read the whole article critiquing David Chandler’s presentation and I’m not really seeing many scientific rebuttals to his work – just stalwart support for CIT and the taxi cab witness. I think the rationale for chastising Chandler has a bizarre similarity to the mindset of those who protect the official story. These statements below have a creepy similarity to those protecting the official story:

    “Why would this small group want to remove this evidence from consideration? Why would they so clearly want to act against the interests of the Movement? Why would they want to rally everyone behind evidence that backs up important elements of the official story, particularly when the case they make is so weak?”

    It’s using the same argumentative style of those hit pieces attempting to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Similarly, the hit pieces against Chandler appear to be Chandler’s cost of being objective.

    1. “I took the time to read the whole article critiquing David Chandler’s presentation and I’m not really seeing many scientific rebuttals to his work – just stalwart support for CIT and the taxi cab witness. I think the rationale for chastising Chandler has a bizarre similarity to the mindset of those who protect the official story.”~americanterrorists

      You say you are not “seeing many scientific rebuttals to his [Chandler’s] work”, and then leap to, ” just stalwart support for CIT and the taxi cab witness.”

      And here the question arises; What do you actually know of the work of CIT? Do you know what you are arguing against when disputing CIT? If so, you are welcome to debate the substantive issues involved here. Let us see how “objective” you are, and if your objectivity is as disingenuous as Chandlers.

      This is an open forum americanterrorists, you have in essence challenged the commentators on this page. Let us take you up on that challenge.
      \\][//

      1. Only those who understand and worship the CIT can ever be endowed with a level of objectivity that is worthy of your greatliness, Sir hybridrogue1. It’s true. I haven’t paid much attention to your silliness.

        I did find your trailer:

        1. “Only those who understand and worship the CIT can ever be endowed with a level of objectivity that is worthy of your greatliness, Sir hybridrogue1. It’s true. I haven’t paid much attention to your silliness.”~americanterrorists

          The comment above is not a valid argument. The posting of a bogus take-off on the CIT video “National Security Alert” is tacky bullshit.

          If this is the level of “debate” you are capable of you are finished before you start:

          NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT -THE 9/11 PENTAGON EVENT

          \\][//

          1. Trolls have no shame whatsoever. His goal is to get someone here to take the bait and get drawn into mud slinging in order to lower the discourse down into the gutter. He clearly has no argument and no intention of having a legitimate discussion.

        2. “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it.”~Voltaire

          And you Mr Jack Tamali are just the perfect example of a ridiculous opponent that one might pray for.
          \\][//

  18. As to DRG and any supposed “linkage” between the 9/11 issue and global warming. There is no linkage between the issues and I agree that David is trying to transfer his 9/11 credibility into a separate issue. I will not get into a discussion of the global warming issue here but I will state for the record that I have researched the man made global warming issue at least as much as I have 9/11, which is A LOT, and I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it is nothing more than a global taxation and world control scam that is central to the technocratic take over of planet earth. As I said though this is not the place to discuss it. Rest easy though people we are not melting, nor are the seas rising, the polar bears are thriving too. Back to 9/11 though I think the consensus panel is basically an appeal to authority and has nothing to do with “science” at all. My point is simply that Chandler and Ryan are being allowed to scuttle the vitally important pentagon evidence.

    1. Well said, I fully agree. I did not want to divert my discussion away from 9/11 either, I just mentioned the AGW article by DRG as an example of his current writing. But I will categorically state that scientists’ consensus is not conclusive proof of anything. On the contrary, consensus when it comes to controversial matters is usually indicative of coercion, not scientific discovery.

  19. What is the agenda for supporting the OCT in regard to a plane hitting the Pentagon?

    What is the agenda for claims that a basement nuke was a primary element in the Twin Towers demolitions?

    Who are implicated by the above–and who are eliminated from suspicion?

    Or is this a delay tactic … now over 14 years of successful delay has occurred?

  20. It is most obvious that everyone of these characters promoting what is essentially the the official Pentagon narrative are well aware of this page here and the dialog going on. Yet none of them have had the cojones to make an appearance here.

    Where are these outspoken Leaders of Truth? Who are so certain of their position?
    Jon Cole – David Chandler – Kevin Ryan – John Wyndham; WHERE ARE YOU?!?

    \\][//

  21. No mention of the Auditors who died (were murdered) with the evidence of the 2 trillion dollar loss and the Navy Intelligence folks who got murdered. Who benefits from their murder??

  22. Chandler replied to a lively comment thread under this article posted in Facebook. That article now appears to have been taken down.

    1. americanterrorists, both Chandler and yourself can rest assured that this article will not be taken down. Plead your case on the original here. Chandler should as well.
      \\][//

    2. americanterrorists,

      If you are going to attempt to defend the idea that a large body commercial aircraft impacted the Pentagon, you had best understand the argument against that assertion. It is long and complex in detail, but hinges on one simple concept; that an aircraft approaching the Pentagon from north of the Citgo station could not have cause the damage path known to have occurred in the Pentagon. If you grasp this core issue of trajectory, and understand the input from Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, you will have the beginnings of an understanding.
      On this link you will find links to both Balsamo’s work and the tireless work of OSS on the same Pilots forums:

      https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/139/
      \\][//

      1. I would posit that chances are that “americanterrorists” may have been blocked by other Chandler supporters because the tamali is an embarrassing goofball. But I am unfamiliar with the way Facebook works – is that possible? To block someone so that the page is simply inaccessible to them?
        \\][//

        1. I don’t know what his privacy settings are; if you’re not his friend, you might not be able to see the post, or you might be able to read it but not ‘like’ or comment on it. I’m not sure.

    1. So Chandler bundles CIT (& us & Pilots) together with Honegger, Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, etc.
      If he cannot distinguish our actual position from those he mentions then he is totally ignorant of what we and CIT are saying.
      “I believe it is important for the 9/11 Truth Movement to police its own ranks…” Lol,

      So now Chandler et al are the 9/11 Truth Movement Cops!!! Didn’t we discuss arrogance & hubris here at some point? grin

      I am afraid I must inform Chandler that his jurisdiction does not reach this far. When he can produce some “solid evidence” we can resume the dialog.
      \\][//

      1. Chandler is actually nominating himself to be the chief of all the credibility cops. 911Blogger mods use the same credibility cop rationale to censor the shit out of their blog. The place is now a “retched hive of scum and villainy” – Obi Wan Kenobi

        1. Actually it’s a near ghost town. Many of the scum and villainy disappeared long ago. They got retired or reassigned. Cosmos was reassigned to New Zealand to infiltrate Occupy Auckland.

    1. A joint statement by David Chandler and Jonathan Cole
      The Pentagon

      There are also anomalies in the events at the Pentagon. The biggest anomalies, in our opinion have gotten some of the least attention.

      >How could the Pentagon, the hub of the US military, have been so poorly defended that it could be hit in the first place, after the buildings in New York City had already been hit and other hijacked planes were known to still be in the air?

      >Why was Norman Minetta’s testimony about Cheney’s response to the approach of the aircraft discounted in the 9/11 Commission report?

      >Why was the target the newly reinforced west face of the building, occupied primarily by accountants that were tracing down what happened to the missing trillions of dollars announced just a few days earlier?

      >Why would the purported hijackers perform a difficult spiral descent to hit the face of the Pentagon that had the least number of people in it, and was opposite from the offices of the Pentagon high command?

      >Why would the purported hijackers risk mission failure by choosing a difficult ground level approach when they could have simply dived into the building?
      How could an untrained pilot have performed the difficult maneuvers? Was the plane flown by some kind of automatic controls and/or guided by a homing beacon?
      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

      WAIT!
      The least attention? This is 9/11 Pentagon Basics! These are the ground starting point for all who have been arguing against the Official Narrative.

      As Craig Ranke points out in his response:

      “I don’t agree that these “anomalies” have gotten “some of the least attention.” These issues are pretty much common knowledge among people who have looked into 9/11, from “truthers” to “debunkers.” They are featured prominently in many of the most popular “9/11 truth” documentaries, books, and websites, and have been for years. We have never tried to stop people from exploring these issues, and in fact our work (as well as the work of others) makes it clear what the answer to most of these questions is: Because the Pentagon attack was a false flag operation in the vein of Operation Northwoods, involving a plane swap and simulated plane crash.”
      . . . . .
      Chandler-Cole – Next point:

      “Instead of these important questions, from very early on the focus has centered on what hit the Pentagon.”

      ________
      Ranke replies:

      “It is true that from “very early on” many people looked at the photographs of the Pentagon shortly after the alleged impact and felt that the damage was inconsistent with a 757 crash. It is also true that many people in this category jumped to the conclusion that some OTHER airborn craft/missile/etc must have hit instead, and thus theorized about “what hit.”

      However, “what hit” is not a question that CIT has ever focused on or promoted. We have only found evidence for a single low-flying craft on the scene at the moment of the explosion: a large commercial-looking aircraft that was banking to its right on the north side of the gas station and therefore could not have hit the light poles or the building. The very question of “what hit” the Pentagon assumes that something did, while it is well known that we are convinced from our investigation that nothing (i.e. no airborn object/craft including the one seen by the witnesses) “hit” at all, and that the damage was caused by pre-planted explosives. We have been very explicit about this for years. (Chandler and Cole basically acknowledge that this is our view later in the essay.)”….
      ___________________

      So this is how it begins, a thorough point by point rebuttal by CIT. See:
      http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/cit-response-to-david-chandler-and-jonathan-cole-pentagon-statement

      So what could be the cause of Chandler & Cole’s reticence? After-all these two have been energetic and dynamic in their efforts, and should be prepared and willing defend what they assert without the slightest qualms, but Ranke-CIT, us on T&S, and the entire movement is met with this uncharacteristic silence. WHY?

      This seems to be the movement’s current “64 Thousand Dollar Question”.

      This is a question I guarantee will not go away with time. Rather it will fester and boil.

      Constable Chandler, who seems to be engaged somewhat on Facebook, is wasting his time with further twaddling and trite prattle that doesn’t address the actual issues we have presented. He needs to explain how a plane on the trajectory of the one seen approaching the Pentagon could have possibly caused the known damage path within the Pentagon.
      \\][//

  23. What is the criteria for choosing the the reliability of witness testimony?
    POV – distance from event witnessed – consideration of obstructions a witness’ position would encounter – human perception of events that occur in a mater of seconds and less – the likelihood of a duck response to a nearby explosive event… to name a few.

    All of these criteria are examined in the work of OSS at the P4Tblog, and have been addressed here as well. Using this reasonable criteria, it is found that few of the so-called hundreds of witnesses to the event at the Pentagon fit the requirements. Those that do, are examined in minute detail,

    That this analysis has not even been seen by the detractors of this work, and is hand-waved in a state of sublime ignorance seems of no concern to them whatsoever. But until it is addressed they will fail in their attempts at refutation as they have up to this point.

    They have claimed they “have the evidence on their side,” when in fact they have the lack of evidence on their side. All of this so-called evidence is produced by the perpetrators of the 9/11 events, without reference to chains of custody, nor details on the forensic tests, nor serial numbers of plane parts. None of these crucial pieces of evidence are in the public record. We may see some parts of plane hanging in a display, but too far from the POV of a visitor to the display to see any serial numbers. In other words the so-called ‘evidence’ must be taken on the word of the authorities who control it.

    The final results of this circumstance is that our opponents entire argument ends up a massive appeal to authority.

    If anyone of them would care to address these assertions herein, they are invited to do so.
    \\][//

    1. Well stated HR1 I agree completely. To me the fact that the “team” refuses all discussion of these issues indicates deception on their part. A truther (a real one) does not shy away from addressing challenges to his or her work. In fact real truthers relish the opportunity to debate 9/11 issues and either prove their hypothesis correct or accept that it is in error and abandon it for a better one.

  24. More from CIT rebuttal of Chandler-Cole:

    >>”The nearly unanimous testimony of over a hundred eyewitnesses, is that a large aircraft, consistent with a 757, flew very low at very high speed, clipped several light poles, and crashed into the face of the Pentagon at ground level. […] The eyewitness testimony is consistent with the pattern of damage both inside and outside of the Pentagon[1]. Read through the many eyewitness accounts.[2]

    [1] 911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
    [2] arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html”
    _____________________________________________________________
    [Note from CIT: In the original Chandler/Cole essay, the two bold and underlined phrases are hyperlinks to these URLs. We have changed the format to footnotes here]

    Absolutely false. Cole and Chandler do not even TRY to make a case for this. They do not even cite a single witness in their article, let alone quote any and explain how those witnesses supposedly support their claim.

    Instead, they simply link to a blog entry by “Arabesque,” an anonymous blogger who appeared on the scene (internet) around the time that we launched our investigation and released The PentaCon (so circa late 2006/early 2007) and promptly began writing dishonest, convoluted attack articles against us, and who has been conspicuously absent from blogging for about a year and a half now.

    In actuality, the “many eyewitness accounts” presented by Arabesque in the blog entry that Chandler and Cole cite are not full or even remotely full “accounts” at all, but snippets, and they are often unsourced, out-of-context, misleading, misattributed, and/or even doctored. The compilation of snippets has 659 footnotes to give it the appearance of thoroughness, but when one actually views the reference section they will notice that the vast majority of the footnotes are simply the name of a witness (or alleged witness) with NO link to, or even the name of, the source document so that the reader can easily view the snippet in context and verify what “Arabesque” provides. In some cases the people named are not witnesses at all, or the quotes attributed to them were actually written or uttered by someone else. To better understand what I mean, see for example this thread where we analyzed his section of supposed “light pole” witnesses.

    We have repeatedly pointed these “errors” out to Arabesque and his/her/its promoters such as Chandler and Cole’s Pentagon attack co-mentor Victoria Ashley (Jim Hoffman’s wife) in the past, and yet “Arabesque” has failed to correct this disinformation for years, and they still promote it heavily to this day.~Ranke – CIT

    http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/cit-response-to-david-chandler-and-jonathan-cole-pentagon-statement
    \\][//

  25. This has just been posted at the publicly visible N CA 9/11 Truth Alliance Google Groups page.

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sf911truth

    Dear SF 9/11 Truth Alliance,

    I mailed out the honorariums on Friday and today I received a very
    nice phone call of appreciation from Chris Emery (Free Mind Films)
    who greatly appreciated the donation, and just now I received this
    email from David Chandler which is to all of us.

    Carol B….

    This from David-

    I am writing to the N. Ca. 9/11 Truth Alliance via you,…

    Thank you for the honorarium. I appreciate it. Mine was not an easy
    talk to give this year, and the restrictions made it a little harder,
    but although it did not make me more popular, I thought it was an
    important statement to make. Please be alert to the upcoming paper
    by John Wyndham, Frank Legge, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Jon Cole,
    Ken Jenkins, and myself with a definitive reply to Barbara Honegger’s
    theories. Popularity is not the name of the game. We use the word
    Truth a lot, and the process of discerning truth is as important as
    the end results. Thank you for inviting me to speak.

    –David Chandler

    1. It should not be difficult to dismantle Honegger’s poorly thought out theory at all since it is full of holes and is based upon little more than conjecture.

      What I am interested to know is when is the “team” going to address the NOC witnesses and the “no-impact” scenario which we have established so thoroughly? And when pray tell is the team going to quit trying to conflate our position, so disingenuously, with Honegger’s untenable hypothesis? They know it is dishonest to conflate our evidence with Honegger yet they continue to do so.

    2. John Wyndham, Frank Legge, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Jon Cole,
      Ken Jenkins, David Chandler…what a team!

      I am a bit surprised to find my old nemesis Frank Legge is still active in light of his advanced age and seeming mental deterioration. Perhaps Legge is more of a mascot now for this group.

      I think this team is more concerned about Honegger because of her perceived “renown” in the movement. She impinges upon their sacred ground of hierarchical arrogance. She is competition because she is on the lecture circuit. They would like to bump her off like they have CIT from their organized promotional campaigns. As politicians these guys know that nothing sells like intrigue and contrived controversy. For them 9/11 has become a matter of realpolitik.
      \\][//

    1. Winston could you clarify what it is you are trying to say or re-state your question in another way. I don’t follow what it is you are saying or asking here.

    2. “Could everyone of them have mistaken the NOC plane for the SOC path?”~Winston Smith

      Yes, before CIT there was no realization that there was a NOC path. So none of the witnesses were distinguished north or south path witnesses until that integer was put into the Penatagon equation. There was only ONE plane – it flew the NOC path beyond reasonable doubt.
      \\][//

      1. Good point hybridrogue1. The right questions need to be posed before the correct answers will be known. CIT can be credited for asking the right questions.

        The interviewers at the Library of Congress and Military History did not ask pertinent questions. Or they didn’t follow up when they heard contradictory information.

        When Chadwick Brooks was interviewed in OCT 2001 he clearly states that the jet was to his left (NOC). He says it twice. Begin at mark 1:45. http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr335a01.mp3

        William Lagasse was interviewed in DEC 2001. He reported that the plane was only sixty feet away and he was blown back to his cruiser by the wing vortex. http://www.loc.gov/item/afc911000152 The 60 feet comment nails it for me. Where on the SOC path could this possibly fit, given LaGassse’s position?

        The bottom line is we must sue the FBI to obtain release of the videotapes. To date I am unaware of any such action.

        We can debate this issue endlessly, but without more, we won’t ever learn the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

        There are attorneys who routinely go up against the FBI in FOIA suits. They have the courage to do the job, but they need funds. Nobody is going to do this pro bono.

    3. Well, if someone is giving an account that is contradicted by the physical layout of the area and the topography, then that witness can’t really be relied on. There are many contradictions in the accounts addressed on that thread by Onesliceshort. And they don’t all support a SoC approach. Mike Walter has given multiple accounts that make it very hard to believe he is telling the truth. How can he say at one time he couldn’t see the impact because of the trees and then on TV say that he saw the wings “fold in.” Sean Boger also clearly puts the flight path NoC and he also describes the same right bank (left from his point of view) that the other NoC witnesses did.

      There is serious doubt about many of these witnesses because of inconsistencies and impossibilities as to where they were and what they could have seen. We also have to consider the very strong possibility (I would call it probability) that witnesses were planted to give accounts that support the official story. If I were given the assignment of designing this illusion so that it would fool the world, I would make sure there were dozens if not hundreds of witnesses who would tell the right story. I don’t know if that was done, but it’s what I imagine would make sense.

      Of course I understand that this idea can’t be used to simply eliminate the witnesses we don’t like and keep the ones we do, but it comes down to assessing each one and whether their stories add up. To me, the most credible witnesses are the ones interviewed on camera by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis. If you push the idea of an impact, you have to think that all the NoC witnesses were mistaken or lying. I don’t there’s reason to think either of those is true.

  26. After watching the video linked at the bottom of this post does anyone besides me think it is strange that 5 light poles that were allegedly struck by an airliner wing traveling 540 MPH remained relatively intact and so close to their base? I mean these poles were found just a few feet away from the base they stood on. Here you can see how they ended up and what they looked like after the alleged impact: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=25

    Personally I think the light poles are smoking gun evidence of staged evidence because the alleged impact would have obliterated them and thrown them a long way from their bases at the very least. In my view the physics just don’t add up for the poles to have come to rest so close to their base and relatively unscathed after such an impact. Perhaps a real physicist such as Steven Jones could look at that specific physics question and shed some light on it?

    Look at what this wedge did to a car and bear in mind that the alleged plane was alleged to be traveling even faster by some 40 mph.

    1. Actually Adam, this proves the exact opposite of what you are asserting. The plow represents the wing of the aircraft. It only shattered to pieces when it hit the concrete wall.

      The proof against the light poles is the same as the entire case against the trajectory of the plane. But this proves that the wings would have been capable of shearing off the lamp-posts as a matter of momentum. One must also consider that the light poles were on break-away bases as has been mandated by highway protocol for years. We have been through this conversation before.
      \\][//

      1. Yes the wing would have sliced through the poles as the plow sliced through the car however my point is that the two halves of the car ended up over 100 feet away from the cars starting point. The impact at that speed was like an explosion. So how can the car and its engine be cut in half and thrown over 100 feet while the light poles simply fell over gently and came to rest only a few feet from the base. I contend that the physics DO NOT add up to impact with the light poles and on that grounds alone we can seperately prove the poles were staged. We already know they were staged because of the NOC trajectory but in my view the damage they sustained and the distance they traveled (virtually none) is totally inconsistent with the alleged impact.

        1. One of the poles fell backward for God’s sake how in the hell could that happen after being hit by a wing at 540 mph?

          1. We cannot be sure that the wings hit the poles. They could have been blown/sucked down by the wake, by air. (Not saying I believe a plane went that way. I am simply trying to analyze this logically)

            The light fixture on the arm is the heaviest part, suspended as it is out there. My issue is that the fixture wasn’t whipped a long ways off, no matter what direction it departed from the original location.

            As I said earlier, the NOC witnesses present serious problems for the official damage path. At the same time my mind wrestles with how this could be staged convincingly. VDOT workers would be involved with a crane to remove the working poles and substitute the broken pieces, prior to 9/11.

            1. “VDOT workers would be involved with a crane to remove the working poles and substitute the broken pieces, prior to 9/11.”

              T’ain’t necessarily so. Light utility cherry pickers could have been used, and these are common equipment and vehicles seen for HWY work (tree trimming around utility wiring..etc). This would be in-house equipment-vehicles. VDOT workers wouldn’t necessarily have been the ones dealing with the project to “inspect the light poles” – DOD could certainly be making the decision for the work done in the vicinity of the Pentagon. It seems to me just a couple of “special Pentagon crew” with such equipment could have quickly staged the scene at say, just before dusk on the 11th of September.
              You might want to check out the following as well:

              This is from an early T&S page: https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/fallen-light-poles-raise-doubts-about-pentagon-official-story/#comment-438
              \\][//

                1. “Do we know how far from the base the taxi cab pole ended up?”~Winston Smith

                  Yes. There is a scrape along the highway, clearly showing where it was dragged from and put in front of the Taxi. Easily taken down in the early morning and dragged onto the HWY in the confusion just after the Pentagon blew up: all eyes facing the Pentagon at that time. CIT goes into the evidence for this in their series on Lloyd England, the taxi driver.
                  \\][//

                  1. Hybridrogue1, help me out here. It has been quite a while since I immersed myself in the Lloyd England quagmire.

                    Lloyde claimed that he was headed south on Route 27 when the pole impaled his windshield. He fishtailed and stopped on or just south of the bridge. The pole was on the south side of the bridge, so he couldn’t have driven very far/fishtailed with it impaled right?

                    Can you please link me to the data about the scrape mark? Thank you.

                    1. Winston Smith,

                      I think the easiest way to find the reference is to read the CIT response to Candler & Cole. That is where I recall reading about the scrape on the HWY that shows the Light post was dragged to the spot in front of England’s cab.
                      \\][//

                  2. With all due respect, I see no evidence that it was the long main shaft of the pole that was inside the cab. I think that it was the arm, minus the fixture. It is long, slightly curved, but much lighter, easily removed by two men. Llyod’s drawing doesn’t show a 30 foot long element. (see @ mark 1:01:19) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HlUmmPBoLg#t=35

                    If the heavy, widest diameter base was outside beyond the hood it would lever downwards due to the length.

                    Don’t we see the arm in front of the cab? See about 2/3’s of the way down this page, Exhibit #M-CSP-00001567 https://infrakshun.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/flight-77-and-the-pentagon-1/

                    The other photos are not nearly as revealing as this one. It makes sense now that the arm did the deed, not the pole. (Again, not saying I agree with the SOC path. I’m just collecting the facts, ma’am.) I need to investigate who took this photo and when.

                    1. Mr. Smith,

                      Before you go on you should familiarize yourself with the following CIT video dedicated to Lloyde England:

                      Lloyde England and His Testimony – The Eye of the Storm.

                      http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos/lloyde-england-eyeofthestorm

                      Your question about which section of the light pole entered his cab are clearly answered there by Lloyde himself within the first 7 minutes of the video. It was the long base section, not the top piece.

                    1. The point is, Lloyde’s story of the large base section of the pole going through his windshield without scratching the hood or causing significant damage inside his car is unbelievable.

                      The story is a fabrication. The scene was staged, just like the rest of the Pentagon damage. No section of the pole ever went through Lloyde’s windshield. There are no photos or witnesses to any pole sticking out of his cab.

                      As a matter of speculation, the windshield damage could have been achieved with a few whacks with a short handled, easily concealable 3-4 lb sledge hammer to get things started then yanked in from the inside with a crow bar. Speculation of course.

                      Lloyde was used to sell the light pole story. He was interviewed several times for TV as a human interest angle to the PSYOP. Who could doubt the word of this sympathetic old man.

                      The scrape marks were most likely made when the pole was drug into position for the photo ops, not after it was positioned there.

                      With regards to the photographer, these cab pictures are part of the Jason Ingersoll photos:

                      http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm

                      The NOC evidence makes his story impossible, which is likely he insisted he was further north on the highway in his later interview, notwithstanding the multiple pictures of him and his cab on the south side of the bridge.

                    2. “Using this information I conclude that if anything did spear the windshield it was most likely the arm. It is seen lying where you’d expect it to be after extraction.

                      It makes no sense that the main shaft could be inside the car without damaging the hood, or that an old guy and someone else could extract that unwieldy, curved piece. Even if they could, they wouldn’t carry the heaviest end towards the back of the cab and lay it down.”
                      ~Winston Smith

                      But that isn’t Lloyd’s story is it Winston? He claims the main shaft speared the windshield. As I pointed out earlier there is simply not a large enough hole in that windshield to have accommodated the main shaft.

                      You are rearranging the story to fit what “makes sense” to you Winston. But it doesn’t make sense, no matter how you piece it together this puzzle is a fraud.
                      \\][//

                  3. I’ve done some more analysis and created a graphic to illustrate the scene near the cab.

                    https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E097D925456F1330!309&authkey=!ACQJRTGvZlIn8wM&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg

                    See this video beginning at about mark 1:15 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1julr_lloyd-england-on-nbc_news

                    Moussaoui trial exhibit (zoomed in, labeled) https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E097D925456F1330!308&authkey=!ALhNHUX0MEn2BgM&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg

                    1. The pole’s base end came to rest within 40 feet of the foundation.
                    2. The base was pointed away from the foundation, unlike a tree felling.
                    3. The pole was disassembled into at least four main pieces (working south to north)–the base with main shaft, light fixture, arm and upper main shaft, which can be seen north of the cab in the center lane.
                    4. The pole was originally installed at the south end of the stone faced bridge, behind the guardrail.
                    5. The cab stopped near the junction of the north end of the guard rail and wall. (note rail has since been extended)
                    6. I can only find three close-up images–The Ingersoll color photo, the Moussaoui trial exhibit and a video.
                    7. The Ingersoll image appears to show that the pole’s base end (perpendicular to the lanes) was pushed/dragged to the south, ~parallel to the lanes, causing a scrape mark on the road.

                    Using this information I conclude that if anything did spear the windshield it was most likely the arm. It is seen lying where you’d expect it to be after extraction.

                    It makes no sense that the main shaft could be inside the car without damaging the hood, or that an old guy and someone else could extract that unwieldy, curved piece. Even if they could, they wouldn’t carry the heaviest end towards the back of the cab and lay it down.

                    It does make sense that the arm could be inside, propped up by the dashboard and be extracted by two men.

                    The evidence doesn’t support a truck drop/dump/roll-off or a dragging of pieces from the bushes scenario. Either one would require LLoyd to stop in the right location and make up his spearing story.

                    1. “The evidence doesn’t support a truck drop/dump/roll-off or a dragging of pieces from the bushes scenario. Either one would require LLoyd to stop in the right location and make up his spearing story.”~Winston Smith

                      And this is exactly what is proposed here, that LLoyd to stopped in the right location and make up his spearing story.
                      In face of all the counter evidence to the aircraft being on the proper trajectory to have hit that light pole, why is it so hard for you to accept a staged scene like the one Lloyd was involved in?
                      This would have been one of the more simple tricks to pull off logistically.
                      \\][//

                  4. hybridrogue1 wrote: “Easily taken down in the early morning and dragged onto the HWY in the confusion just after the Pentagon blew up: all eyes facing the Pentagon at that time.”

                    Sorry, not buying this. Easily taken down? This is not enough. They must have taken down, bent the strongest part of the pole, chopped it into at least three sections, damaged the light, and stored broken glass for later distribution.

                    You are proposing that on a busy three lane highway, several men retrieve the pre-planted wreckage, carrying it into traffic and scatter broken glass and other debris around to stage a light pole being downed by a plane.

                    LLoyd England gets trapped by this debris, fishtails and then claims that a pole speared his windshield. (Or, are you suggesting LLoyd has already stopped when this scattering takes place?)

                    Is this correct?

                    If so, who smashed the cab’s windshield that Jason Ingersoll captured on film ~20 minutes later?

                    All eyes were not on the Pentagon. Don Fortunato says he saw the damaged windshield: “Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts.”

                    Look I am not trying to discount the NOC witnesses, but we have some pretty interesting evidence in the form of a downed pole and damaged cab. Unlike the other four poles that did no damage, this one is crying out for attention.

                    If you insist this was staged to support the SOC path, then please take us through how this was accomplished. Take into consideration the various logistics necessary to pull this off.

                    In the end, we just may discover how this SOC path was set up to support a non-existent event.

                    1. “In the end, we just may discover how this SOC path was set up to support a non-existent event.”~Winston Smith

                      Good luck!
                      \\][//

        2. I do not buy the “real airliner hit the pentagon” narrative, either. But just a quick comment on the physics of the plane/post impact:

          The light posts, as opposed to the car in myth busters video, would act like palm trees in a hurricane, as they have a lot of give, and are relatively week. Upon impact, and after being chopped in half, since the base is bolted to the ground, the bottom half of the post would just slam on the ground and would not have much horizontal displacement, although one would expect a decent size dent on the ground. However, if the wing really chopped the post in half at that speed, one would expect the top piece, which is exponentially lighter than the bottom, to fly at least a couple of hundred feet.

          That said, since the body of the posts have almost negligible resistance, there is also the possibility of “Zorro’s sword” effect, where he cuts candles in half so fast that the tops do not even fall. In this scenario, perhaps the tops of the posts would not fall so far from the base, either.

          And a quick question:

          At what stage in the sequence of events do you feel the light posts would have been “planted” and/or “popped” with a small explosive rig (or some other method)?

          1. “At what stage in the sequence of events do you feel the light posts would have been “planted” and/or “popped” with a small explosive rig (or some other method)?”

            There is evidence of road crews being present in the wee hours of the morning on 9/11, right in the area where the light poles were “discovered” – most out of view by motorists in traffic.
            \\][//

            1. (Sorry about the piecemeal posts)

              Are you aware of anyone who has at least attempted to obtain (or filed FOIA for) security camera footage of the area from before 9/11? Anywhere between 1-30 days before? Or, has the FBI confiscated all videos retrospectively?

              1. Lilaleo,
                The only FOIA filings I am aware of were for security camera footage of the area are for the day of 9/11.
                \\][//

                1. Winston, I think you can rest assured that if those videos bolstered the alleged airliner striking the Pentagon, they would have been leaked long ago — and from lots of different angles — to put to bed all doubts before they took root. The ever-continuing lack of same, in this case, is evidence. itself

    2. I can’t find a video demonstrating this upon a 3-minute search, but you can try this yourself:

      Place a 3-feet rod, a stick, whatever, upright on the ground, and hit it hard very near the top with a baseball bat or similar.
      Observe how the entire rod moves after that. and also where the lower end goes!

      Generally, you won’t impart much linear momentum on the stick, but a lot of angular momentum.
      And the bottom will actually move BACKward, relative to the motion of the bat.
      That probably explains why the lightpoles didn’t go far. I find it conceivable that they broke at the break-away spot AWAY from the Pentagon.
      Not sure what else this would explainm and what it does not explain. Just food for thought.

      1. Jens Schmidt,

        Let’s be upfront with the forum here, alright. Are you of the opinion that an aircraft wing actually hit those light poles? Not that the physics may be possible, because they certainly are, but because you think an airplane was actually in the position to strike them.
        \\][//

        1. *sigh*

          I replied to a discussion of he physics of a hypothetical wing-hits-pole scenario. Adam Ruff wrote:

          “So how can the car and its engine be cut in half and thrown over 100 feet while the light poles simply fell over gently and came to rest only a few feet from the base. I contend that the physics DO NOT add up to impact with the light poles and on that grounds alone we can seperately prove the poles were staged” and “One of the poles fell backward for God’s sake how in the hell could that happen after being hit by a wing at 540 mph?”

          I merely alerted you to a plausible reason WITHIN that hypothesis why the poles wouldn’t fall far from their base (and if you do the baseball-bat-hits-rod experiment a few times, you will probably find that there will be cases when the rod falls backward). You didn’t ask Adam Ruff if he actually believes that an aircraft wing actually hit those light poles, did you?

          There are good arguments and there are bad arguments, and there are okay arguments with some flaws and holes in them. I prefer good arguments, and claim the right to point to flaws in not-so-good arguments.

          1. Jens,

            Argumentum verbosium is for children.

            I ask you directly now: Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?
            \\][//

            1. “Argumentum verbosium is for children.”
              I looked up “Argumentum verbosium” on Wiki because I had not seen that phrase before. Wiki redirects to “Proof by intimidation”. Which reminds me of one of the uses of “Moving the goalposts”:
              “In workplace bullying, shifting the goalposts is a conventional tactic in the process of humiliation.”
              That’s for adults, but it ain’t nice.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Use

              I protest the moving of both lightpoles and goalposts😉

              1. Jens Schmidt,

                I do not doubt that you are ignorant of the classical rules of formal argumentation. However, you should be aware that it is totally transparent that you continue to dodge a direct question put to you by continuing to babble off in another direction.

                I will give you that question again: Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?
                \\][//

                1. “I do not doubt that you are ignorant of the classical rules of formal argumentation.”
                  How rude. And how wrong.

                  “However, you should be aware that it is totally transparent that you continue to dodge a direct question put to you”
                  You might as well ask me directly if I accept Jesus as my personal saviour, that would be precisely as relevant to the debate I am in.

                  “by continuing to babble off in another direction.”
                  No, Sir, it is YOU who is trying to push the debate off in another direction.
                  The direction it was going was a hypothetical “IF a plane hit the light poles, where and how far would they fall?”. It wasn’t I who started going in that direction, so don’t blame ME for going there!

                  1. “You might as well ask me directly if I accept Jesus as my personal saviour, that would be precisely as relevant to the debate I am in.”~Jens Schmidt

                    This is another transparent avoidance of answering a direct question put to you. Continuing to duck and dodge this question is not going to go well for you. This is the third time you have avoided the question.

                    Are you going to answer this or not? Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?
                    \\][//

                    1. “Are you going to answer this or not? Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?”

                      No, obviously I am not going to answer the question as it is plainly irrelevant in context. I’ll answer it as soon as it is relevant to a topic I am debating.

                    2. Schmidt,

                      The topic we are addressing is the Pentagon event, THAT is the context of the question being put to you. You have waffled here for the last time.
                      You plainly refuse to answer a simple and direct question on the flimsiest and most disingenuous grounds.

                      You are playing the role of an “Artful Dodger” and you are playing it quite badly.
                      I think this much is apparent to the readers of this thread.
                      You have struck out.
                      \\][//

                    3. “why don’t you BOTH answer each other’s question?”~Hufferd

                      Schmidt did not ask a question Hufferd, he is REFUSING to answer mine.

                      Why is it Hufferd, that every time I get into a discussion with someone here, you butt-in and try to save their ass when they have been revealed to be disassembling and evading simple questions?

                      This is why I am of the opinion that you yourself are disingenuous in your participation here.
                      You have no valid excuse for butting in at this point other than to soften the blows dealt to Schmidt, and make it appear that I have been bullying him.

                      This is why I get sick of you and your constant nannyboy bullshit.
                      \\][//

                    4. Now clearly Hufferd has only one agenda in butting in on this conversation between Jens Schmidt and I, and that is to distract from the very obvious EVASION that Schmidt has made to avoid a very simple and direct question, which stands:

                      Schmidt;
                      Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?
                      \\][//

                    5. “Schmidt;
                      Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?”
                      As I said already: I will if and when you explain validly why the question and any conceivable answer to it is relevant to discussing the physics of plane hitting lightpole IF the hypothetical ASSUMPTION is that a plane hit lightpoles.
                      Since the assumption to this question, raised not by me but, I think, by Adam Ruff (or perhaps someone Ruff was responding to), was “plane hits poles”, perhaps you should stick that question to them.

                      I am not going to let a rude one bully me into ansering irrelevant questions. You of course may repeat asking the question till you turn blue in the face, but I will not answer it, as a matter of principle.

                      Have a nice day.

                      @ James Hufferd: Thanks for trying to mediate, but indeed I have no question for hybridrougue. Except perhaps why he thinks my answering his question is relevant to the topic of free body physics of poles that are hit near their ends. Since I know already for a fact that it isn’t relevant, I do not actually expect hybridrougue to answer it, for he can’t.

                    6. “I am not going to let a rude one bully me into ansering irrelevant questions.”~Jens Schmidt

                      The question is far from “irrelevant”Schmid — It is of the essence. You continuing to attempt to misframe the context here is more evidence of your utter insincerity here.
                      You have avoided the question by spinning bullshit rhetoric and nothing else: The question remains and will remain until a proper answer is made, just to make clear the context of the question I will rephrase it for you:
                      Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit the light poles in the event at the Pentagon on 9/11?

                    7. Why don’t you accept his statement – No, Sir, it is YOU who is trying to push the debate off in another direction. The direction it was a hypothetical “IF a plane hit the light poles, where and how far would they fall?” It wasn’t I who started going in that direction, so don’t blame ME for going there. Why insist on diverting away into that, Willy? That’s what he’s asking you. Why try to get him to self-incriminate, or pull some such trap? Your hostility is baffling.

                    8. “Why don’t you accept his statement – No, Sir, it is YOU who is trying to push the debate off in another direction. The direction it was a hypothetical “IF a plane hit the light poles, where and how far would they fall?””~Hufferd

                      Because the matter goes beyond the hypothetical “IF a plane hit the light poles, where and how far would they fall” And falls into the context of the ACTUAL EVENT at the Pentagon.
                      We are no longer confronting this scurrilous “hypothetical” — we are discussing the actual event. My question is framed as per the actual event, and Schmidt is evading that question, which still remains:

                      Schmidt: Do you think it is possible that an airplane was in the position to hit those light poles?

                      Until Schmidt answers this simple question he is evading and disassembling — And YOU Hufferd are have joined in on the disassembling. You are purposely provoking me and by doing so distracting from the clear and obvious fact the Schmidt is evading the question.
                      \\][//

    1. “You tossed in Kevin Ryan’s name… How is he involved in this?”~Painter

      Ryan is part of the group who claim an airplane actually hit the Pentagon.
      \\][//

      1. Yes and a real pilot (Shelton Lankford) told him that there was nothing wrong with Legge and Chandler’s paper that a trip through the shredder wouldn’t cure. Ryan is one of the OCT supporters when it comes to the pentagon.

                1. Snowcrash (Legge?) Claims here that Ranke set up a smear campaign against him.
                  Anyone here knows that has got to be a load of bullshit,
                  (Deets deserves all the criticism that can reach him.)

                  “Given the threats
                  I’ve been receiving from Ranke, who has set up a smear campaign against me, based on our e-mail correspondence in 2009 (me, Ranke, Syed) at least that’s something positive.

                  I’m an informatics student, Chris, I recognize logic when I see it. You and I might not agree on everything, but your logic is solid. Hmmm, come to think of it, do we disagree about much? Mind you, Ranke hates you. At least, he left that impression in his threats.

                  It was bad enough to see Zwicker endorse CIT. Deets does not deserve this.”

                  Submitted by SnowCrash on Thu, 10/21/2010 – 7:51pm
                  \\][//

        1. That paper Shelton Lankford was talking about is the one Legge was writing when I was having that long email conversation with him. Legge sent me several rough drafts and that infamous Witness Spreadsheet that was modeled after the one by Arabesque. It became obvious o me how biased Legge is. He became very hostile and belligerent at the point we were discussing the screen shots from CIT showing the rough consensus of plane paths of the closest witnesses. our final blowout came in a dispute over Deb Anlauf. the witness in the Arlington Hilton.

          Then the Sean Boger thing that same day. That’s when Frank came up with his ludicrous theory that someone would remember the details of the immediate event clearer than their sense of place. That really blew my mind!

          I came to the conclusion that Legge was cooking all the data he used for that paper. I accused him of being a mole. Of course he was aghast Of course that sent him through the roof. He became enraged and said I was childish and foolish to not see things as he directed.

          Now to my mind it is Legge who has influenced all of the rest of the 9/11 Pentagon Constabulary. This is why I think Legge was a slow-mo mole taking a long sheep dip as a truther, the whole time he was playing the good guy with the WTC papers, Frank come up with this Pentagon bullshit, almost simultaneously as Steven Jones was bowing out; and had sidled up to Ryan who was to take over the helm of editorial management of The Journal of 9/11 Studies. A pretty cozy-insidence to my mind.
          \\][//

  27. There is a weird twilight zone feel here for me. I spend several hours a day countering stooges on YouTube forums; which means defending Jon Cole on his excellent videos pertaining to nanothermate. Then I go past that sign ahead, the theme to the Twilight Zone plays in my head, and I end up here__utterly opposing his Pentagon position. Very strange.
    \\][//

  28. Call it ‘Rankes’ Paradox’…

    I don’t reckon ANY of them could argue Craig Ranke. I haven’t heard him beaten in one-to-one on the evidence yet. CIT and pilots bust this whole thing wide open. I just wish the science eggs would get down and give it an honest crack instead of all this ‘off-camera’ we know best stuff.

  29. Where is David Griffin on this?

    When he had that stroke the same cast of characters began to attack his claims that cell phones in airplanes couldn’t reach folks on the ground.

    They backed off when it was obvious that DRG would recover.

    Prestige, fame, etc… Baloney! There is some money happening here as motivation. How does one investigate that?

    1. Also, it isn’t the least bit strange that they are considered experts on the WTC…. and suddenly and inexplicably they embrace the illogical when it comes to the Pentagon.

      They are the perfect recruits to spread disinformation.

      This is personal and my guess is that guys like Ryan and Gage got tangled up by being loyal to their friends because they backed them up on their narrow focus on the WTC.

      Really, if you can follow the money….

      1. I’m still on the money thing here… are there any PI’s in the truth movement who can check to see if mortgages were suddenly paid off? Kid’s School Loans? Job promotions? Selling a home for more than it is worth? Buying assets for much less than they are worth? Family members stumbling into some sudden food fortune? New accounts in the Caymans?

        I don”t think that they are doing this to be nasty… I think it is likely a huge financial opportunity for them.

        The over-the-top-outrage and personal attacks directed at those of us who question their sudden reversal and new story-line of supporting the official story about the Pentagon is the #1 clue that they are in over their heads and lying through their teeth.

        If they really believed what they were saying, they would patiently explain it and not go bonkers and exclude people from groups, online forums and social circles. (CIT – a breath of fresh air – sure became toxic fast, didn’t it?)

        Truth is easy. Lies are complicated…. otherwise Legge and friends would be in this discussion addressing every single point raised and not trying to angrily hammer their large square peg into the Pentagon’s round hole.

        I feel sorry for truthers who are new to this because I’ve found it is much easier to confuse people than convince them.

        1. Painter:

          It’s far more likely to be threats to themselves or their families, or blackmail.

          Or, in some cases, they were Agents from the beginning and all there supposed “great work” or “whistle blowing” was nothing but “sheep dip”.

          1. If threats, they could blow the whistle and really nail this thing. And from the beginning? I don’t see that…they appeared to be sincere…until they weren’t.

            1. Painter said:

              “If threats, they could blow the whistle and really nail this thing”

              Who could “blow the whistle”? ….. What are they going to say?…..Who are they going to tell?

              As far as “really nailing this thing”, it’s already been nailed by Steven Jones and Richard Gage and others.

              Threats are more geared toward gaining information or a “confession” than controlling someone’s behavior.

              Blackmail is the best way to control people, especially if the blackmail involves a secret that you will take to the grave with you.

              “And from the beginning? I don’t see that…they appeared to be sincere…until they weren’t”

              Well, sometimes it’s hard to tell when someone is being serious and when they are using satire, but I’ll just assume you’re being serious.

              Appearing to be sincere is the very nature of an Agent…..of course they seem sincere to most people.

              When you say: “they appeared to be sincere”…..who are you talking about?

              1. Is there a back door somewhere – where I can say it? I’m not kidding – but to say it out loud, in public?

                No thanks. It feels dangerous.

                AdamR and Adam S know how to contact me.

              2. Painter — sockpuppet2012,

                WTF? This side argument is turning into nothing but blather. It is like arguing that someone wore the wrong pair of socks to go with the color of their sweater. .. trite squabbling trivial bantersnatch.

                I suggest you both give it a rest.
                \\][//

                1. Who the fuck do you think you are “willy”?

                  We’re discussing the possible motivations of David Chandler, Jon Cole, Kevin Ryan and others for spreading their insane theories about the Pentagon.

                  I started off with a one word comment in answer to James Hufferd:

                  “Blackmail”

                  And “willy” comes up with this intellectual gem:

                  “There are other forms of cui bono Painter; prestige, privilege in your circles, public renown…”

                  Have you flipped your wig, bright lad?
                  The insane nonsense that these people are spreading, knowing it’s complete bullcrap, demands much more explanation than seeking “public renown”.

                  It has to be that they were Agents from the beginning…..That’s my opinion of most of them.

                  Or blackmailed like I believe Kevin Ryan to be…..that dude just simply gives me the fucking creeps!
                  I think “they” have something real good on Kevin that he intends to take to the grave with him.

                  If you don’t like this line of reasoning, then you shouldn’t have added your harebrained nonsense about “prestige, privilege in your circles, public renown…”

                  That’s got to be the stupidest suggestion yet!

                  1. “If you don’t like this line of reasoning, then you shouldn’t have added your harebrained nonsense about “prestige, privilege in your circles, public renown…”
                    That’s got to be the stupidest suggestion yet!”~sockpuppet2012

                    Really? I think it is the most likely answer. But I am not going to argue about it, because all of these back and forth’s have dwindled into a carousel of naught but empty speculation and recrimination.
                    As for who the “fuck” I think I am, you know that answer well enough. Ask yourself who the fuck you think YOU ARE. You are anonymous, that is WHAT you are; the WHO is the mystery.
                    \\][//

  30. Ignore the murdered people on Flight 77; their DNA exactly on course of 77’s impact. Mock the murdered with lies about 911. You might fool a fringe few, or the Boston bombers with delusions like Radar is fake, all without evidence.
    Thus for the no plane, the NTSB, the FAA, USAF, Navy, the local fire departments, and hundreds more are in on 911, as you apologize for 19 terrorists with fantasy claims.
    What was fake? Witnesses? Radar? DNA? FDR? Nonsense you manufactured.
    How do you fake Radar data from more than 5 different Radar sites; how do you do that? How do you get the FAA to do that? Oh noes, the tower at the airport right next to the Pentagon saw Flight 77 on Radar… darn, real time debunking for your lies you gathered from failed 911 truth people, like pilots for truth. How do you place a 757 image in an eye of many witnesses, at the exact same time the plane is on Radar, 5 different Radar sites? Right, you use hearsay from other 911 truth liars, and then you are off the hook, using their lies to promote your fantasy.
    O’Brien’s flight path description is perfect, match Radar exactly.You never took the time to look at the data, or reality.

    1. “You never took the time to look at the data, or reality.”~eyesuntzu

      That is a bold and exceedingly presumptive charge to make as an introductory remark to a group on a website you have never been to. I detect more than a bit of haughty arrogance in your comment, and a good indication of hypocrisy in the line I chose to quote above.

      You have thrown a lot of issues on the table as a sort of scatter-gun shot; attention getting but not well aimed. So as an improvement on your rather hysterical crash-landing here: Let us be methodical and chose something in particular, say; “Radar? DNA? FDR?”.

      Let us begin then with specifically “FDR”:
      ________________________>>

      Flight Data Recorder Analysis – Last Second of Data – 09:37:44

      We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.

      We have an animation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. The animation covers the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles… to the impact at the Pentagon in real time.

      This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment.
      For further details, please see our Technical Paper at: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/techpaperAA77

      Press Release outlining our findings: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pressrelease

      OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT’S OWN DATA
      Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, “Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77”, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77’s Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

      – The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

      CSV file and animation as plotted and provided by the NTSB through the Freedom Of Information Act (1) at time stamp 09:37:44, reports pressure altitude as 173 (csv file) and 180 feet (animation). When adjusted for local pressure to true altitude, the aircraft is ~473 and ~ 480 feet above sea level, respectively. Too high to hit the light poles as reported being struck on Washington Blvd and the Pentagon if trends are continued. NTSB calculates and reports impact time of 09:37:45 in their NTSB Flight Path Study (2).
      The Animation Reconstruction as plotted and provided by the NTSB shows a flight path north of the required physical damage path. (1)
      – All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

      See description above. Light pole height is ~ 80 feet above sea level for tallest pole. (USGS Ground Elevation ~ 40 + Pole Height 40, Virginia Dept of Transportation)
      – The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense “5 Frames” video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

      Rate of Descent is in excess of 4,600 fpm (3). Aircraft height at 09:37:44 is ~473′ above sea level. Pentagon Height is 110′ above sea level. 473 – 110 = 363. 363 fps x 60 = 21,780 fpm descent required for last second to hit top of pentagon. 21,780 fpm descent rate for one second. This represents a 24.928 degree descent angle.
      363/781 (distance based on 781 fps speed as reported by NTSB) = atan θ = .464788

      θ = 24.928

      24.928 degree descent angle is in direct conflict with the level approach as seen in the DoD “5 frames video” (4). Further, the aircraft would require a level approach considering the foundation doesn’t show any signs of damage (5).

      – The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

      Animation stops at 09:37:44. NTSB calculates impact time at 09:37:45. Many CSV file parameters terminate at 09:37:45.
      – If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

      4,600 fpm descent = 76.7 fps. Altitude at 09:37:44 as reported and plotted by NTSB when adjusted to local pressure indicates ~473(3). Impact time as reported by NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45. 473 – 76.7 = 396. Top of pentagon height is 33 (ground elevation) + 77 (height of pentagon) = 110. 396 – 110 = 286.3 feet too high above the pentagon. Margin for error given as 186.3 feet due to altitude not present at time calculated by the NTSB for impact.
      In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 .According to the 9/11 Commission Report, which relied heavily upon the NTSB Flight Path Study, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001 . However, the reported impact time according to the NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45 . Also according to reports, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and by doing so, struck down 5 light poles on Highway 27 in its path to the west wall.

      The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.

      Pilots for 9/11 Truth is committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 . We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim are the data extracted from the FDR of AA Flight 77 and the official story alleging its crash into the Pentagon.As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Why have they falsely represented their own data to the American people? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to inform them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter.
      For more information please visit: pilotsfor911truth.org.

      Signed: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html
      ________________________________________________
      \\][//

    2. eyesuntzu:

      OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT’S OWN DATA

      Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, “Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77”, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77’s Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

      – The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

      CSV file and animation as plotted and provided by the NTSB through the Freedom Of Information Act (1) at time stamp 09:37:44, reports pressure altitude as 173 (csv file) and 180 feet (animation). When adjusted for local pressure to true altitude, the aircraft is ~473 and ~ 480 feet above sea level, respectively. Too high to hit the light poles as reported being struck on Washington Blvd and the Pentagon if trends are continued. NTSB calculates and reports impact time of 09:37:45 in their NTSB Flight Path Study (2).
      The Animation Reconstruction as plotted and provided by the NTSB shows a flight path north of the required physical damage path. (1)
      – All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

      See description above. Light pole height is ~ 80 feet above sea level for tallest pole. (USGS Ground Elevation ~ 40 + Pole Height 40, Virginia Dept of Transportation)
      – The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense “5 Frames” video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

      Rate of Descent is in excess of 4,600 fpm (3). Aircraft height at 09:37:44 is ~473′ above sea level. Pentagon Height is 110′ above sea level. 473 – 110 = 363. 363 fps x 60 = 21,780 fpm descent required for last second to hit top of pentagon. 21,780 fpm descent rate for one second. This represents a 24.928 degree descent angle.
      363/781 (distance based on 781 fps speed as reported by NTSB) = atan θ = .464788

      θ = 24.928

      24.928 degree descent angle is in direct conflict with the level approach as seen in the DoD “5 frames video” (4). Further, the aircraft would require a level approach considering the foundation doesn’t show any signs of damage (5).

      – The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

      Animation stops at 09:37:44. NTSB calculates impact time at 09:37:45. Many CSV file parameters terminate at 09:37:45.
      – If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

      4,600 fpm descent = 76.7 fps. Altitude at 09:37:44 as reported and plotted by NTSB when adjusted to local pressure indicates ~473(3). Impact time as reported by NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45. 473 – 76.7 = 396. Top of pentagon height is 33 (ground elevation) + 77 (height of pentagon) = 110. 396 – 110 = 286.3 feet too high above the pentagon. Margin for error given as 186.3 feet due to altitude not present at time calculated by the NTSB for impact.
      In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 .According to the 9/11 Commission Report, which relied heavily upon the NTSB Flight Path Study, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001 . However, the reported impact time according to the NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45 . Also according to reports, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and by doing so, struck down 5 light poles on Highway 27 in its path to the west wall.

      The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.

      Pilots for 9/11 Truth is committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 . We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim are the data extracted from the FDR of AA Flight 77 and the official story alleging its crash into the Pentagon.As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Why have they falsely represented their own data to the American people? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to inform them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter. For more information please visit

      \\][//

    3. eyesuntzu,

      I defy you to site a single case of there being any proof of chains of custody in the public record, or any revealing of the serial numbers of any current aircraft change-parts, for any of the planes said to have been involved in the incidents of 9/11. You have nothing but the word of the authorities assuring you that such information exists. You live in a world of media spin, and you parrot back that spin in your inane substance-less arguments.

      You have nothing but one long fallacious Argument from Authority. I can say this with certain confidence having encountered your trolling bullshit on the YouTube video forums for many weeks now. Your nonsense is not going to fly here, you are not dealing with the half wits and lollipop lickers you are used to on the social forums. Be forewarned: You are in expert territory now.
      \\][//

    4. eyesuntzu,
      You have got a lot more to learn! Grok:

      Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757
      03/03/11 – (PilotsFor911Truth.org) When Pilots For 9/11 Truth was founded in the late summer of 2006, the objective was to find evidence supporting what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission as many theories were rumored that elements within the US Government might have had something to do with 9/11. Co-Founder Rob Balsamo explains how he was puzzled and motivated to pursue further research into the events of 9/11 in his citation at PatriotsQuestion911.com, which lead to the formation of Pilots For 9/11 Truth. More than four years of solid research through Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests, numerous interviews and expert analysis has revealed no hard evidence supporting or linking to — and in many instances factually conflicting with — conclusions made by the 9/11 Commission. Now there is overwhelming evidence which suggests the data that is being provided to the public through the FOIA, is not from an aircraft which has been operated by American Airlines.

      Pilots For 9/11 Truth analysis of data being provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has revealed the data does not support an impact with the Pentagon, exceeds the capabilities of a standard 757/767 by a wide margin, while demonstrating control issues for an “inexperienced pilot” (See 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon, 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, and Flight Of American 77). The data itself does not support what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission. When contacted, the NTSB and the FBI refused to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth went on to research if there was any evidence linking the data to N644AA (the aircraft described as “Flight 77”), once again, there is no evidence to support the government version of events(1). Research was also performed to determine if there was any evidence whatsoever linking the limited number of parts found at the Pentagon, to N644AA(2). In an unprecedented turn of events, the parts were never verified by any government agency for any of the four aircraft reported to have been used on 9/11. In all instances, there hasn’t been any evidence provided by government agencies to support what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission. Further analysis reveals evidence demonstrating the data provided was not generated by an American Airlines airplane in the case of the attack on the Pentagon.

      DATA FRAME LAYOUT

      Pilots For 9/11 Truth have been provided several files through the FOIA. One file in particular, a raw Flight Data Recorder file which is described as a direct download from the FDR, contains binary code which needs to be decoded for a proper readout in a spreadsheet such as Excel. In order to decode such data, a Data Frame Layout is required. Derived from a generic Boeing Data Frame Layout, American Airlines provided it’s own custom made Data Frame Layout which was designed for decoding data from aircraft within the American Airlines fleet, based on airline needs exclusive to American Airlines (AAL). The custom made AAL Data Frame Layout was unable to decode the data in full, and in some instances, neither the AAL Data Frame Layoyut nor the generic Boeing Data Frame Layout were able to be utilized in decoding the data(3). Why would American Airlines design their own custom Data Frame Layout if it cannot decode data from their aircraft? Or perhaps the data being provided is not from an American Airlines jet?
      \\][//

  31. Someone named Oystein, who obviously follows this blog very closely, has weighed in on the latest in the Pentagon debate at the International Skeptics Forum (formerly JREF), where they love to see truthers fight.

    At first, the commenter was giving me credit for reigniting the battle over the Pentagon with my “delightful salvo” about David Chandler. But he then corrected himself and said that it was actually Chandler’s talk in Oakland that got the ball rolling.

    But here’s the part that gave me my first genuine belly laugh of the day. He lists the two “warring” factions: one is Chandler and his “minions” (Legge, Cole, Hoffman, Jenkins, Wyndham, Ryan, Farmer) and the other is me and my “minions.” My sincere apologies go to Ken Freeland, Adam Syed, Adam Ruff, Massimo Mazzucco, James Hufferd, and Paul Zarembka.

    I think it’s safe to say that all of these people referred to as “minions” were contributing to the Truth Movement long before I said, “What’s Building 7?” for the first time. In any case, I’m glad to be associated with them all.

    And it is now crystal clear that Chandler and his Team are the ones causing dissension by opposing those who are making the strongest case against the Pentagon official story.

    1. Oystein jumps disputaciously on every established or generally accepted point I cite on my blog, 911grassroots.org, and argues endlessly, using every known of argument and a few others,posing endless implausible claims as supposedly logical alternative possibilities, such as Bush didn’t immediately leave the school because he knew that a one-story school wouldn’t be vulnerable a Kamikaze airliner and it would be safer not to leave the building. Once he starts in, he’s hard to get rid of.

    2. I certainly remember Oystein from the phony “skeptics” site; JREF. A bigger group of lunatic oinkers has never been assembled in one place before that. That affair with Merritte attempting to debunk the Jones-Harrit paper sure knocked them down the tubes. They sure were a bunch of arrogant assholes
      \\][//

    3. WOOHOOO! I made minion status! I made minion status on a JREF post! Nanny nanny nanny goat! YESSSSSS! I finally made it! I cannot express to you all in words the honor and happiness I feel in this moment of personal triumph. Thank you Craig for letting me know about this.

      1. Wow…..you’re really moving up in the “conspiracy” world, Adam!

        I think you deserve to be called a minion with a capital “M”.

        Adam “Minion” Ruff…..it kinda has a nice ring to it.

  32. Oystein;,last seen choking on 6% (by mass) hot iron spheroids in the DUST of 911, while struggling to turn high military grade unignited thermitic materiel into primer paint.
    As with every OCT arguer for this great deception, started backwards and not seeing the mirror, relitigates the old proverb to become a swine before the pearl.

  33. It makes me sad to see how little the truth movement is able to reach the general public. Sad, to be honest, is putting it mildly: it makes me sick.
    A year ago, I started presenting extracts of books, websites, speeches and videos published by the truth movement to family, friends and colleagues (mechanical engineers). Material that – in my opinion – proves beyond reasonable doubt that the WTC buildings were brought down with controlled demolition, that no large aircraft ever hit the Pentagon or crashed in Shanksville. What reaction did my sample of the “general public” show? Well, it all seemed interesting and entertaining to my audience, but the conclusion that the official story is false was simply not accepted. The engineers were not convinced by David Chandler’s words “the upper portion of the building would not fall through the path of its greatest resistance”. The friends (well educated people with leading positions in their companies) were not impressed by watching the slow motion and analysis of the WTC7 collapse. Neither friends nor colleagues made life-changing discoveries through my presentations. I tried a few more times. Then I gave up. (By the way, the family members were the ones the most impressed. Why? Because they were convinced by my emotion, my sincerity, my engagement, my trust in the sources of which I took the material.)
    So how can the general public be convinced if not with facts? It can be convinced by the individuals who believe (and can defend) those facts on one hand and the number of the followers on the other.
    The 9/11 truth movement however appears to be split into dozens of groups and fractions, many of them contradicting (even insulting) or – at best – ignoring each other. Obviously, each and every prominent member has its own blog. Considering myself a representative of the “general public”, it looks pathetic. I felt relief when I discovered David Ray Griffin’s consensus panel. (It appeared weak to me, but it seemed like a start). Now I read in the exchange above that members of the truth movement pride themselves in saying “Fuck the consensus. The whole concept of it.” These individuals have not understood that the truth movement is (or must be) a political movement. And political power only stems from unity. The 9/11 truth movement reminds me of the loud and colorful but powerless oppositions one finds in many countries’ parliaments of this world where the dominant party keeps ruling only because the opposition can never agree on anything. Each member of the opposition opposes something else…
    Scientific (or less ambitiously: engineering) argument cannot defeat the official story in the view of the general public. Did Richard Gage not fail horrendously even in front of his peers? From more than 4,000 delegates at this year’s American Institute of Architects business meeting, only 160 voted in favor of a new WTC7 investigation, 3,892 voted against it. If the engineers cannot be convinced – not even about the limited subject of WTC7 alone – how should the common citizen be convinced that the entire official story about the four plane crashes is a lie?
    Those members of the truth movement who have to tell a somewhat truer story, to announce an all-important detail correction or to advertise their superior understanding (insight, overview, knowledge, philosophy, experience, authority, etc.) should do this behind closed doors. The public is not served by it in any way.
    David Chandler’s approach to the pentagon issue largely annihilates his achievements with the WTC towers. He has just lost his credibility. I can already see the logic in the heads of my friends: “What, all those who convinced me that AA77 did not crash into the Pentagon are wrong after all? So they did take me on a ride! Or is Chandler wrong? But if Chandler is wrong on the Pentagon, he is probably also wrong on the WTC towers… The government seems to be right, after all. The truth movement does not know itself. These guys are just conspiracy theorists. What a pity, I wasted my time on that.”
    I will still forward the “Beyond Misinformation” brochure to friends and colleagues. Hope they don’t google David Chandler.
    Mark Schneider, Ph.D. Physics, Germany

    1. “Now I read in the exchange above that members of the truth movement pride themselves in saying “Fuck the consensus. The whole concept of it.” These individuals have not understood that the truth movement is (or must be) a political movement. And political power only stems from unity.”~Dr. Schneider

      I appreciate your passion. It is a conundrum, is it not, that the Truth movement, in order to become a “political movement”, demands acquiescence of ones personal principles as to what that truth is, by bowing to a ‘collective’, in the name of consensus?

      You say, “But if Chandler is wrong on the Pentagon, he is probably also wrong on the WTC towers” — clearly this is a non sequitur and as such a fallacious argument: “Sally can’t shoot straight, so she is a lousy shot, therefore she can’t cook’.

      It is a fact of the movement of time through space that all “consensus” is temporary. The only consensus that is not is one that is enforced by dogma. Shall we as members of a “truth community” then bow to the tyranny of dogma?

      I do appreciate your opinions and your input her Dr. Schneider. But my reservations to them have been registered here. You may respond as you will.
      \\][//

    2. If a movement is not grounded in truth, there is no real hope that it will achieve anything worthwhile; certainly not by design. If consensus is held superior to truth, what makes you think that it won’t end up being sidetracked; willfully steered off course so that nothing good is accomplished, except for the agenda for which the dastardly actions were originally conceived?

      Your argument is exactly what the US government is doing – playing in their arena with their rules of engagement is never going to win any meaningful victory. The pursuit of truth is not for the majority, it genuinely is the devoted work of a relative few that will eventually win the day. The government’s case is crumbling with each passing month, now is not the time for compromise, now is the time to support those willing to fight where the battle is being waged.

    3. I don’t think your professional colleagues (or Richard Gage’s, for that matter) would have rejected the scientific evidence you presented in the abstract, but that the problem was one of them being unready to violate the layered social compact of their allegiance to the social and political context providing them, in their perception, a place to operate, a context giving them the privilege of a shared purpose. And even more so, would they feel they owe allegiance and gratitude to their shared profession, so that they would not violate the perceived social contract within the principles of which they live and move and have their being. At this point, they are not ready to consider fundamentally opposing the consensus thus provided for their development, and they are not ready to consider facing the likely consequences of meaningfully doing so.

      As for your family members, you occupy a more prominent position and thus have more leverage and persuasiveness with them. But don’t get discouraged! We can eventually change the conventional wisdom on this subject if we can continue to plant seeds, one person at a time, and look for things to come up in the news and otherwise to cause those seeds of awareness to germinate across the society and cause the shift in perception that must happen. Hang in there!

      Dr. James Hufferd
      http://www.911grassroots.org

  34. It is time to reiterate that it is most telling that not a single one of the principal cast of characters this article is about has had the nerve to post a comment on this thread. Where is a forum that they would be willing to debate this issue openly?

    Is there ANYWHERE they would engage us where they do not influence the moderation?

    Apparently not. This has become blatantly evident, and has remained so for too long. Their excuses have all evaporated as specious and vapid.
    \\][//

      1. Are you talking to me Hufferd?
        I told you not to address me.
        Craig moderates this forum, not me.
        I don’t want to have any more of your bullshit directed at me Hufferd. Is that clear?
        \\][//

        1. I don’t think I want to tell anyone not to address another commenter, but I can ask that comments be made in good faith and not for the purpose of provoking someone for the sake of doing so. Let’s keep it about sharing and discussing relevant information and expressing genuine opinions. Thank you.

  35. Craig wrote: Winston, here is a link to a good quality image of the scrape mark from the CIT site.

    The scrape mark tells us (maybe) that the base was pretty heavy, could only be dragged/pushed, not lifted. It may tell us that the base end was near the road center and dragged about 90 degrees so it is now pointing south.

    Surely the base end wasn’t in the car, but the top end. If we agree that this makes sense, then does it make sense that those extracting it would carry the base towards the rear and then set it down? Not to me.

    I would want to take that base towards the guard rail and set it down on the curb or rail so my feet didn’t get hit, then drop the smaller end on the road. This would leave it in front of the car facing the opposite direction from what we see and it wouldn’t subsequently have to be dragged.

    Further, if the base was sticking out over the hood, by some miracle suspended there without touching the paint, as you extracted it, due to the curvature, the base would begin to touch the ground before it was free. Put yourself in the position of trying to get that monster out of the car.

    The more I look at this, I lean more towards the arm being impaled.

  36. This situation with Jens Schmidt refusing to answer a simple question has put us in the situation where the original question is in a thread that is difficult to answer from because so many replies have been made in a row there. So I am reposing my question here with more specificity in an attempt to finally get over Schmidt’s evasions:

    Jens Schmidt:
    Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?
    \\][//

    1. Now; It is perfectly obvious why Jens Schmidt refuses to answer this question. Schmidt’s answer would likely reveal that he/she thinks it is possible that an airplane actually hit the light poles in the Pentagon event of 9/11. This would also reveal that Jens Schmidt does not grasp the argument that it is impossible for that plane to have hit the light poles or the Pentogon due to its trajectory. That being a flight course coming from the west, flying directly over the Arlington Hilton, then over the Navy Annex and continuing to fly to the north side of the Citgo station and on towards the Pentagon.

      This trajectory in incompatible with the directional damage to the Pentagon, and it is impossible that the plane could have hit the light poles on such a vector.
      That would be Schmidt’s dilemma were he/she to suggest it is possible for the Pentagon plane to have downed the light poles.

      Schmidt can easily resolve this question by admitting that it would be impossible for that plane to have hit those light poles. The ball remains in his/her court.
      \\][//

      1. There is an event with two possible explanations, A and B.
        They are mutually exclusive –
        If A is true then B is false. If B is true then A is false.
        There is evidence for A. There is evidence for B.

        Do you
        1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false?
        or
        2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?

        1. Agent Wright has attempted to frame this irrelevant bullshit too many times to be taken seriously. We all know that Wright is a corporatist stooge.
          How does it feel to have a stooge like Wright pop up on your side Hufferd?
          \\][//

            1. So Hufferd, Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?
              \\][//

                1. “Anything’s possible.”~Hufferd

                  Not so, not in this instance. It is impossible for the aircraft flyin the trajectory it was on to have hit the light poles and cause the damage path in the Pentagon. Impossible.
                  \\][//

                  1. Could be. But most of us aren’t concentrated Pentagon researchers and it’s one point out of hundreds in the whole 9/11 scenario. I find other, unrelated Pentagon evidence paramount and convincing that no airliner stuck the building.

                    1. That is the same position that Candler and Cole hold Hufferd.

                      Thank you for finally admitting it.

                      There is no “Could be” about it. It is impossible for the Pentagon aircraft to have stuck the light poles and cause the damage path inside the Pentagon. That is what this whole article and thread has been about. So as far as I’m concerned you are firmly in the same ranks as the Chandler-Cole contingent, and you have just confirmed that in this little disingenuous spat you yourself insisted on maintaining.
                      \\][//

  37. What can I say? Hufferd finally came out and admitted he is in the same mind-set as the Chandler-Cole contingent on the Pentagon issue.

    As far as his charges that I was bullying either he or Schmdit, it is nonsense. It is not ‘bullying’ to insist that someone answer a simple and straightforward question. Nor to insist on that answer either until it is given, or until it is revealed that the reason the question is not answered is because something is being hidden by the party refusing to answer. There is no 5th Amendment protection from incriminating oneself in internet debate, we both know it is not a court of law, but a court of critical understanding.

    Hufferd has gone full debunker, just like Chandler and Cole, he was just keeping it from us for the past week.
    I call that scurrilous dissembling.
    \\][//

    1. Well, let’s see — give me references, links, or quotes wherein Cole AND Chandler made the same statement I did. We’ll see if your little petty guilt by association scheme is also all crap.

      1. “Well, let’s see — give me references, links, or quotes wherein Cole AND Chandler made the same statement I did.”~Hufferd

        We need no “references, links, or quotes” Hufferd, it is the same mind-set, regardless of any terms you may or may not have used. You already are laying in that hole you dug for yourself; shouting out more disingenuous excuses isn’t going to get you out of it.

        You might as well give up this squall Hufferd, you already spilled your beans,
        \\][//

        1. Or, alternatively, any link, citation, or quote indicating that I ever, anywhere said anything in any way even remotely resembling the stand of Chandler and/or Cole about the cockamamie theory of airliner hitting the Pentagon that your idiotic, frothing-at-the mouth desperate attempt to vilify me claims. People are watching. The little that might be left of whatever credibility you may have ever had is squarely on the line. Blather, yes — you deserve it for putting your foot in it again.

          1. “Or, alternatively, any link, citation, or quote indicating that I ever, anywhere said anything in any way even remotely resembling the stand of Chandler and/or Cole” ~Huffferd

            The links and citations are here on this very thread. I didn’t include your pansy assed defense of Mr Schmidt in my newest comment before this one.
            \\][//

      2. “For one thing, there are too many things missing that would be present if the OCT about an airliner striking the Pentagon were true — such as no actual plane parts identifiable by serial number.” ~James Hufferd – October 3, 2015 at 6:05 pm

        “Personally, I don’t know of a shred of physical evidence that would indicate that a jetliner actually struck the Pentagon. No ticket, no ride — PURE speculation.”~James Hufferd – October 3, 2015 at 7:10 pm

        So how does the above with square with this?

        “Could be. But most of us aren’t concentrated Pentagon researchers and it’s one point out of hundreds in the whole 9/11 scenario. I find other, unrelated Pentagon evidence paramount and convincing than no airliner stuck the building.” ~James Hufferd – October 8, 2015 at 5:49 pm

        \\][//

          1. Lol, it had best not be you Hufferd, you will be counter-charged by the court for filing a frivolous law suit!

            Your getting hysterical here isn’t going to help you any Hufferd.
            \\][//

  38. The Dunning–Kruger effect; a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.

    There are variations of the D-K effect as well; such as those who have expertise or ‘skills’ in one topic, and mistakenly think that this expertise can cross over effortlessly to other areas of knowledge. Their general intelligence is of course a factor for assessing any information. But that does not mollify the situations wherein these “experts” do not actually study the details of an area of research they are not qualified in, and merely assume from ignorance that their standing as an expert in one field only reaches validity in that specialty.
    \\][//

      1. Sure you would Hufferd, someone suffering from such cognitive dissonance as yourself would certainly miss this diagnoses as pertaining to themselves.
        \\][//

              1. “Let the people judge.”~Hufferd

                Yes, so we shall let the people judge, while you keep chewing on your carrion.
                \\][//

                1. I recall when Hufferd criticized me for naming Israel (Mossad) as key suspects in the 9-11 crimes.
                  Last February, Christopher Bollyn came to Iowa and presented “Solving 9/11”. Hufferd was his host, and since has allowed the momentum of Bollyn’s evidence to remain uncommented upon.
                  Hufferd is the ‘grassroots organizer’ for 911truth.org. Have any of you searched 911truth.org for “Sabrosky” or “Bollyn”? Janice Mathews, editor, seems not to include these materials.
                  Carol Brouillet, issueing honorarium checks, is maker of DECEPTION DOLLARS. The websites listed on DECEPTION DOLLARS are affiliated with 911truth.org and seem not to mention Israeli connections.
                  Janice taught me two concepts: “controlled opposition” and “limited hangout” before accusing me of damaging the 9-11 truth activist movement in my locale (her home town). My ‘crime’ was to ask about Jewish and Israeli connections.
                  Hufferd seems to me to be a 9-11 half-truther.

                  1. Rediscover, I would like to know what your real name is so that I could place you. I seriously don’t recall ever objecting to anyone saying that the Israeli government or the Mossad were suspects for 9/11. I have always asked for evidence of commission, instead merely of foreknowledge of 9/11, and have never been presented any until I saw recently in a video of a Rebekah Roth interview a photo of Israeli “art students” inside a work area they occupied pre-9/11 inside a sealed-off upper story in the Twin Towers with big stacks of boxes of detonation fuses in the space behind them. Have you seen it? You can find it posted under “Proof of guilt for 9/11”, on 9/18/2015 on my web site, 911grassroots.org. Have you researched my web site at all before writing this scathing comment? Other noteworthy articles in point specifically referencing Israel/Mossad, Rothschilds, or Bollyn include as follows — 9/24/15 – “Just Eaters”; 3/18/15 – “Israeli Support For Al-Qaeda Militants in Syria”; 2/26/15 – “Implications of the ‘Israel Did It’ Theory”; 9/28/14 – “NSA-US, Israel, Britain Created ISIS”; 12/11/12 – “The Hot Rock of Zion”. I always require definite evidence of commission and, as I said, though I haven’t discounted actual Israeli/Mossad involvement, never saw any evidence of hands-on involvement, as opposed to foreknowledge and observation, until a month or so ago when I watched that video. Even if the Mossad and its agents did the whole thing — including, incredibly, ordered or carried out all the exercises and stand-downs, I would still blame the innards of the U.S. government primarily for going along, permitting it, and covering it up inside their own country. Wouldn’t you? And really, I think both countries’ governments are puppets under the global command system of the NWO, which is the ultimate culprit in that and a whole lot more. What say you?

                    1. Oh, the great question of whodunit!!!! Which, more often than not, is extremely disingenuous at best, and outright misdirection and limited hangout at worst.

                      How about this not-so novel idea: It was EVERYONE. Whether they planned, orchestrated, executed, helped cover up, or simply stayed quiet in the aftermath.

                      If you are not already into it, I would strongly recommend spending some time reading JFK assassination and research sites, full of people bickering about whether it was the Cubans, the Russians, the FBI, the CIA, the military, Lyndon Johnson, Alan Dulles, the Mafia, even though, half a century later, we have the benefit of 50 years of research and having had a chance of clearly observing who benefited from the assassination, who covered it up and who stayed quiet.

                      We also have a very clear idea about how they managed to keep this bullshit going for 50 years, their propaganda tactics, the psychological warfare they employed, and the unbelievably limitless resources they have spend to ensure that there would never be a consensus between genuine researchers. One can go read any of these blogs and forums and find gatekeepers, moles, and outright agents who are still arguing for the lone-nut magic bullet narrative, and manage to keep genuine, smart and very knowledgeable people busy throwing darts at an imaginary, made up target. And one can still find these people arguing whether or not Johnson was in on it, or if FBI knew, etc. It is sad, but very illuminating in respect to the 9/11 research and truth movement.

                      One thing is for sure. You will never, and I repeat, NEVER have “evidence of hands-on involvement”, you will NEVER be able to prove who exactly pushed which button, pulled which trigger, gave which order, planted which evidence.

                      Even in your closing statement , which, at first look seems oh-so open minded by saying “I think both countries’ governments are puppets under the global command system of the NWO”, you create a false paradigm by singling out the US and Israel, and pointing the finger at the ambiguous NWO… Similar to “believers” who blame (or credit) god and spirits and supernatural nonsense for everything they fail to explain in rational terms.

                      Yes, of course US and Israel are the main players… But, what about the Brits, the Saudis, Qatar, Pakistan, the Turks and all countries under the clasp of Gladio on steroids? What about all the powerful governments in the world who know and stay quiet? Would you say Putin might have some knowledge, and even evidence in his hands? In fact, could Putin, who took office in 1999, have been in on it all along? After all, a true Muslim revival in the region would be the biggest threat to Russia and China, both of which have hundreds of millions of Muslims within their borders and in their respective satellite states… How about the Vatican? The perpetuation of the Roman cult depends heavily on maintaining a weak Muslim world… But if they they were not in on it, would you say they must have used their might to investigate and get better results than our homegrown truth movement researchers who mostly operate in the open, against the stream and under threat, with limited or no resources, and with an absolute lack of direct connections to the power structure? How about the Chinese? Do you think they might know sumptin’ that we don’t? And how about ALL of the US intelligence agencies? If private citizens have managed to expose as much information as we have now, imagine what real trained experts know and won’t speak up about it.

                      Add them all up, and you couldn’t fit the names of everyone involved in 9/11 and its cover up, in 8pt type, in a book the size of the 9/11 Commission report. None of which, no matter how powerful and mighty, have the means to get away with a false flag of such magnitude for decades without the complicity of all (or at least most) other major players on the world stage.

                      I hate to use this quote again from this slimeball, but it is the perfect one that explains the reality of the search and research for truth:

                      We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

                      Karl Rove

                    2. “Oh, the great question of whodunit!!!! Which, more often than not, is extremely disingenuous at best, and outright misdirection and limited hangout at worst.”~ Lilaleo

                      I’m sorry if I have misinterpreted your statement but it strikes me as a prime example of what you (ostensibly) write. Whenever a crime is committed, it is perfectly normal to question who did it, who had the motivation to commit the crime, etc. You don’t have to be an agent, mole, shill, or an op to make such a statement, in fact, I would say that those who are genuinely interested in seeing someone brought to justice for the crime would be most inclined to pose such a question.

                      I take it that you have no doubt it was a conspiracy, i.e. more than one person was involved in the planning and execution of 9/11. If that is a true statement, you must realize that the idea of trying to identify everyone involved and the extent of their involvement before anyone is arrested or indicted is a ridiculous position, yet that appears to be the thrust of your message.

                      I hope that I have just misinterpreted what you wrote. Speaking metaphorically, the dam does not fail all at once; rather, it is by a process of slow and steady erosion that it ultimately fails. If there still are any honest FBI investigators or international investigative bodies that are willing to bring charges against a relative few for which they have solid evidence, I think many others will be readily exposed for their own crimes. I do concede that some (many?) will likely never be brought to justice, but that does not mean we don’t pursue those for which we have good evidence of crimes committed.

                    3. Wow Lilaleo! What a well thought out and constructed and instructive reply! Bravo!!
                      I applaud your prescience.
                      \\][//

                    4. Lilaleo (whoever you are), They didn’t put a reply button under your missive, so I’m answering here. First, people are convicted all the time, as evidence does emerge. So, never say never. In this case, as I said, I find that pic in the video indicated if the Israeli “art students” standing in front of all of those stacks of clearly-marked boxes of detonation triggers very damning, indeed. Did you look at it? And far more may come out from whistleblowers or who knows what source as time passes, because there’s no such thing as the perfect crime — especially on such a magnitude. So, don’t be so pessimistic! On the other hand, you can’t convict, or SHOULDN’T without the backing of credible evidence — just because you might not like Jews or something like that. (On the other side, I’ve been accused of antisemitism for my stances, too — which is equally untrue and unjust.) I don’t know your motivation for sure, but I intend to follow the evidence and insist on that. I tend now to believe it was a combined U.S./Israeli operation, in just what proportions, I don’t KNOW — and, I submit, neither do you. So, stop slamming me, especially when you haven’t researched what I have written on my site, which was far more than what you thought. I’ve managed to keep an open mind, and my conclusions have changed over time in response to new evidence. Are you as open and fair-minded, too? Or, are you just as biased without evidence as was the American public and media after 9/11/01? Please guard against that, or get out of our movement.

                    5. Lilaleo,

                      Don’t you know it is INSUBORDINATION to talk back to a 9/11 Truth LEADER like that!!??

                      If You’re not careful you could be sent to the 9/11 Truth Staockade!!! Think of your wife and kids my good man!! Think of the good of the movement, the good of the WHOLE! The collective knows best and the LEADERS speak for the collective and realize that some animals are more equal than others!

                      Now get back on your knees and OBEY!!!!!!
                      \\][//

                    6. dji9424,

                      So-called “cynicism” is just a practical point of view that recognizes “hope” as mere wishful thinking.
                      \\][//

                    7. And your point is…? Are you providing me with an example of misdirection, as Lilaleo has suggested in her earlier post, or just making a pithy remark about the tone of Lilaleo’s message?

                      Also, as long as I am addressing your comment to me, I find your use of the word “prescient” was an interesting one when complimenting Lilaleo on his/her “whodunnit” message. Are you stating Lilaleo has foreknowledge of 9/11 or knows what will come of any future investigation? Should we read something more into your usage of this word?

                      I have no desire to play word games, I write what I mean to say, i.e. I intend no hidden meanings, and I read others’ posts in the same vein. Therefore, I did not read Lilaleo’s message as cynicism per se, but I do challenge the statement that I quoted in my post. “Whodunnit” is a legitimate question in my view, but if it has degenerated into being perceived as a disingenuous one, any further dialogue is pointless.

                    8. Adj. 1. prescient – perceiving the significance of events before they occur; “extraordinarily prescient memoranda on the probable course of postwar relations”-R.H.Rovere
                      **>discerning – having or revealing keen insight and good judgment; “a discerning critic”; “a discerning reader”
                      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prescient
                      \\][//

                    9. A dictionary definition doesn’t answer my question of how you are using the word.

                      The dictionary you cite states that “discerning” is a related word, but it is not used as the primary definition. “Prescient” implies knowledge or understanding prior to an event (foreknowledge), whereas “discerning” implies wisdom or understanding with existing (available) information.

                      So which is it? I can certainly make an assumption about your meaning, but as you must realize, they have completely different implications.

                    10. “The dictionary you cite states that “discerning” is a related word, but it is not used as the primary definition.”~dji9424

                      When a dictionary lists a ‘primary definition’,which is followed by a list of secondary definitions, it is because the secondary definitions have become commonly used in that language in the present era. Thus, if someone, such as myself uses the word “prescient” or “prescience” it is more likely to mean the secondary definition of ‘discerning’, as few rational people in this present society are superstitious enough to believe in seeing into the future.

                      Now – as navigation of this present line of the thread is cumbersome. If you wish to continue this conversation to to the bottom of the thread and see my comments to you there — and answer there if you would.
                      Thanks!
                      \\][//

                    11. I am a long time (and eager) reader/follower of this blog, and on the rare occasion that I post a comment, I often come back only to find it just dangling there with no replies, let alone acknowledgements, even when I pose a direct question to someone. Which I actually quite respect, since the real discussions here by real researchers tend to revolve around deep technical, factual and chronological knowledge that is way above my pay grade. So, I was certainly not anticipating having to write replies and follow ups. I can only attribute this surprising development to the short and sweet praise I received from HR1, which must have caused a few people to prick up their ears, and redirect their bones with HR1 towards me a little… So, HR1, I’m not really sure whether I should say “Thank you”, or “Please don’t do that again”… :-}]

                      Mr. Hufferd,

                      As difficult as it may be, I will try to go past the condescending tone in your reply, where you start with “(whoever you are)”. I don’t think my identity was relevant to the content of my post, but in case that aspect is the pea under the mattress, here it is: my name is David Hazan, I work in the field of commercial and art photography. Lilaleo is my handle which I adopted in the early years of my online presence, back when I was delusional enough to believe not using my real name would protect me from a knock on my door by some security agency or another.

                      I have a lot of disagreements with the points you make in your reply to me, but I’ll have to start from the bottom.

                      “…. get out of our movement” –

                      I don’t mean to get all confrontational here, but do you not find your closing sentence a little presumptuous???? I do.. On a few fronts…

                      First, I have never been part of any movement in my life. I find they suffer from crowd psychology, and limit one’s own individual and free movement.

                      Second, who exactly is the “we” in your statement?

                      Third, and foremost… And I would like to preemptively apologize to all who consider themselves part of the movement for my next comment in case they take offense from it… I am failing to see a “movement” in the way you seem to mean it, which the dictionary defines as “a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.” The working together part is obviously not happening at a macro scale. And, if we are defining the shared goal of “your” movement as TRUTH, that would not be any less preposterously ambiguous a proposition than other moving targets like “war against terror” or “climate change”. Like a carrot dangling in front of a mule… The mule moves, the carrot moves… Mule works hard, but no carrot for the poor mule!

                      I wish it weren’t so, but altruistic approaches like “I’ll believe it when I see it” or delusional approaches like “I’ll see it when I believe it” do not seem to work against the powers that are generating the lies faster than we can unravel the truth.

                      You ask what my motivation is… I have tremendous respect for many people who have done the leg and brainwork to reveal as much as they have. I owe everything I know to them. But all of these great minds, intellect, knowledge, energy is now locked into an non-winnable quest to find truth about an event that, as significant and traumatic it may be, is now fourteen years old, and is utterly dwarfed by the lies and killings and plunder and pillage they have exercised since then, and will continue to do so until we have the intellectual honesty to accept that what we are after, the absolute and complete truth and hard evidence, is simply not achievable before it’s too late to even matter.

                      Personally, I don’t need security camera footage from Mount Moriah to know that Jesus did not really rise from the dead. And, here we are, 2000 years later….

                    12. Rediscover/Lelao — Didn’t you say we had communicated before? As I said, I asked your real name because I was trying to find out who you were to possibly job my memory. Sorry if that’s condescending. I don’t know what the religious tidbit you ended with has to do with our present topic. I explained to you that the reason my response to the “Israel Did It” theory has not been enthusiastic support is that I require evidence before concluding categorically that someone is guilty of actually committing an enormous crime, and while I agree that Israel and the Mossad should be considered suspect, I hadn’t until recently seen any evidence definitely indicating any more than foreknowledge and foreknowing observation of the event. And I suggested that, since 911 Truth is founded as an evidence-based community, if you’re here (as some are) in order to use the movement as a way of simply blaming or hitting at someone you don’t happen to like, without requiring credible evidence specifically that that person or group actually committed the act, then you would not be contributing positively to this evidence-based community, but instead lowering its standard of justice. And yes, new evidence does emerge from time to time, so it’s not hopeless to hold off on being certain that our suspects actually did it until we have the proof. Which is why any suspect is to be considered innocent until proven guilty — or at least until there is credible, potentially-convicting evidence of guilt. That’s my position and I’m sticking to it.

                    13. So Smedly Butler and Eisenhower were “prescient” in very much the same way. Wouldn’t you agree dji9424?
                      \\][//

                    14. I agree with your usage of the word. However, I will say that Eisenhauer had 25 years to experience the very thing that Butler wrote about, thus his prescience was hardly remarkable, and given he was serving as President, could have done more to thwart its growth. So in a strange (and I’m sure unpopular) sense, he was actually a facilitator of its growth. So his statement may have been as much a mea culpa as a warning of what was to come.

                    15. Yes, I think after they bumped off Kennedy it really hit home with Eisenhower what a chump he had been to play along with goons and spooks his whole life.
                      Not having trecked to Delphi personally I can’t say…
                      \\][//

                    16. Please forgive my spelling of Ike’s last name, I must have subconsciously linked him with one of the members of the Chertoff group. It would be interesting to look into the etymology of his name…they might converge going back in time.

                    17. That’ll be 20 “Hail Mary’s” and a dollar for the girl pulling down her knickers…
                      \\][//

                  2. To grasp the nuances of the reply you just receive from Mr Blowfish, see: “the Scientific People” as described in:THE STARS MY DESTINATION by Alfred Bester (1956).
                    \\][//

                  3. Mr. Hufferd,

                    I seem to have failed in my efforts to convey a simple message, because we don’t seem to be arguing the same points.

                    In a nutshell, I was simply trying to point out that, in order to steer our civilization away from the dangerous and oppressive course it’s on, the so-called movement needs to do a little more than seeking evidence in a purely academic and forensic manner. What “they” have done, and the crimes they have committed are self evident, and, at this late stage of the game, the identities of any individuals among the perpetrators are somewhat irrelevant no matter how much it would please all of us to know exactly what happened, and who did what.

                    As a direct consequence of 9/11, we are on the verge of a hot world war, utter financial collapse, and potentially decades long quagmire, death and suffering. It is only within this wide angle perspective that I am criticizing the quest for “cracking the case open”, which, otherwise, I actually find invaluable, especially for the purposes of leaving as much truth as possible to the future, and hopefully kinder generations.

                    That said, as the truth movement uses the Internet and the blogosphere as their battleground, they are always one click of a button from being incapacitated as soon as a hot war, or official martial law is declared, and your back up drives are one zap away from being wiped out remotely. More and more complex algorithms are being developed to wipe out ALL copies of a given video or document off the internet, and the more under the radar sections of our common history and intellectual property is methodically erased, modified or put away behind a digital obstacle course for the generation that refuses to click more than 2 pages into a Google search.

                    In any case, my comment at the end off my post was not a religios one in the slightest. Sorry if it was vague. My point was, two millennia after that hoax, we are still living in its aftermath. That’s also why I had given the example of the JFK related websites… Just like here, the amount of brainpower and intellect in these forums or blogs is almost limitless. But they are all stuck in a carefully designed and maintained maze. All of these amazing people spending day in, day out chasing the carefully and professionally planted crumbs, through the ever changing smoke and mirrors… And if they ever find the way out before they themselves expire, chances are it will lead to yet another maze… In the meantime, the world is in desperate need of smart, knowledgeable awake, and uncompromised people.

                    We are the cats, and they are holding the laser pointer. Time to realize that the red dot is not what we think it is and stop chasing it. That is what I was trying to say.

                    Mr. dji9424,

                    I hope my above reply to Mr. Hufferd clarifies my position about some of the points you raise as well. But, as far as the dam analogy goes, I can’t agree more at a micro scale. That is how the dam will fall. However, my (only metaphorically) prescient view is that you will find that they have already built a new, bigger dam downstream by the time the old one falls. I feel, sadly, it’s way past the time to start trying to prevent that from happening. Because from where I am standing, I can see they are almost done building it, and we haven’t broken a single damn dam.

                    (Sorry, the “damn dam” was irresistible to use… Wasn’t trying to get coarse)

                    Thank you both for your replies.

                    1. I think your characterization of the basic world situation at present is more or less accurate. And I happen to agree with your point about Christianity being a perpetrated hoax in one way or the other, even though that’s still not pertinent to 911 Truth except perhaps as an analogy. Now, as to 911 Truth’s purpose, it is simply what it is. That is 1) to assert and demonstrate that the official narrative regarding 9/11 is wildly inaccurate and absurd and 2) to seek an official or binding investigation of 9/11 as a criminal act, leading to findings as to who committed it and justice. A third purpose pursued by many members of the 911 Truth community individually is to speculate and investigate on our own as to who was responsible and how it all was done. Beyond that, I don’t think 911 Truth is equipped to resolve the rest of the world’s awful problems.

  39. Okay, no more between you two. Insults are not interesting for anyone else, and they kill the discussion. I would prefer you just not address each other at all since it always becomes acrimonious.

    1. 5 Blatant Infractions:

      1. > James Hufferd — October 9, 2015 at 9:06 am
      “How is it obvious?”
      . . . . . .
      2.> James Hufferd — October 9, 2015 at 1:43 pm
      So-called “cynicism” is just a practical point of view that recognizes “hope” as mere wishful thinking. “So, then, are faith and charity out, too?”
      . . . . . .
      3.> James Hufferd — October 9, 2015 at 8:14 pm
      “I thought you agreed with Craig’s request to be done with your taunting. You apparently have the memory span of a gnat.”
      . . . . . .
      4.> James Hufferd — October 9, 2015 at 8:29 pm
      “Tin-horn corn-pone Torquemada!”
      . . . . . .
      5.> James Hufferd — October 9, 2015 at 8:27 pm
      “Sidewinder!”

  40. It is most obvious that everyone of these characters promoting what is essentially the the official Pentagon narrative are well aware of this page here and the dialog going on. Yet none of them have had the cojones to make an appearance here.

    Going on Day 6 now…
    Where are these outspoken Leaders of Truth? Who are so certain of their position?
    Jon Cole – David Chandler – Kevin Ryan – John Wyndham; WHERE ARE YOU?!?

    \\][//

  41. Craig,

    For some reason not all comments have a REPLY button, so I am copying the entire comment here for response.

    >>hadmatter wrote on
    October 8, 2015 at 6:49 pm

    >>The point is, Lloyde’s story of the large base section of the pole going through his windshield without scratching the hood or causing significant damage inside his car is unbelievable.

    Answer: Sorry, no. If it was the arm the no scratching scenario is entirely possible. When Craig asks Lloyd does he point to the picture showing both arm and shaft? The exhibit file is the most complete. Lloyd is scatterbrained sometimes and lucid at others.

    I concede that we don’t know what the inside of the cab looked like on 9/11. CIT wasn’t able to document the interior until much later. The damages support a pole entering and coming to rest in the back seat, but not the main shaft. That would go right through the seat into the truck or out the floor pan. Think about this for a minute.

    >>The story is a fabrication. The scene was staged, just like the rest of the Pentagon damage. No section of the pole ever went through Lloyde’s windshield. There are no photos or witnesses to any pole sticking out of his cab.

    Answer: There might be, but we don’t have them for review. Did we have Loyd’s neighbor’s until CIT found out about them? I forget if they were ever obtained.

    >>As a matter of speculation, the windshield damage could have been achieved with a few whacks with a short handled, easily concealable 3-4 lb sledge hammer to get things started then yanked in from the inside with a crow bar. Speculation of course.

    Answer. Agreed. Wild speculation because there were many witnesses streaming into the area, some with cameras, who might have come across people beating up a cab in the roadway. In addition to this beating you have to support how the pole pieces crushed glass and light fixture, which weighs about 70#, got into position without anyone wondering what the heck was going on here.

    >>Lloyde was used to sell the light pole story. He was interviewed several times for TV as a human interest angle to the PSYOP. Who could doubt the word of this sympathetic old man.

    >>The scrape marks were most likely made when the pole was drug into position for the photo ops, not after it was positioned there.

    Answer: I say the scrape marks were made AFTER the light pole was positioned perpendicular to the roadway lanes. Probably moved so cars could pass.

    >>With regards to the photographer, these cab pictures are part of the Jason Ingersoll photos:

    Answer: Jason Ingersoll took this? Wasn’t he up at the Annex and then made his way down to Route 27? That is quite a hike. See the entire collection here for context. http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic7.htm

    >>The NOC evidence makes his story impossible, which is likely he insisted he was further north on the highway in his later interview, notwithstanding the multiple pictures of him and his cab on the south side of the bridge.

    Answer: As I said, I continue to lean towards NOC as the likely scenario. But the claim of staging of evidence has my full attention and I want to put this to rest if possible.

    1. “I concede that we don’t know what the inside of the cab looked like on 9/11. CIT wasn’t able to document the interior until much later. The damages support a pole entering and coming to rest in the back seat, but not the main shaft. That would go right through the seat into the truck or out the floor pan. Think about this for a minute.”~Winston Smith

      Think about this for two minutes — if it was staged as is the most likely scenario, nothing went through the window, nothing came to rest in the back seat, so nothing would go through the seat into the truck or out the floor pan.
      \\][//

      1. hybridrogue1 wrote: “if it was staged as is the most likely scenario, nothing went through the window.”

        Answer: Why is staged the most likely scenario? When I hear staged, I assume you mean set up so cameras could capture details that we are now debating. Sounds like you mean faked, as in nothing was amiss, but was photoshopped in afterwards.

        Either you have to photoshop Jason Ingersoll’s and others’ photos, or create the damages without the pole, and get Lloyd to claim a pole did enter the car, and/or scatter a lot of different sized debris all around the cars.

        Man this is getting complicated.

        Why is the arm being avoided?

        There seems to be a tendency in the research community to latch onto the most spectacular elements of photos and videos.

        I’ve listed some big problems with the main shaft being the pole LLoyd describes. I think if we sat him down and asked him directly which piece it was that would help.

        1. “Why is staged the most likely scenario? When I hear staged, I assume you mean set up so cameras could capture details that we are now debating. Sounds like you mean faked, as in nothing was amiss, but was photoshopped in afterwards.”~Winston Smith

          No I do not mean staged for cameras. I mean staged as setting up a false scene at a site.
          I do not mean;” faked, as in nothing was amiss, but was photoshopped in afterwards.”

          I did not mention photoshop and have no idea how you interpreted what I said in that way.

          As to your proximate question; “Why is staged the most likely scenario,” — Because we know an aircraft did not fly on that course and could not have downed that light pole.
          This is getting complicated because you are making it more complex than it actually is.
          \\][//

          1. hydrorogue1, please lay out in sufficient detail what exactly was staged.

            I have asked how the pole, arm, fixture, and lots of debris get from the roadside into the roadway in close proximity to LLoyd’s cab. Was the pole carried from the roadside to its cross- lane position? If so, how many men would that require?

            These questions must be considered before a plausible staging scenario can be convincing to me.

            As I said, there were plenty of witnesses, Lloyd being one, the guys in the white car and Jeep being two more. People were streaming into the area offering to help with the Pentagon site.

            You can understand why a staging scenario is hard to visualize. Help me out, please.

              1. hybridrogue1 wrote: “No.”

                OK. So you want us to accept your bare assertion that what we see in the photos is staged. Is that correct?

                I’m still willing to find out new information. I’m not willing to blindly accept what others interpret.

                Just because there was a plane seen NOC, doesn’t mean there were no poles damaged on the SOC path. There may be some other mechanism waiting to be discovered. A broad sweeping motion, saying “it was staged” is not, in my opinion, the way with integrity.

                Let’s look at this scientifically, whenever possible, and fill in the blanks using common sense.

  42. “I have no desire to play word games, I write what I mean to say, i.e. I intend no hidden meanings, and I read others’ posts in the same vein. Therefore, I did not read Lilaleo’s message as cynicism per se, but I do challenge the statement that I quoted in my post. “Whodunnit” is a legitimate question in my view, but if it has degenerated into being perceived as a disingenuous one, any further dialogue is pointless.”~dji9424

    I shall address your concerns down here, as the other thread has become cumbersome to navigate.

    There are no “hidden meanings” in any of my commentary here. Lilaleo’s post was cynical to this degree: that hoping for convictions, or even indictments are as far fetched as an ant taking an elephant by the trunk and slinging an it to the moon. In the system we face currently: IMPUNITY is the name of the elite’s corrupt game. Therefore I consider your propositions to such a likelihood jejune. BUT for the sake of reason and history, it is fully rational to attempt to discern who the perps were and name them with the best facility we can muster.

    As for the term “prescient”; I already addressed that above, but will repeat here for those who wish to join the modern world of language use:

    Adj. 1. prescient – perceiving the significance of events before they occur; “extraordinarily prescient memoranda on the probable course of postwar relations”-R.H.Rovere
    2.
    discerning – having or revealing keen insight and good judgment; “a discerning critic”; “a discerning reader”
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prescient
    \\][//

      1. “..it reveals much more than you perceive.”

        Let me follow in you footsteps and merely say, And your point?
        \\][//

      2. I see the mouse killed the cat that ate your tongue dji9424; too bad he wasn’t quicker about it aye?

        They say a hardy intellectual life thickens the proverbial skin. Have you ever met them personally?
        \\][//

          1. I will now momentarily break the actual agreement made to Craig’s request; that YOU & I refrain from addressing each other to reply to the 3rd or 4th time you have gone against his wishes Hufferd. Your attempt to reframe his request is par for your disingenuous sneaking drivel.

            Craig’s request is exactly this:
            “Okay, no more between you two. Insults are not interesting for anyone else, and they kill the discussion. I would prefer you just not address each other at all since it always becomes acrimonious.”

            ” You apparently have the memory span of a gnat.” Is an insult and a taunt as well; you pug-nosed intellectual midget.
            \\][//

        1. Since you insist upon a reply from me, please consider this as my response to your request.

          Clearly, you take this blog and your participation in it very seriously, which is commendable. You are very well-versed in 9/11 and are quite articulate, thus you can be very helpful to participants’ understanding. However, you don’t seem to realize how many of your responses are offered with such a tone of arrogance (and vulgarity) that many will not bother to consider the point you may have attempted to convey. If that is your intent, and you are aware of it, you are defeating yourself, which to me seems very strange – that is one reason why I said your response(s) were quite revealing and beyond your own perception.

          Second, I have not participated in many posts here, but of two recent ones that I have participated in (this one, and Paul Zarembka’s post regarding Rebekah Roth’s book), I have observed a duplicitous attitude on your part – depending on who makes the observation, your reaction may be quite different. It does not take much review to see that my observation of Roth’s story was that it was plausible, yet when I made it you dismissed it as fiction, yet now you are treating Elias Davidsson’s statement of plausibility as valid, in fact you imply that you have felt that way for a while. But in reviewing “Willy Whitten’s” comments on the YouTube interview by Daniel Ott: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAt2kiTnVsg, “Willy” states something completely different. So which is correct? How HR1 responds to me on this site, how HR1 responds to Elias Davidsson on this site, or how “Willy Whitten” characterizes Roth’s work on Daniel Ott’s video?

          Is duplicity your intention? Again, if you are aware of it, it is self-defeating so why engage in it? Why would anyone take your commentary seriously if you are intentionally playing both sides?

          Well, that is enough, my intention is not to hurt you, actually it is intended to help you become even more effective in your commentary. Hopefully you have that same thick proverbial skin that you wish for me.

          1. dji9424,

            Thank you for your well thought out reply. As I just explained to Paul, I simply am not interested in Roth’s bullshit. Not in the slightest. I was ferrying a message between some person on YouTube to the Roth thread here on T&S – and yes showing some deference to those I do not know well and haven’t debated carefully. Pardon me if you feel especially picked upon here.

            I felt I was being rather generous with my time and patience by explaining some things to you that you were obviously unaware of. But I’m afraid I can also be annoyed by what I see as certain forms of ignorance — a word that does NOT mean nor imply stupidity. But some forms of ignorance seem uncalled for by adults who are participating in forums such as these. I do have a large vocabulary, but I still learn new words every day – and I do my best to learn them and keep them at hand for convenient use.

            Do you have a diary or journal where you can list and practice new found phrases? It is a good habit to develop in my opinion. And perhaps my opinion should be more “humble” … Yes? You would agree I am sure.

            dji9424, I am only human as are we all. Sometimes I can get aggravated. It can depend on my mood, how many cups of java I’ve had, how many jerks are yanking on my leash at once, the time of day…many factors.

            My first encounters with you were rather positive in nature – in fact I used a quote of yours I found quite perceptive, in one of my blog entries. So I don’t have a natural or studied dislike of you.It appeared to me however that you were “ganging up” on me with Hufferd – who I in fact do despise. That is what put the vinegar in my response to you at that moment.
            I do have a pretty thick skin, I have been at this debate business on the web for a good many years. one does not survive that without growing some layers of dermis.

            You take care now y’hear?
            \\][//

            1. Thank you for your candor, I appreciate it.

              To answer some of your questions, first, I did not feel picked on by your commentary. Participation in this blog’s dialogue is a full contact sport. I hope I’m prepared to handle myself properly, without taking personal offense to anything expressed. I value substantive arguments, those based on logical fallacies (what some use to bludgeon opponents with) are discarded, they are self-evident to informed readers.

              I understand what you mean by ignorance, I agree. However, I try to hold to the idea of good communication as being paramount, thus if I have to spend extra time explaining something so that information is properly understood by the reader/listener, I am willing to spend that time. Now, I have my limits and when I sense that I am being toyed with, I make a judgment that such a person is not interested in genuine communication.

              I do not journal, nor do I practice using new found phrases. I stick to what I believe are tried and true phrases, as long as their meaning has not been corrupted by the culture of the day. As such, I am a traditionalist, but based on my own experience, it has served me well and so I continue to use it.

              I also have a broad vocabulary but as I said above, if good communication implies understanding, I don’t wish to make readers/listeners work to understand me. Sometimes a little-used word must be used because it precisely fits the meaning that I wish to convey, but I will still work to say it more plainly, if possible.

              Well, again thank you for your response. I’m sure we probably have areas of disagreement (which I do not intend to investigate here) but as long as we can do it in a respectful manner, I have no issues with you.

              And in response to your later post, I had made an assumption that you were not acting in any official capacity on this blog. It’s good to have you confirm that for me.

              1. My only response here dji9424, would be to point out that the use of the word “prescience” that so ticked you off, has been in use as I use it for decades. I wasn’t using it in some “obscure” fashion to befuddle you.
                Thank you however for this thoughtful and insightful reply.
                \\][//

                1. I understand, my dictionary (Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition) was published in 1970 and makes no mention of the word “discerning” in its definition. And as a traditionalist, my preference is to use the older, established meaning.

                  To me, the preferred usage is distinctly clear in terms of the timing of events. “Prescience” has meant “foreknowledge”, i.e., knowing beforehand, whereas discernment has not implied anything other than past or present information.

                  And as I wrote previously, in the context of 9/11, any statement potentially implying foreknowledge could easily be misinterpreted. That is why I asked for your clarification, I did not wish to mistakenly interpret what you had written.

                  I know it’s a nit, but that is where I was coming from.

                  1. “my dictionary (Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition) was published in 1970″~dji9424

                    What year is it dji9424? You are going to rely on a 45 year old dictionary?

                    Seriously now? There are so many dictionaries available on the web to source from.

                    I would prefer we drop this topic, as it is not leaning in your favor, and I do not want to give the appearance of condescending, as I think you imply in your continued remarks.
                    \\][//

                    1. Thank you for confirming my point about good communication. Seriously, what hope do we have of reaching a meaningful understanding if the means by which we communicate is allowed to change? Anyone who intentionally subverts the established definitions of words is not committed to genuine communication. Furthermore, such intentional deviation from established usage cannot be viewed as just sloppiness or simple mistakes, it is subversive, thus there is an underlying agenda behind it. Am I accusing you of such? No, but it really does not matter if I do or I don’t, the end result is the same.

                      Yet, we still can learn from it, even if it is intentional. It illustrates the overarching nature of this forum quite well. If each of us is allowed to use the source of our choice, discounting whatever sources others may be using, what hope do we have of ferreting out the truth about 9/11? Clearly, there is none to be found so we’ll likely settle for “consensus” about obvious things, or what has been proven scientifically. And as I know you have observed, the latter is evasive, even with the best intentions.

                      Lastly, whether this discussion leans in my favor or yours is hardly relevant to anything of importance. If it degenerates into the “who” of investigators, it will accomplish nothing of value.

          2. dji9424,

            I do hope you understand that I play no part in managing this blog, I am not the moderator, I have no official capacity on T&S whatsoever. So any intimidation you might feel is not “official”, I am just another individual here expressing my own personal opinions.

            If I have given you the impression otherwise I apologize. We all just speak for ourselves here.
            \\][//

    1. Let me remind here again, that this analysis by Onesliceshort is essential to study and understand — it is in fact the very crux of the argument that proves the NOC flight path of the aircraft that approached just prior to the explosions in the building. This information shows who and why certain witnesses are valid, and others are not.

      Until this information is digested one will not grasp the totality of the argument for the flyover.
      \\][//

  43. I presented a paper at the DC 911Truth Conference (2013) on the Pentagon Airplane. The key points relative to this article are:

    1. The Sandia test-sled test of an F-4 Phantom crashing into a solid block is extremely relevant. Although McKee discounts it as being irrelevant, it served as a validation benchmark for sophisticated computer models to analyze planes crashing into hardened walls in a wide variety of situations. This situation certainly falls within that wide variety.
    2. My reason for presenting my paper was a genuine unease every time a 9/11 truther used the argument that there couldn’t have been an airplane crash into the Pentagon because it didn’t look like any past plane crashes striking buildings. That is a very weak argument, and in the case of a high speed airplane crashing into an extremely-hardened wall, which this would have been if true, it just doesn’t stand up.
    3. I absolutely don’t believe it would have been an airplane in commercial service, manually flown, as the official story suggests. Therefore, I considered an airplane rigged to do that precise crash as plausible. I think it could have been done, although some assistance would have been needed. The light poles would have to have been put down in advance. The C-Ring exit hole would have been caused by some other device. The plane would have been flown by an automated system. Etc.

    1. “1. The Sandia test-sled test of an F-4 Phantom crashing into a solid block is extremely relevant. Although McKee discounts it as being irrelevant, it served as a validation benchmark for sophisticated computer models to analyze planes crashing into hardened walls in a wide variety of situations. This situation certainly falls within that wide variety.”~dwain769

      Dwain, The Sandia test has limited relevance to the Pentagon, as the Pentagon was NOT a solid block as was the case at Sandia. The walls of the Pentagon were indeed reinforced, but they were not some ten foot thick block of steel reinforced concrete as is the case of the Sandia tests: which were done to determine if a jet could penetrate the much thicker walls of a Nuclear energy facility. Therefore I also dispute your opinion in point 2.

      Point 3 is well taken and accepted. At least by myself personally.
      \\][//

      1. ‘as the Pentagon was NOT a solid block as was the case at the Pentagon.’ Above should read:

        >> as the Pentagon was NOT a solid block as was the case at Sandia.
        \\][//

      2. The solid block was, by design, impenetrable for a high speed plane (not designed to penetrate structures). The Pentagon wall was, by design I think, close to impenetrable. I think it is reasonable to assume the planned Pentagon event was to include a plane impact, and the planned impact was studied with the state-of-the-art analysis tools pertinent to a high-speed plane impacting a hardened wall. We also know (see Kevin Ryan’s article) the requirements for the refurbished wall were suddenly changed (while the construction was already underway) to have the wall even more impenetrable than it earlier was to be. I can’t prove the analysis was done as I have suggested, but it is a reasonable assumption that it would have been.

        Thus, I think it is unreasonable to just declare without explanation why the benchmark test for this type of situation would not be relevant.

        1. Your theory involves a lot of assuming. You say the wall was close to impenetrable and was later required to be even more impenetrable? So how did the alleged plane penetrate the building? You can’t have it both ways. Where is the science telling us that both wings would have turned to confetti with not a single recognizable part of either wing surviving? Just pointing to Sandia does not do this. Isn’t it just speculation in the end?

          And your explanation for why you changed your mind makes no sense to me.

          1. Craig. I just looked closer at some of the details. I always have held tentative conclusions, but consider them open to change if further information comes into play.

            If a real plane was being crashed, I don’t think they would take the chance of flying through light poles. Too much uncertainty in what damage that might cause to the plane. I don’t know how they could be sure a plane could strike them and still be controllable. As to the “exit hole,” I don’t see any way the parts that made it through the wall could have even traveled to the “C-Ring.” Therefore, I’m guessing someone came up with the idea of blasting the hole were it looked like it was lined up correctly, probably getting a big laugh out of it.

            1. If a real plane was being crashed, why would you need light poles at all? You’d have a real plane! As for the “exit hole,” I’m afraid I’m completely unconvinced by what you are admittedly guessing.

              Still don’t get how the confetti thing happens, especially when there is a 90-foot gash right at ground level that we’re led to believe was caused by the wings hitting. How can they create a hole while still bursting into confetti?

            2. Dwain,

              If they crashed a real plane into the pentagon.

              1. They would not stage evidence at all because it would be unnecessary and dangerous. They could simply dive the plane downward and hit the roof, there would be no need to skim the ground or hit the poles.
              2. They could produce plane parts with serial numbers on them and a black box with a serial number on it.
              3. They would release real videos (multiple videos) of the plane hitting.
              4. They would have to perform an extensive environmental cleanup of the site in order to remove the toxic jet fuel residue so it did not affect the health of the people who later occupied that section of the pentagon.
              5. People would NEVER have been allowed to walk around the site and pick up or put down plane parts. The entire area would have been sealed off so investigators could examine the evidence as it was found. NO WAY IN HELL any random person would be allowed to contaminate the crime scene.
              6. Relatively intact engines would have been recovered, heavily damaged, but still there. Many of the parts in those engines were made of titanium which rules out melting away or vaporizing. Engine parts with serial numbers would have been recovered.

              1. ruffadam,

                1. I’m assuming what we saw is roughly what they wanted us to see. It’s above my pay grade to explain why they wanted it to look that way.

                2. Again, they could have provided plane parts with serial numbers, but they didn’t.

                3. Same answer.

                4. They could care less about toxic aftermath.

                5. You must be thinking they would consider it a crime scene. That, of course, is the last thing they wanted it to be considered.

                6. Yes, engine cores would have been recoverable. But, there is no indication the FBI wanted to recover anything and show it to the public.

                1. So basically you are saying that even if a real airliner had crashed into the pentagon they would have done things exactly as they did? What a load of bullshit. If they could have hammered us truthers into the ground with real evidence of a plane crash they would have done it mercilessly. The only reason there is for not producing real evidence is that there wasn’t a real impact. Man your reply here to me Dwain is so disingenuous and vague that I really don’t think it is an actual answer at all. In any case I am not buying ANY of what you are selling here.

          2. My assumptions aren’t a haphazard set. They flow out of my basic assumption (or hypothesis) that this was a staged event, and a company in the airplane business (doing defense work for the DoD) was called on to make this event happen. This suspicion of the DoD is because all their fabricated stories, and changing of timelines, and standing down the air defense, etc.

            The assumptions, then, are educated guesses as to what an airplane company would do (within the compartmentalized part of the organization). They would, I assumed, use their latest analysis tools to make sure they get it right. And so forth.

        2. “Thus, I think it is unreasonable to just declare without explanation why the benchmark test for this type of situation would not be relevant.”~Deets

          Anything that is based on the proposition that a plane of any type crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 is not relevant. This is the point you cannot seem to grasp Dwain. All of your points are moot. It really is as simple as that.
          \\][//

    2. “3. I absolutely don’t believe it would have been an airplane in commercial service, manually flown, as the official story suggests. Therefore, I considered an airplane rigged to do that precise crash as plausible. I think it could have been done, although some assistance would have been needed. The light poles would have to have been put down in advance. The C-Ring exit hole would have been caused by some other device. The plane would have been flown by an automated system. Etc.”~Deets

      Wait a minute! Are you saying the plane DID hit the Pentagon?? Or just saying it could have hypothetically?
      No no no… that is out of the question Dwain. We have been through this countless times with both you and Honegger: The trajectory that plain flew in on could simply have not caused the damage path that is KNOWN to have occurred. Dammit man! Have you still not digested the CIT information? Have you not read the witness analysis of Onsliceshort linked to just above?

      http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s=49c680ff47c50fcefd79375f8995c465&showtopic=1863&st=15&#entry22008858
      \\][//

    3. Then, what way-too-small hole did it enter through? And what became of 98+% of the weight of it, with what was “recovered” being unidentifiable? And why absolutely no indestructibly hard parts of it recovered with serial numbers to match anything? Those things can all be explained away through hard mental effort, but it seems more likely that they wouldn’t have to be if it turns out there was no collision and no entry, only a bomb or bombs.

      1. James, the highly dense items (engine cores, undercarriage) made it through, I presume. That would be a significant % of the weight, but I don’t know how much. We, the public, don’t know what was recovered or if it was identifiable. The FBI didn’t release any of that info.

        Why not just attribute all the damage to bombs? Because, the damage to the exterior face has to be explained. I think the most telling is the impact damage between col. lines 18 and 19, and 2n-story slab. (Fig. 23 in my presentation.) That is a critical section, in that the wall was not hardened between those two columns. Thus, the wing striking the width of several vertical sections would be expected to cause noticeable damage to the one section that wasn’t hardened.

        1. But, Dwain, from what I understand, the direction of thrust indicated for that way-too-small hole at the front was determined to be from the inside out. Also, weren’t April Gallup and child nearby or in the purported flight path? They emerged, I believe, through that opening, and she saw no evidence of any plain. Nor were books or papers immediately nearby affected by fire nor anything else. At least, that’s my layman’s understanding. David Ray Griffin, in THE NEW PEARL HARBOR REVISITED, p. 64, quotes former Navy and commercial pilot Ralph Kolstad,s reaction on-site – “Where are the big pieces that always break away [note: not disintegrate} in an accident? . . .” DRG goes on to sum up on p. 67, citing Dave McGowan http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68.html , that “the official story, therefore, ‘cannot account for 99.9% of the wreckage.’ Former airline pilot Russ Wittenberg has made the same point., saying: ‘It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. An airplane than weighs 100 tons, all assembled, is still going to have 100 tons of trash and parts after it hits a building.’ (Quoted on 911patriotsquestion911.com).”

          1. James,

            Barbara claims it is inside out. That is based on looking straight via the photo to the supposed direction of motion. I don’t think such a conclusion can be conclusive unless viewing the bent columns from the side.

            April Gallup, seeing no evidence of any plane, is what I would expect. A high speed crash into a hardened wall shouldn’t leave any remains that looked like plane parts (except extremely dense parts that would be well into the Pentagon.) Barbara did find out more recently that April Gallup was further north in the Pentagon than previously thought.

            Yes, I would say commercial pilot Ralph Kolstad would be expecting to see recognizable airplane parts looking like prior airplane-into-building crashes. This was not one of those, and the remains shouldn’t be expected to look like previous crashes.

            I would say Ralph Kolstad and Russ Wittenberg haven’t been informed on how different this should have looked from previous airplanes-into-building crashes.

            1. So, given all that, if you were to handicap it, wouldn’t you say that it would still be 90 to 99% certain that no plane struck the Pentagon, and may 1 to 10% that one did, with no way known as of now to prove the latter?

              1. James, No, I still haven’t heard an explanation for the severe impact mark at 2nd floor slab between columns 18 and 19. Lacking that, I think something greater than 50% should be given to the airplane impact scenario.

                1. But, you do recognize, don’t you, that a lot of proof (maybe all that phantom evidence the government has that they won’t share with us) to establish an airplane impact scenario in the absence of a shattered plane?

        2. HEY DEETS!!! HOW MANY MORE TIMES???

          Have you studied the analysis of the Pentagon Witness that Onsliceshort has done in conjunction with the CIT NOC evidence? If you have do you not grasp the significance of this evidence?
          Face this one head on Deets; Do you understand that the plane on that trajectory simply could not have caused the directional damage in the Pentagon?
          This is a very simple and straight forward question.
          \\][//

    4. Dwain,

      I find your position perplexing in a number of ways.

      As to the Sandia test: your explanation does not clear up how this is significant except that you imagine that if an F4 on a rocket sled hitting a concrete barrier will break into small pieces on impact then it could happen to a 757 at the Pentagon. But in one case the barrier wasn’t penetrated and in the other, according to your theory, it was. Isn’t that a major difference?

      You haven’t addressed how a plane fuselage could penetrate 300 feet into the building while the wings and tail section were turned to confetti. Honestly, I find it incredible that anyone believes that these large parts of the plane could turn into little bits of metal scattered over the helipad and part of the lawn. I just can’t fathom this at all.

      You write: “My reason for presenting my paper was a genuine unease every time a 9/11 truther used the argument that there couldn’t have been an airplane crash into the Pentagon because it didn’t look like any past plane crashes striking buildings.”

      Is that really the argument you are reacting to? I’ve never heard that one. I’ve heard people say that there doesn’t appear to be a plane at the scene of the plane crash, which I think is more to the point.
      You say that it would have been plausible that a plane really crashed. And you said that it was when you found out remote control technology could have flown the plane this changed your mind. That doesn’t explain it. Did you always think the plane crash scenario made sense except for the needed technology not being available? It seems that this is your whole position. Isn’t this just speculation? Doesn’t the government have to prove its story to us?

      One thing in your position that I find very interesting is that you believe that the light poles and the “exit hole” were staged. I agree with you about the staging, but I don’t understand why this would be necessary if a real plane was being crashed. Could you explain?

      1. Craig, It was standard practice to use the analysis tools validated by the Sandia test to analyze situations where there was partial penetration of a barrier. In the examples from the literature I reviewed, the barriers were not nearly as thick as the solid block, and very dense items, such as engine cores, broke thru on some of the cases.

        1. Let me ask you again Dwain, have you studied the analysis of the Pentagon Witness that Onsliceshort has done in conjunction with the CIT NOC evidence? If you have do you not grasp the significance of this evidence?
          Face this one head on Deets; Do you understand that the plane on that trajectory simply could not have caused the directional damage in the Pentagon?
          This is a very simple and straight forward question.
          \\][//

        2. dwain769,

          Please permit my interjection here.

          Are you talking about standard practice using analysis tools analyzing situations of partial penetration (although the Sandia test could offer little to no insight about ‘partial penetration of barrier beyond surface gouging, otherwise like being a little pregnant?)… OH wait a tick, I get it… you said right there… this is stuff you’re talking about from LITERATURE you’ve reviewed…

          In this collection of literature you’ve reviewed… in some of the cases the engines broke through… yet I can ask, in any or ALL of the cases you’ve reviewed… were the serial numbers still legible on any, even ONE part, of the cores partially penetrating, or not, after smashing into hard barriers.

          Ever hold and turn in your own hands such parts? Ever fabricate, cut, fit, weld or drill such parts?

          Or, is your frame of reference mostly from literature you’ve read?

          My tone may be a touch snarky, my apologies (it’s the best I can do to moderate my government corruption induced turrets from bursts of repulsive cursing)… however my question is sincere about your frame of reference, is it more literature (nothing wrong with that), or more actual callused hands-on?

          1. Pernambuco, the standard practice I’m referring to is analyzing the dynamic interaction between a high-speed airplane and a hardened wall. The F-4 Phantom was highly instrumented internally. This provides information on how the loads are distributed internally within the aircraft structure, and what leads it to break apart. All of that is captured in the analysis program, and the program was validated by means of that test. The important point is the hardened wall is very much stronger than the airplane’s internal structure.

            Your question about, “were the serial numbers still legible?” I don’t see the reason for that question. I never claim serial numbers were or weren’t legible. It never comes up. The FBI has given the public no information, period. No claim about serial numbers.

            1. The real shortcoming of sarcasm, is that it is so often lost upon, flies over the head of, the intended recipient. Or possibly, in this case, the target chose to duck and play dim, or duck and feign ‘the better’ for not taking the bait???

              Either way, dwain769, you kinda answered the question without answering, rather instead by reiterating your affinity for reference to literature, data analysis, validated test program parameters… so on and so forth.

              In the main, a person with actual hands-on experience, (genuine hands-on understanding) of such-n-such a thing knows the value of actual tactile familiarity, appreciates the question, and answers truthfully without hesitation (knowing full well they can be found out in short order if having misrepresented themselves).

              dwain769, sorry to say, but you’ve come off as if a novice, who picked up the shorthand notes shared between two people deeply knowledgeable about a subject, yet you’re interpreting their notes without that deeper knowledge. You’ve translated what might have been somewhat cryptic to you, into a gibberish you’re now sharing with all.

              Literature, documentation, Finite Eliment Analysis, algorithmic computer test programs, so on and so forth can in fact have great value, but actually only in the hands of persons with background GREATER than their time spent ‘in the numbers’ so to speak. Without that background, ‘the numbers’ only, in the hands of the novice quite often get people killed.

              Consider the young bridge building “Engineer” (proud of their heard-earned diploma hanging on the wall) who references a spreadsheet on material load bearing tables while designing their eye watering masterpiece, yet never even spent time as a kid crossing a creek with sticks and twine. Such an engineer (dime a dozen these days)… hardly possesses a healthy state of mind to be “in charge” of crafting anything that unsuspecting public will be entrusting their lives upon.

              Such an engineer will be ill-equipped to see in their mind’s eye the loading dynamics, stresses and strains that the materials will experience in the real world… such an engineer then two-fold, will hardly be in a position to view the spreadsheet data as nothing more than a quick reference/reminder for information ALREADY understood, but rather see it more likely as a gospel beyond reproach.

              So far, I would be hard pressed to trust you enough to build me a chicken coop.

              Here’s a piece of literature for you, before you continue advancing more equivalence to 9/11 and the F-4 at Sandia (wasn’t that information in the hands of the government too, why don’t you throw it out also with the witnesses, BPAP and FDR?)… Eugene S. Ferguson’s book Engineering and the Mind’s Eye. Amazon’s blurb: “In this insightful and incisive essay, Eugene Ferguson demonstrates that good engineering is as much a matter of intuition and nonverbal thinking as of equations and computation. He argues that a system of engineering education that ignores nonverbal thinking will produce engineers who are dangerously ignorant of the many ways in which the real world differs from the mathematical models constructed in academic minds.”

              As an aside, or actually more of a ‘fist to the face’ for those wishing to remain in la la land about the significance of what CIT and P4T zeroed in on for example…

              At first, I too felt that the FDR data could/should be discounted for having been produced without proper chain of custody and forensic handling. However, when the SAME SOURCE (the U.S. Government) produced two DIFFERENT FDR data sets for what they alleged was the same plane, place and time… then, it is no longer a case of being poor evidence, but rather PROOF of shinaigans on the part of the providing source, the U.S. Government.

              THAT, is why the two (different) FDRs for one aircraft smells like festering cat vomit when being handed by the so called Government, to We the People.

              THAT is why intelligent, thoughtful, caring, people interested in the future of America, and humanity at large, are able to appreciate the significance in testimonies gathered by CIT, and simply CONSIDER the slight of hand that may be at play upon people with no reason to lie yet tell an impossiblity: “The plane flew right over my head” (impossible trajectory for Pentagon impact damage) “and then I saw it smash into the building” (actually obscured by topography, yet FELT AND HEARD through closed eyes and shielded head.

              Catch up dwain769 and/or come clean now with that you’ve actually just been trying to play Devil’s Advocate and boost our game skills (though this is no game and the Devil needs no more advocates right now)… or tuck-tail and beat feet for the scoundrel you are.

                1. Looks like we are wrapping this up.

                  Not my first time to be the loan voice. Maybe the 4th or 5th. But all the other times it was on the JREF site. I can’t think of any difference in this experience from the others.

                  1. Lol, So Deets is a voice on “loan” and we are now to be likened to the JREF site!!
                    Hahahahaha!!
                    Yea, that’s a good one! I know you do stand-up, that was the same act you did back with Honegger…
                    Bring on the donkey!
                    \\][//

                  2. Wait wait… let’s make a deal, dwain769:

                    For shits sake, I’m willing to discuss throwing away all the witness testimony comments and quips, in exchange for you telling us why two different FDR data sets supposedly from the same plane, provided by a single source, doesn’t immediately impune the ENTIRE sincerity of the source… case closed?

                    Both, CAN NOT be real at the same time… at least not in this corporeal plane of existence. One, or both, but at least one, has been pretended into existence with serious intent. Not fleeting intent, or incompetence, or nincompoopery, or ginning, or accident, or mistake… but rather serious expense, effort, and resource requiring malice of forethought. No small potatoes this.

                    Hell fire on my ball sack, I’ll even pretend for a moment that not one identifiable serial number from deep deep deep inside the turbine-blade-hub-bearing-shaft-spacer stack, among thousands of other tough (as opposed to brittle) parts couldn’t have survived legibility or even metallurgical source tracing (check current or contemporary FAA cert A+P regs) from Flight 77 confetti-ized by your Sandiagon. You’re right dwain769, the FAA, the FBI the NTSB presented zilch hard evidence for da plane… don’t you think that should at least be called A CLUE?

                    Maybe your sad story is true, and I’m making a terrible mistake being so mean and nasty at you, but damn it man, cowboy-up, RIGHT NOW… here seems a good place to hash this out, if you truly wish to be an honest playa. Mr. McKee is a wonderfully patient host, and plenty of people here actually seem interested in what you might have to say today. A few days from now, maybe not so much.

                    As an aside from the above agreement I’ve offered to Dwain to pretend as-if no identification could be determined from a uniquely violent impact, (tremendous speed into a very hard barrier), consider when watching the actual footage of the Sandia test, that EVEN IN THE TEST itself, the airframe is not in fact completely turned to “confetti. Wait, what was that?!?! Could that be the control stick gimbals column flying right at the camera? (The base assemble between the pilots legs, by which pitch and roll is controlled)… you got any idea how many serialized parts are located in that assembly alone, POSITIVELY traceable to ONLY that airframe?

                    The U.S. Government, originally playing the roll of prosecutor pointing the finger at the accused freedom-hating malcontents from the far off boogie land where Bin Laden pulled all the strings from his dialysis cave and terror laptop… had all the reason in the world to prove unquestioningly the provenance of the murder weapon (Ft. 77). Not only did the ‘prosecution’ NOT establish this necessary fact to make an honest case agains the accused… when the tables turned and the Government became the primary suspect, and should every reason and ability to produce the now exculpatory evidence it should by all Earthly logic and reasonable understanding, posses and good God Damned reason to share with the American public… refused to do so.

                    And yes, the window has closed for this Government to produce such exculpatory evidence (be that boxes of bent up parts, log book documentation, mechanic testimony, video… now a highly suspect contrivance… it is simply too late.) And this government knows it. However the statute of limitations HAS NOT runout on mass murder and war crimes.

                    This Government is rotten to the core, case closed.

                    1. I applaud your eloquence and mastery of dry wit in this commentary Pernambuco. It is good to have you back in the battle!
                      \\][//

                2. Coming from you, somewhat of a fire-brand here at TaS, I humbly and cautiously (tongue in cheek) accept your compliment. However and irrespective that, it is you Hybrid I wish to thank.

                  Seems like it’s been six or seven some years since I participated in any conversation on the 9/11 case. Reading the many excellent contributions here, with your own dogged refusal to simply lay down and accept the destruction and death toll stemming from this crap pile of lying mother mounters, has been something of a re-inspiration for me. Thank you. I know it can draw tremendous wattage from the soul to corral the thoughts and best available material… and simply share it… for free… with an at-times seemingly thankless world, and its world wide web. You have brought much to the table Mr. McKee has set. So also my thanks to our host (and especially his patience when things seem off topic at first blush. hint hint).

                  If it’s the name-ber Pernambuco you’re asking about, I’m neither Bazilian, Americano, nor abroad. It is my homage to a most loving, yet crafty, mind fixer I once knew and had the honor of serving under for about three years of his latters. Pernambuco works as a simple number substitution code, a rare-ish ten letter word with no repeating letters. Can be very handy, and fun.

                  I am an American, born and raised in Ohio, lived in a dozen other states, now calling Virginia my home. I admit to having flirted with thoughts of leaving this profoundly shameful situation, yet chose instead to stay and sort this out in my own backyard.

                  1. Thank you for your gracious remarks Pernambuco, they sooth a battered soul, ofttimes greatly misunderstood. I too am grateful for our host Mr McKee’s patience, often seemingly stretched to its limits.
                    I know I am a rough and tumble ornery contender, I know I make deep wounds in the timid and thin skinned. This is a rough world, 9/11 is a critically serious subject and must be guarded by those with the stamina and will to fight on to whatever end may come.

                    Again thank you,
                    \\][//

        3. Dwain,

          Really. I really get tired of those who come on here acting like they are sincere, and then cherry picking which questions they will pretend to answer, then just sauntering off as if they have explained everything satisfactorily.

          So one more time Deets: Have you studied the analysis of the Pentagon Witness that Onesliceshort has done in conjunction with the CIT NOC evidence? If you have do you not grasp the significance of this evidence?

          Face this one head on Deets; Do you understand that the plane on that trajectory simply could not have caused the directional damage in the Pentagon?

          This is a very simple and straight forward question.
          \\][//

          1. The NOC witnesses (and even all Pentagon airplane witnesses) are a hard group to assess. I tried to come up with a reasonable way of deciding which to include, and which to exclude. I wanted to use the same criteria to both sets. Since I decided to exclude any evidence that came from the government (such as radar data), the obvious first group to exclude would be anyone who works for the government (including contractors with companies largely funded by the government.) The first questionable person that came to mind was Terry Morin. He worked for SPARTA, a government contractor largely devoted to government defense business. Not only was he in that business, the only photo we have of him is when he is helping to carry a large pallet with a tarp over it. The context being, airplane parts were being scattered around the lawn to give the appearance of an airplane crash. Why would we include him in our witness pool? Another name, Albert Hemphill, active member of the military, with an office adjacent to the Pentagon. After going over several of these, I decided to exclude all witness testimony.

            1. “After going over several of these, I decided to exclude all witness testimony.”~Dwain Deets

              This would be funny if Deets were kidding.

              How utterly disingenuously convenient for your bullshit arguments Dwain! You throw out ‘Best Evidence’ so you don’t have to deal with it. And then you have nothing left because the government controls the rest of the evidence. What a transparent game your twaddle is.
              \\][//

            2. What leads you to doubt that authenticity or the accuracy of the North of Citgo witnesses, who described almost exactly the same path right down to the right bank. To exclude them you need to have a reason to think they are either all mistaken or all lying.

          2. I will be glad to include witness testimony as long as I can apply the same filter to all witnesses. I have not been able to come up with a suitable filter. Suitable, meaning, both sides of the flight-path issue will be okay with it.

            1. That can’t happen because the impact supporters simply claim that the North of Citgo witnesses must have been mistaken. I wonder, is this conclusion based on the “scientific method”?

              Frank Legge wrote in one of his papers: “There are good reasons to believe the reported northerly path resulted from poor recollection of an unimportant detail which preceded a traumatic observation…”

              1. Craig, One might wonder if Deets has even studied the Onesliceshort analysis to determine what his “filter” is (Dwain’s word). Instead of all these vapid generalizations, Deets should make it clear if he has read and understood the deep and thorough analysis made by Onesliceshort.
                I know the hokey misrepresentation that is the spreadsheet used by Legge is woefully flawed, being merely an update of the squat dribbled by Arabesque. I get the feeling that this is where Deets is drawing his references from, and why it is so difficult to make any sense of that crap.

                However, I am convinced that Deets is simply insincere, and is playing rhetorical games with us here,
                \\][//

            2. “Suitable, meaning, both sides of the flight-path issue will be okay with it.”~Dwain

              Do you mean both sides in the dispute? Or do you mean both S-side & “N-side” witnesses”

              If you mean finding a consensus point between both sides in the dispute, you are simply saying you will never include witness testimony. They have made clear enough that they do not accept our analysis of the witnesses.

              As far as a distinction of S-side v N-side witnesses, there simply is no distinction, they all saw the exact same aircraft.

              You can call the context of an analysis a “filter” if you wish, but that sounds like a rhetorical trick to me.

              Personally Mr Deets, I haven’t taken a single word you have to say seriously since your presentation with Barbara Honegger. nothing you have put here changes my opinion.

              I don’t find you in anyway credible.
              \\][//

            3. @All: Allow me to throw in a few thoughts:

              1.) Eye witnesses are, as a general rule, notoriously unreliable.

              2.) Each statement made by any witness can be either correct, or in error, or fabricated. There are of course gradients of gray between these three (imprecision, white lies, missing facts…)

              3.) Each witness testimony may contain elements that are true, elements that are mistaken and elements that are fabricated. Consequently: Even if you can corroborate one or several elements as true, the next element could be mistaken or fabricated. Even if you determine that one or several elements are mistaken, the next one could be correct.

              4.) Assessment of witness credibility is an inexact art. Sources for error as well as motives for fabrications abound and are difficult to discern and evaluate.

              5.) For an objective analysis, you need to employ objective, explicit, verifiable, repeatable criteria, and apply them consistently.

              6.) Each bit of evidence, including each witness testimony, must be considered on its own merits before (or: in addition to) being vetted against all the other evidence. Failing to do that is prone to introduce confirmation bias.

              7.) Circumstances that influence the content of a memory recollection include, but are not limited to:
              a) Perception: Location (distance; obstacles…); state of mind (person tired or surprised,,,); quality of physical senses……
              b) Processing: Education; intelligence; relevant experience; age, distraction;
              c) Remembering; Time passed; exposure to additional information; age; trauma; …
              d) Recollection: Interview setting; quality of questions; state of mind; language proficiency…
              e) Communication: Completeness of recording; accuracy of transcrips; …
              f) Interpretation (on the part of the interpreter): Bias, cultural differences, language proficiency, education, intelligence, relevant experience…
              In addition, reason for why (and how) witnesses may fabricate (invent, consciously leave out…) statements may inclide
              g) Personal disposition; personal involvement; personal situation (for example, someone might lie about the location they were at because they were not supposed to be there); association with involved parties…

              Does everybody agree with these five points (nit-picks, degrees and shades, or additional circumstances notwithstanding)? If not, please state what you disagree with, and why.

              I would now like to propose a frame of mind: Imagine you find a juror who is utterly unaware of the claims (facts, errors or lies) of the Pentagon, and you want to convince them of what conclusions are to be drawn from the body of available body of witness testimony – how would you go about it? How do you tell right from wrong, lie from error, credible from suspicious?

              What, in summary, ought to be the criteria with which to vet each witness statement in the mind of neutral juror with no prior knowledge of the case?

              In my opinion, dwain is consistent in his “criteria” when he throws out ALL witnesses, but very much in the way of Gary Larson’s “Equine Medicine”:

              What are the critera that others apply, and do you apply them consistently? Convince me! (No, I do not plan to read or listen to all witness statements and do background checks on all witnesses. Interested in method more than in results at this time)

              1. “1.) Eye witnesses are, as a general rule, notoriously unreliable.”~Jens Schmidt

                — A gross generality.

                “5.) For an objective analysis, you need to employ objective, explicit, verifiable, repeatable criteria, and apply them consistently.”

                — This has been our main point all along.

                “6.) Each bit of evidence, including each witness testimony, must be considered on its own merits before (or: in addition to) being vetted against all the other evidence. Failing to do that is prone to introduce confirmation bias.”

                — We have adhered to this consistently. Of course Schmidt wouldn’t know this as he has paid literally no attention to our arguments, and shoots from the hip on this blog.

                “Does everybody agree with these five (7) points (nit-picks, degrees and shades, or additional circumstances notwithstanding)? If not, please state what you disagree with, and why.” ~Schmidt

                I agree with all except the gross generalization of #1. as I have already pointed out.

                ” Convince me! (No, I do not plan to read or listen to all witness statements and do background checks on all witnesses. Interested in method more than in results at this time)” ~Schmidt

                Bullshit Schmidt, you can’t have one without the other. You cannot take our word for it that our methods are complete and proper without dealing with the actual cases in their specificity. You are obviously unwilling to do so. Why don’t you blow off with your splat-hazard rhetorical crap and admit you would rather remain blissfully ignorant.
                \\][//

                1. “I agree with all except the gross generalization of #1. as I have already pointed out [— A gross generality.].”
                  Great, thanks!
                  In my mind, “1.) Eye witnesses are, as a general rule, notoriously unreliable” really is a corrollary of “3.) Each witness testimony may contain elements that are true, elements that are mistaken and elements that are fabricated.“, which you agree with. So I would be ok with dropping 1.) if you share the understanding that since, a priori, each witness statement can contain errors and fabrications, no witness statement ought to be considered reliable without proper corroboration and vetting. Sounds fine?

                  “Of course Schmidt wouldn’t know this as he has paid literally no attention to our arguments”
                  That’s correct🙂
                  I have no problems admitting that I am largely “ignorant” of the body of witness statements regarding the Pentagon events, as the Pentagon event so far hasn’t been an area of interest great enough to spend serious time and study it. I am aware in rough outline of claims about the number and general gist of witness statements, coming from (at least) three different camps (The NoC Truthers, the SoC Truthers, the Debunkers; if you allow the commonly recognized labels, which I don’t mean to use in any derogatory way here) and have merely scanned some of the statements themselves.

                  “you can’t have one [methods] without the other [results]. You cannot take our word for it that our methods are complete and proper without dealing with the actual cases in their specificity.”
                  I agree, biut I maintain that you ought to be able to spell out what the methods and critera are before you apply them to get results.

                  One after the other.

                  So what are your methods and criteria to establish the reliability and truth value of witness statements, and the credibility of witnesses? (This question goes @ all)

                  1. “So what are your methods and criteria to establish the reliability and truth value of witness statements, and the credibility of witnesses?”~Schmidt

                    The answer to that question has already been established in my former reply to you in this thread. But I will repeat this simple and straight forward answer one more time:

                    I agree with all except the gross generalization of #1. as I have already pointed out [twice now]
                    \\][//

                  2. Schmidt, you have two dangling participles to attend to here:

                    My comments posted at these times today:

                    October 18, 2015 at 2:43 pm

                    October 18, 2015 at 1:32 pm

                    \\][//

              2. So Schmidt,

                Have considered the ludicrous proposition that Hani Hanjour was at the “stick” of Flight 77?
                A dunce of a “pilot” that couldn’t even qualify for a Piper Club!
                Have you considered that “all the other evidence. [point 6] is actually no evidence whatsoever, as has been gone over in excruciating detail here and elsewhere? (See the P4T FDR analysis for example.) And consider that there has been no publicly available revelations as to chains of custody, or aircraft serial numbers, nor of victim DNA details and chains of custody for those.
                There is in fact no legitimate evidence offered by the authorities to support the official narrative. So however “unreliable” the general viability of witness testimonies are claimed to be, they trump the utter lack of real evidence handily.
                \\][//

                1. *sigh*
                  You need to learn to avoid the “Strawman” and “Move the Goalposts” ploys. The old “but what about…” game. Just don’t do it, I won’t fall for it.

                  You just agreed to the assertion that “Each bit of evidence, including each witness testimony, must be considered on its own merits before (or: in addition to) being vetted against all the other evidence.“, and now you ask me to trash this and apply a bias to the witness statements? Try to stay consistent!

                  The order of business to evaluate the body of witness testimony would be:
                  1st – spell out methods and criteria to vet witnesses and their statements
                  2nd – apply those methods and criteria consistently to analyse and evaluate all witnesses and statements
                  (3rd, or concurrently – do something equivalent, independently, with all other items of evidence submitted by all parties)
                  4th – perform a synopsis of all the evidence thus evaluated.

                  We are at step 1 (or perhaps I should say that I am at step 1; or that I want to learn how “you” did step 1).

                  1. You just agreed to the assertion that “Each bit of evidence, including each witness testimony, must be considered on its own merits before (or: in addition to) being vetted against all the other evidence.“, and now you ask me to trash this and apply a bias to the witness statements?~Schmidt

                    Obviously not Schmidt. Just what the fuck is your game here? I already explained why the so-called “other evidence” is nonexistent and why. It is now your responsibility to explain what “other evidence” IS legitimate and why.

                    You said above that your 7 points did not define a “criteria” and that is bullshit too — why else would you have posted this if it did not present criteria? And explain why the points to not lead to a very specific and defined criteria.

                    I think you are making an obvious attempt to spin this line of commentary into a gyre of inexplicable nonsense, when everything here is quite straight forward.
                    \\][//

                    1. “Just what the fuck is your game here?”
                      Have you totally forgotten the context – what I initially replied to – or don’t you generally give a damn for context?
                      The general question under discussion was which witnesses to consider reliable, which to throw out, and how to interprete the keepers. More specifically, Dwain had explained what criterion he applied (“throw out all witnesses”) – and he had explained why. Now, by my 7 truisms, which you largely agreed with, it is good and proper to have such criteria, but I hinted that Dwain’s are perhaps a liiitle harsh.

                      So I am wondering – because, honestly, I don’t know – what are your criteria? Because Dwain had alleged that he is not aware of any such criteria that have been, or could be, consistently applied. Dwain may be wrong, or he may be right. I want to find out.

                      “the so-called “other evidence” is nonexistent”
                      Most obviously there IS a lot of “other” evidence: For each witness testimony, every other witness testimony is part of that “other” evidence this testimony must be checked against. And also, you have images of Lloyd’s cab, you have imaged of the Pentagon damage – I assume you accept these as evidence, or don’t you?

                      “It is now your responsibility to explain what “other evidence” IS legitimate and why.”
                      No – you won’t bait me into following your Gish gallop / moving-the-goal-posts evasions. Step 1 before Step 3 and 4.

                      “You said above that your 7 points did not define a “criteria” and that is bullshit too”
                      Nonsense. Let’s try this out with a fictitius witness statement. We have the former Pakistani military pilot Ahmad Dutt who now works as a consultant to a Pentagon contractor. He claims to have been in his car on the bridge going north when he saw a plane with no features he could distinguish whizz by in front of him. He ducked and did not remember if he heard a sound, but then perveived in shock the fireball.
                      Now using the methods I spelled out in my points 1-7, how would you determine if Dutt is a credible witness? How would you determine if his recollection ir correct and complete? By what criteria spelled out in my points 1-7 would you accept or reject his statement as reliable?
                      If you give this an honest try, you will find no method, and you will not find a criterion, spelled out in my points 1-7 to make these determinations objectively!

                      “explain why the points to not lead to a very specific and defined criteria.”
                      Well I hoped that my points might help you to arrive at specific and defined criteria, but they do not themselves contain any, and I did not intend to suggest any, for I haven’t got any criteria myself (yet).

                      To give you an example: Dwain has defined a criterion for himself that anything that’s been touched by a government agency or government contractor, or anyone employed by the same, must be considered unreliable and thrown out. I am not sure I agree with this criterion, and wonder if you would agree with it, but at least it IS a criterion.
                      Understood?
                      (The only thing that you might construe as a “criterion” in my points is the base assumptions that each statement, as every evidence, must be considered with skepticism as a base stance. Dwain remains at that stage when he dismisses all testimonies. What you now need is criteria to accept some testimonies.)

      2. “You say that it would have been plausible that a plane really crashed. And you said that it was when you found out remote control technology could have flown the plane this changed your mind. That doesn’t explain it.”Craig

        What is even more ludicrous about this assertion by Deets is that he was in on the ground floor of the development of the Global Hawk system. This is one of the reasons I find Mr Deets disingenuous here.
        \\][//

      3. Craig, Re: your comment about a plane fuselage could penetrate 300 feet into the building while the wings and tail section were turned to confetti.

        I didn’t say the fuselage penetrated the wall, just the undercarriage and engine cores. Don’t have any idea how far those carried into the building. They probably lost a lot of kinetic energy breaking through the exterior columns, so I don’t think they carried all that far.

        I don’t see why it is so hard fathom large parts of the plane turning into little bits of metal, in that the F-4 Phantom sled test showed that to be what happens. Plus, the idea that metal assemblies designed to withstand whatever loads might be encountered as a plane is flown within its design envelope (plus margin), would also be able to hold together in a high-speed impact into a hardened wall, is something I find hard to imagine. Plane designers do everything possible to not have excess structural weight. Flying into hardened walls is well outside the design envelope.

        It’s one thing to say there doesn’t appear to be a plane at the scene of the plane crash, but frequently it is talked of as if it were part of the evidence that there was not plane. True, people rarely say that proves there was no plane, but it is still presented as if it were part of the evidence that there was no plane.

        I never thought the official story of a novice pilot flying a commercial airliner into the Pentagon made sense. But this is a more limited scenario I am exploring, asking the question, could a transport plane be rigged to fly that building, leaving the evidence that we (the public) can see? I am saying here, the answer is yes.

        1. But Dwain, saying that something could hypothetically, conceivably might have happened is not the same at all as saying that it DID happen – which still would have to be demonstrated by convincing evidence (completely lacking in this case) to be the case. That’s why any lawyer will tell you that the burden of proof always rests upon the affirmative. It must be proven that a given something DID happen, not that it could or couldn’t conceivably have happened. So, where’s the evidence that it DID?

          1. James, I’m not saying a plane DID hit the Pentagon. I’m saying the evidence the public has access to at the external wall and in front of the Pentagon is consistent with a transport plane hitting the Pentagon (with extremely hardened wall) at high speed.

            Furthermore, the burden is on those who say a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon to explain the damage to the external wall.

            1. “Furthermore, the burden is on those who say a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon to explain the damage to the external wall.”~Deets

              This is untrue legally and logically Deets. The burden proof lies with the authorities who have asserted a case that is beyond absurd. The entire case made by the government and press is Kafkaesque in its total absurdity.
              YOUR case for the Pentagon airplane strike is Kafkaesque in its total absurdity.

              I don’t understand how anyone, anywhere, in any venue would take a word you say seriously anymore. It is clear that like Chandler and Cole et al, you too have gone full debunker. Of course this was clear to us since your presentation with Moll Honegger, at the DC 911Truth Conference in 2013.
              \\][//

            2. “Furthermore, the burden is on those who say a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon to explain the damage to the external wall.”

              How do you figure this? Why don’t the peddlers of the official scenario have to explain how we can have a plane crash without a plane?

              “I’m saying the evidence the public has access to at the external wall and in front of the Pentagon is consistent with a transport plane hitting the Pentagon (with extremely hardened wall) at high speed.”

              If this was a faked plane crash, as I argue, then it would have to appear to be consistent with impact, wouldn’t it? So if you aren’t sure a plane did crash, could you also conclude that the scene was just very effectively staged? You’re admitting that it just appears that it could be a real crash. It sounds like you’re really saying you don’t know.

        2. Dwain,

          You write: “I don’t see why it is so hard fathom large parts of the plane turning into little bits of metal, in that the F-4 Phantom sled test showed that to be what happens.”

          What happens when? The two situations have major differences. It seems that you just think Sandia can support any claim that anything going very fast and hitting a reinforced concrete wall will turn into little bits of metal regardless of how different that thing is from the F4, how different the wall was, and even how different the angle of impact was.

          Again, whether or not you believe the 300-foot “damage path” is genuine or embellished, you still have the problem of the fuselage penetrating while the wings were turned into confetti. How can both occur?

          Given that you clearly disagree with significant elements of the positions pushed by Chandler, Cole, Legge, and the rest of their co-ordinated Team, why don’t you make clear strong statements to let people know this? Chandler pushes most of the official story; why not state clearly that you don’t agree?

    5. Dwain,

      Do we have any images of the F-4 Phantom test scene after the dust cleared?

      For me this is unrealistic for several reasons:

      1. It was a solid, much thicker block of concrete, while the Pentagon wall was a thin layer of limestone, old brick, concrete columns, some new steel around the windows and Kevlar.
      2. The Pentagon was supposedly struck at a 45 (?) degree angle, not dead perpendicular like the F-4.
      3. The F-4 did not have two mighty wing-mounted engines.
      4. The speed reported by the NTSB was 460 knots, while the radar view from DCA shows 347. The F-4 was going 418 knots.
      5. It appears that the F-4 target was on an “air bearing platform”, (movable). https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/aircraft-impact-damage-on-movable-concrete-block-vs-non-movable-concrete-block.495223/

      The F-4 engine penetration was only 60 mm. Yet we are expected to believe that AA77’s engines went hundreds of feet inside the forest of concrete columns.

      I’m confused.

      1. Winston, the documentation of the test described the airplane remains after striking the block, but other than would could be seen in a couple of illustrative photos, the reader would have to take the word of the test report writer. What I do remember was the description of the outer wing section which did not strike the block. It was severed along the line that didn’t strike, and the section continued “flying” until it eventually came to rest. There was a photo of that intact section.

        I find it strange that we have people demanding to see photos of the ground in front of the concrete block. The test itself, and the documentation that followed, has served as a benchmark for an entire new specialty area, that of analyzing the dynamic behavior of high-speed objects (such as airplanes) striking hardened walls.

        1. There was another important difference that you did not mention. The concrete block was on a friction-free surface, where as the Pentagon hardened wall was attached solidly to the ground. But that is not a reason to reject the concrete block as a suitable representation of the hardened wall, as the analysis program is the means of evaluating the difference. We don’t have access to the analysis program, but a defense department contractor in the airplane business most likely would.

        2. Yes, an analysis would have to take into account the angle of impact. I wouldn’t think it would make much difference for the dense objects such as engine cores, but the question I had pertained to the affect on the shredded remains. Would they bounce, deflecting like a billiard ball, or would they fall straight down. My guess is that they would bounce at an angle.

        3. I don’t think being a wing-mounted engine would make a difference. It would be the momentum of the engine core striking a column, or the hardened wall between columns that would be important as whether they would break through, or not.

        4. It is the kinetic energy that is import, and KE increase with the square of velocity. But, I would think they are in the same ballpark as far as this issue goes.

        5. I don’t think we know how far the engines might have traveled inside. We have no reason to believe anything that was reported on that matter. How much KE of individual highly dense components was lost in bursting through the wall? No idea.

        1. Thank you Dwain for that informative reply.

          I would expect that lots of debris would be scattered along the wall north of the impact zone. The damages to the FOAM Truck was said to be caused by wing (or tail) debris.

          I was surprised to see that the test wall was so thick.

          I would really be interested in seeing photos and descriptions of what was left of the plane, besides the overlap wing. Would you happen to have a link to the report?

  44. I posed this question a few times

    “There is an event with two possible explanations, A and B.
    They are mutually exclusive –
    If A is true then B is false. If B is true then A is false.
    There is evidence for A. There is evidence for B.
    Do you
    1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false?
    or
    2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?”

    Option 1 is an illogical deduction using false deductive reasoning. Option 2 is obviously the correct logical reasoning to use when investigating anything.
    HR1 recognised this.
    Quote Hr1
    “As the answer to you benumbing& trite question is glaringly obvious; this is not a question at all, it is another of your disingenuous attempts at accusation that the people on this forum have not investigated all aspects of the case at hand.”
    ————–
    In this case A is ‘the plane flew north of the gas station’ and B is ‘the plane hit the Pentagon.’

    So do you
    I: Look at evidence that the plane flew north of the gas station and concluding that it flew north of the gas station. Conclude that since the plane flew north of the gas station that it could not have hit the Pentagon?
    or
    2: Look at the evidence that the plane flew north of the gas station and also the evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon before reaching a conclusion about which is true.”

    Having recognised this , here are posts from HR1 using false deductive reasoning of option 1.

    ——
    Jens Schmidt:
    Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?

    As to your proximate question; “Why is staged the most likely scenario,” — Because we know an aircraft did not fly on that course and could not have downed that light pole.
    This is getting complicated because you are making it more complex than it actually is.

    There is no “Could be” about it. It is impossible for the Pentagon aircraft to have stuck the light poles and cause the damage path inside the Pentagon. That is what this whole article and thread has been about.

    It is impossible for the aircraft flying the trajectory it was on to have hit the light poles and cause the damage path in the Pentagon. Impossible.
    So Hufferd, Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?
    ——-
    Now; It is perfectly obvious why Jens Schmidt refuses to answer this question. Schmidt’s answer would likely reveal that he/she thinks it is possible that an airplane actually hit the light poles in the Pentagon event of 9/11. This would also reveal that Jens Schmidt does not grasp the argument that it is impossible for that plane to have hit the light poles or the Pentogon due to its trajectory. That being a flight course coming from the west, flying directly over the Arlington Hilton, then over the Navy Annex and continuing to fly to the north side of the Citgo station and on towards the Pentagon.
    This trajectory in incompatible with the directional damage to the Pentagon, and it is impossible that the plane could have hit the light poles on such a vector.
    That would be Schmidt’s dilemma were he/she to suggest it is possible for the Pentagon plane to have downed the light poles.
    Schmidt can easily resolve this question by admitting that it would be impossible for that plane to have hit those light poles. The ball remains in his/her court.

    1. I posted the following question to you A.Wright twice before and now here for the third time. Why should anyone answer your questions when you refuse to answer ours?

      A.Wright,

      I think it is time to put you on the spot and get a straight answer out of you or send you packing as a troll. So I am re-posting a link to an analysis of WTC 7 that proves empirically that it MUST have been brought down by explosive demolition. HR1 posted this above but here it is again: http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7242sid=32163d44d9e557a9accde0d174b3f60c

      I would like you to review the analysis at that link and either:

      A. Explain to us here exactly how and why the analysis is wrong. Feel free to use other peoples work to do so but you must show where and how the analysis is wrong. Be specific and site which statement(s) are wrong in the analysis and explain how and why they are wrong.

      B. Admit that the analysis is correct and that WTC 7 came down at free fall speed thereby proving controlled demolition brought building 7 down.

      C. Refuse to meaningfully answer or deflect the question thereby proving that you are in fact a troll putting out intentional disinformation about 9/11 and that you refuse legitimate debate when asked a direct question.

      Once exposed as a troll and a purveyor of disinformation (which you are) I would assume Craig would then feel comfortable in banning you on the grounds that you are not here for legitimate debate or discussion but are here for nefarious reasons to hamper or destroy this blog and/or do harm to the 9/11 truth movement.

    2. “Having recognised this , here are posts from HR1 using false deductive reasoning of option 1.”~Agent Wright

      Wright does not grasp the concept of Ultimate Fact; wherein the combined points of evidence and deductive analysis thereof is then adduced as “Ultimate Fact”.

      The ultimate fact has been adduced from all of the combined points of evidence in the 9/11 Pentagon case proving beyond reasonable doubt that the aircraft in question flew on a trajectory north of the Citgo station. See: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s=49c680ff47c50fcefd79375f8995c465&showtopic=1863&st=15&#entry22008858

      This trajectory is incompatible with the known damage path inside the Pentagon. It is therefore based on all deductive and adductive reasoning that no airplane could have hit the Pentagon on 9/11; beyond reasonable doubt.
      . . . . . . . . .
      Everyone familiar with Agent Wright knows him/her to be a disingenuous agent provocateur, and none are impressed with his/her vapid attempts at reason and logic. As Adam Ruff remarks; Wright answers no questions, but only poses nonsense riddles ad infinitum.
      \\][//

  45. @HR1 You repeat the same false deductive reasoning yet again! -the deductive reasoning that you said yourself was obviously false!
    “This trajectory is incompatible with the known damage path inside the Pentagon. It is therefore based on all deductive and adductive reasoning that no airplane could have hit the Pentagon on 9/11; beyond reasonable doubt.”

    1. “the deductive reasoning that you said yourself was obviously false!”~A.Wright

      I am getting so sick of your lying bullshit here Wright – I never said my reasoning was false — YOU keep repeating that it is false.

      Now YOU answer the question that both Ruff and I have had on the table here for weeks, or stay the fuck out of my face.
      \\][//

      1. @HR1
        I should say this is exactly the same false reasoning used by CIT, who presented their conclusions that ‘A’ was true with hardly a mention of the evidence for ‘B’ at all, proving that their logic is false.
        The question about two contradictory explanations for an event , A and B and how to determine which is correct
        Do you
        1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false?
        or
        2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?”

        Your answer was
        Quote Hr1
        “As the answer to you benumbing& trite question is glaringly obvious; this is not a question at all, it is another of your disingenuous attempts at accusation that the people on this forum have not investigated all aspects of the case at hand.”

        And you then went on to repeat and repeat the false logic of option 1.
        “It is impossible for the aircraft flying the trajectory it was on to have hit the light poles and cause the damage path in the Pentagon. Impossible.”
        1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false.

        You asked if people thought that the plane could have hit the lightpoles – as if it was an accusation!
        Quote : “Schmidt’s answer would likely reveal that he/she thinks it is possible that an airplane actually hit the light poles in the Pentagon event of 9/11.”
        So much for option 2.

        1. This is in response to A.Wright’s response to hybridrogue1,

          So here is an example of the same thing going on in a parallel discussion from the one I was having. I, being involved in that other discussion, payed no attention to this discussion. Now that I read it, I see A.Wright made a good point.

          What I see happening on this website is a small number of people who, it turns out, are totally devoted to the going in position, are completely closed minded to any comments that counter that position. I’m guessing, these are the only people (other than the person with a different position) still paying attention to the topic, and they are adamant their going in position is correct. Not only that, they respond by belittling the person with a different opinion.

          I can only say, this is exactly what happens all the time on the JREF website.

            1. “These accusations are respectable.”~Daniel Noel

              And what pray tell, do you find “respectable” in these accusations Daniel?
              \\][//

              1. Craig’s answer to Dwain’s comment contains my explanation. I’ll add that Dwain’s work appears to be a–respectable albeit hypothetical–abstract exercise proving the non-impossibility of a specific plane impact on the Pentagon if some objective evidence is ignored. The simple answer to it would be that it may be true, but that even if it is, it does not affect the answer to the question of whether F77 hit the Pentagon or not.

                Looking at a bigger picture, Dwain’s work could be compared to our A. Wright and other 9/11 fanatics’ obsession to restrict the objective evidence related to Building 7’s destruction down to the observation that Building 7 was indeed destroyed and to the sound records of the TV microphones that captured the destruction: no video, no photo, no testimony, just the knowledge of the destruction and the video clips’ acoustic records. Based on this subset of evidence, the destruction by an office fire may be difficult to disprove, and if it could be disproved, this would be unteachable to the public under the backdrop of the 9/11 censorship. Here also, this is an interesting intellectual exercise with no bearing on the essence of Building 7’s destruction.

                i have proposed that condescending language should be reserved to the 9/11 censors and fanatics, like our A. Wright. The best way to do so is what I have been doing a few times with our A. Wright: terrorize them with Building 7’s video record. This has the advantage that 9/11-skeptical readers–who strongly believe the official 9/11 superstition in good faith but would change their minds if compelled to do so by observation and logic–effortlessly distinguish who is a rationalist and who is a technical troglodyte. By contrast, the same readers will be tempted to summarily interpret your strong language against Dwain as a sign of your weakness. Dwain’s comment above will resonate with them.

                With opinion-makers of all disciplines, all around the world, firmly aligned with the Master 9/11 conspirators, 9/11 activists need not look for enemies. Since Dwain is capable of drawing intelligent conclusions from Building 7’s videos, they ought to try to treat him as a friend.

                Love,

                1. “By contrast, the same readers will be tempted to summarily interpret your strong language against Dwain as a sign of your weakness. Dwain’s comment above will resonate with them.” ~Daniel Noel

                  If those same readers are tempted such, then they have weak judgement and cannot discern a strong argument from pure flame. They are the same type of readers who wouldn’t grasp a reasonable argument one way or the other. The same weak minds that simply don’t care one way or the other anymore at any rate.

                  My firm and brutal frankness with Deets may bruise your delicate sensibilities Daniel. But I do not attend this forum to cater to thin skinned nannies seeking to “make nice” I am here to defeat the nonsense. Deets’ nonsense is no less preposterous than that of Agent Wright’s.
                  But thanks for having the balls to finally answer.
                  \\][//

                  1. “If those same readers are tempted such, then they have weak judgement and cannot discern a strong argument from pure flame. They are the same type of readers who wouldn’t grasp a reasonable argument one way or the other. The same weak minds that simply don’t care one way or the other anymore at any rate.” This may be correct. But the same weak minds may be able to grasp that it is strange that TV did not properly, duly and timely inform the public of the sudden, rapid and complete self-destruction of a certain World Trade Center skyscraper in the evening of 9/11. Therefore, they have the potential of supporting 9/11 Truth. A worthy objective of 9/11 activism would be to avoid driving away these people. With almost all bully pulpits, in all disciplines, all around the globe, firmly allied with the Master 9/11 conspirators, the help of weak minds should not be neglected.

                    Love,

                    1. Alas Daniel, you have your methods and I have mine. I cannot after 14 frickin’ years concern myself with such toddlers and jejune outlanders.
                      \\][//

            2. Come on Daniel, what are you talking about with this: “These accusations are respectable”?
              Be specific and don’t dodge making a reply.
              \\][//

          1. Dwain,
            I think comparing this blog and forum to the JREF nest of shills and trolls is really unfair. Sure, your views have been met with strong opposition, and some people are not as polite as they could be when discussing this or other 9/11 topics. I don’t like people being belittled for honestly and sincerely held opinions either. That is not helpful. But I think the overall level of discourse here is generally very high. I would agree that the majority of those who participate in discussions here tend to agree that no large plane hit the Pentagon, but so did you at one time. And you were open to changing your mind even though, I would argue, no compelling evidence justifies that change of position.

            “What I see happening on this website is a small number of people who, it turns out, are totally devoted to the going in position, are completely closed minded to any comments that counter that position.”

            Which comments are you referring to that counter this position? I have not heard anything that would make me think that a plane actually did crash at the Pentagon on 9/11. I think the issue is that no one is persuaded by your arguments. The Sandia test does not tell me that the wings of a 757 will turn to confetti if they hit a hardened wall

            But I give you full credit for being willing to defend your views.

          2. I think it is exceedingly revealing that Deets would agree with Agent Wright’s accusations that I and others here are using illogical reasoning in these debates.

            Obviously there is nothing wrong with Wright’s formulation – what is wrong is him applying it to us; as it is he who constantly mutilates the very principles articulated in his equation. It is hypocritical and disingenuous switch and bate to accuse others of his own willful sins.

            So here we have Deets, not only comparing Truth and Shadows to the justly defunct JREF forums; but also siding with a known, but anonymous stooge and toadyboy: Agent Wright.

            Of course this shreds any remaining validity one might have found in Dwain Deets arguments, his honesty, or his sincerity. He has committed virtual seppuku right before our eyes.
            \\][//

            1. @HR1 “Obviously there is nothing wrong with Wright’s formulation – what is wrong is him applying it to us;”
              Since the quotes I presented were entiirely your own words I’d say you applied it to yourself. The false logic is there for anyone to see. It is there in NSA for anyone to see. Personal attacks on me or anyone else won’t make the logic go away.

              1. “Since the quotes I presented were entiirely your own words”~Wright

                Quote those words back to me here and now Wright, or forever shut you face.
                \\][//

                  1. “@HR1 The quotes are in the posts above.”~Agent Wright

                    This will not do Wright, you post the quotes you say are mine or shut your stinking face.
                    \\][//

                    1. “No. The quotes are in the posts above where you can scroll up and read them.”~Wright

                      You stinking lying prevaricating whore shill. I know every word I said and what you said. If you don’t post the quotes you claim are mine that prove I have not made a logical argument, You will prove yourself to be exactly as I characterize in my first sentence here – One more shot asshole.

                    2. Agent Wright, You are again evading a direct challenge to respond – to put up or shut up. Let’s have your answer as spurious as it is certain to be.
                      \\][//

                    3. As it is clear that Agent Wright has squirmed off into the shadows once again, I will explain his nonsense here:

                      My mode of argumentation falls squarely in Wright’s;

                      #2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?

                      I have assessed the (A) government’s case for flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. I have assessed the total lack of any confirmed evidence thereof.

                      I have then assessed (B) the confirmed testimonials of the ‘North Side Witnesses’, and tried them agains what are now asserted to be ‘South Side Witnesses’ – although there were never such distinctions drawn until the CIT discovered through personal and direct investigation the witnesses referred to as the NOC witnesses.

                      That many of the NOC witnesses have been attempted to be put into the SOC camp by the opposition is clearly a disingenuous ruse; as is shown in the witness comparisons originally compiled by Onesliceshort, and presented below as a fairly complete cast of the witness pool.
                      . . . . . .
                      Now as Wright has plainly misaprehended my arguments are plain. That Wright uses the first mode of taking only ‘A’ without consideration of ‘B’, also shows how disingenuous his argumentation is.
                      \\][//

                    4. “There is an event with two possible explanations, A and B.
                      They are mutually exclusive –
                      If A is true then B is false. If B is true then A is false.
                      There is evidence for A. There is evidence for B.

                      Do you
                      1: Look at the evidence for A and conclude that A is true. Conclude that since A is true that therefore B is false?
                      or
                      2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?”

                      ________

                      Quote HR1

                      “My mode of argumentation falls squarely in Wright’s;

                      #2: Look at the evidence for both A and B before reaching a conclusion about which is true?

                      I have assessed the (A) government’s case for flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. I have assessed the total lack of any confirmed evidence thereof.

                      I have then assessed (B) the confirmed testimonials of the ‘North Side Witnesses’, and tried them against what are now asserted to be ‘South Side Witnesses’ – although there were never such distinctions drawn until the CIT discovered through personal and direct investigation the witnesses referred to as the NOC witnesses.

                      That many of the NOC witnesses have been attempted to be put into the SOC camp by the opposition is clearly a disingenuous ruse; as is shown in the witness comparisons originally compiled by Onesliceshort, and presented below as a fairly complete cast of the witness pool.
                      . . . . . .
                      Now as Wright has plainly misaprehended my arguments are plain. That Wright uses the first mode of taking only ‘A’ without consideration of ‘B’, also shows how disingenuous his argumentation is.”
                      —————————-

                      Now compare to HR1’s actual mode of argument from quotes here:

                      ___
                      This would also reveal that Jens Schmidt does not grasp the argument that it is impossible for that plane to have hit the light poles or the Pentagon due to its trajectory.
                      ___
                      Jens Schmidt:
                      Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?

                      As to your proximate question; “Why is staged the most likely scenario,” — Because we know an aircraft did not fly on that course and could not have downed that light pole.
                      This is getting complicated because you are making it more complex than it actually is.

                      There is no “Could be” about it. It is impossible for the Pentagon aircraft to have stuck the light poles and cause the damage path inside the Pentagon. That is what this whole article and thread has been about.

                      It is impossible for the aircraft flying the trajectory it was on to have hit the light poles and cause the damage path in the Pentagon. Impossible.
                      So Hufferd, Do you think it is possible that the airplane at the Pentagon event could possibly be in the position to hit those light poles given the trajectory it is known to have been on?
                      ——-
                      Now; It is perfectly obvious why Jens Schmidt refuses to answer this question. Schmidt’s answer would likely reveal that he/she thinks it is possible that an airplane actually hit the light poles in the Pentagon event of 9/11. This would also reveal that Jens Schmidt does not grasp the argument that it is impossible for that plane to have hit the light poles or the Pentagon due to its trajectory. That being a flight course coming from the west, flying directly over the Arlington Hilton, then over the Navy Annex and continuing to fly to the north side of the Citgo station and on towards the Pentagon.
                      This trajectory in incompatible with the directional damage to the Pentagon, and it is impossible that the plane could have hit the light poles on such a vector.
                      That would be Schmidt’s dilemma were he/she to suggest it is possible for the Pentagon plane to have downed the light poles.
                      Schmidt can easily resolve this question by admitting that it would be impossible for that plane to have hit those light poles. The ball remains in his/her court.
                      _____

                    5. And so what Agent Wright? As I have already determined by looking at the evidence from both sides of the argument, that it is impossible for the plane on that trajectory to have hit the light poles or made the damage in the Pentagon; there is no reason to argue for any but what my legitimate analysis has determined.

                      You have again blown a load of nothing here with your stupid and vapid remarks.
                      You are truly an utter dolt Wright.
                      \\][//

                    6. I have already tried to explain to Agent Wright the concept of Ultimate Fact; which in law and logic is the drawing together of all the facts as deduced in particular points and adding them together as one ultimate fact. The deduced facts are adduced to this single “ultimate fact” that is then considered to be proof beyond reasonable doubt.

                      Wright apparently hasn’t the mental capacity to grasp this fairly simple and straight forward concept. I am sure the larger readership can. Which is the reason that Wright is the odd man out on this forum.
                      \\][//