Pentagon debates expose emptiness of large-plane-impact scenario


compmix2

We can see in this composite photo that there is no room for a plane to have entered without large pieces of wreckage remaining outside.

The work that Craig Ranke (of Citizen Investigation Team) has done on the witnesses for the north path is some of the most solid, irrefutable evidence that one could ever assemble on 9/11, period – Massimo Mazzucco, creator of September 11: The New Pearl Harbor

It was my understanding there would be no math ― Chevy Chase as Gerald Ford in 1976 presidential debate, Saturday Night Live

March 16, 2016

By Craig McKee

It’s like watching someone try to dance between raindrops while they accuse you of being all wet.

Those who are determined to push the impossible claim that a large plane really did hit the Pentagon on 9/11 – despite the absence of a plane at the “crash” site – go to incredible lengths to try and make their case. They speculate, hypothesize, assume, and concoct imaginative and “plausible” scenarios that they claim “fit the data” or are “consistent with an impact”. They focus on minor details as if they are conclusive, they mention the “witnesses” as if the word alone makes their case, and they come up with some of the most colorful re-imaginings of the laws of physics you will ever hear.

In the last few months, what happened at the Pentagon has become a bit of a hot topic once again within the Truth Movement, leading to a series of debates that I am involved in with fellow 9/11 types Barbara Honegger, Wayne Coste, and Adam Ruff. These debates are being held as part of the monthly call of the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference (formerly the 9/11 Truth Teleconference). The first two debates were held Dec. 30 and Jan. 27, while the third and final is planned for April 27.

It would not be unreasonable, I think, to suggest that articles posted in recent months on Truth and Shadows about the Pentagon have played a role in bringing renewed attention to the subject. Two of those articles were critiques of presentations given by researchers David Chandler and Ken Jenkins at the 9/11 film festival held in Oakland, CA. in September. Both presentations were part of a continuing effort by a small team of researchers to get the 9/11 Truth Movement to abandon some the most powerful evidence that exists that 9/11 was an inside job.

Following these presentations and my critiques there was a proposal within our teleconference to debate the subject. Three distinct positions emerged: a large plane hit the Pentagon, a large plane did not hit the Pentagon, and Honeggers’s hybrid position that a large plane was destroyed over the Pentagon lawn and not at the official story time of 9:37:45.

The team of researchers I mentioned – which includes Chandler, Jenkins, Frank Legge, John Wyndham, Jonathan Cole, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, and others – keeps repackaging the same discredited ideas about the Pentagon into one “scholarly paper” after another. They repeat frequently how they are using “the scientific method” while those who disagree are suffering from “confirmation bias” (which means favoring information that confirms existing beliefs).

Bringing psychological elements into the discussion seems to be Jenkins’ specialty. While I’m sure we are all potentially vulnerable to this bias, I object to the use of the term by this group to imply something that I believe is false – that those who maintain that no large plane hit the Pentagon are biased and engaging in speculation, while those who push the impact scenario are relying on science for their conclusions.

The first debate in our series had Coste arguing for a large plane impact against Honegger. Both produced PowerPoint presentations that participants on the call could follow along with. After the debate, an online survey was held to determine which side that listeners felt had been most effective in presenting their case. Of those who expressed a preference, Honegger was favored 20-3 over Coste. While Honegger focused almost entirely on the impossibility of an impact (her exploded drone theory was just mentioned at the end), Coste offered a smattering of guesswork and speculation dressed up to look like evidence.

He also agreed to go up against me and Ruff in the second debate (Adam and I operated as a team). This time we debated the statement that a large plane was destroyed at the Pentagon, which, for the two sides, amounted to arguing whether an impact took place. Honegger accused us of not addressing the agreed-upon subject, but we don’t agree since we believe that the only way a large plane could have been destroyed would be if it had hit the building.

In the 3rd and final encounter, Ruff and I will face off against Honegger over the issue of whether a plane was destroyed. This will require us to respond to Honegger’s latest position that a plane blew up over the lawn, which will be challenging because it will require us to counter points that we are less accustomed to addressing.

The January event was the first formal debate I’d been part of since Grade 9 when I defended the ancient astronaut theory of Erich von Däniken, author of Chariots of the Gods?

I wasn’t big on official stories even then.

For this second Pentagon debate, Coste revamped his presentation with some new but equally ineffective and irrelevant points. He included “confirmation bias” in his presentation once again, explaining it this way:

“So confirmation bias and an effort to show that 9/11 was an inside job apparently lead some to adopt wishful hypotheses that are not supported by the evidence and then to ridicule those who have actually looked at all the evidence.”

So what we learn from this is that those who don’t agree with Coste are apparently engaged in wishful thinking. Meanwhile, he has looked at “all the evidence.” In fact, he looks for any way possible to muddy the waters by bringing in minor points that don’t address the most important questions.

By the way, Adam and I prevailed in this debate 17-1, so the vote total over two was 37-4 against Coste’s position. It’s encouraging to see that a healthy number of truthers are not being persuaded by the weak arguments that Chandler and his team have been pushing.

 

Dawn of the ‘zombie myths’

Coste introduced a new concept in his presentation, which also seems to be inspired by Jenkins and the “debunkers” who call attention to the psychology of “conspiracy theorists.” He calls this new concept the “zombie myth”:

“Some misstatements about the Pentagon never die even though they are proven wrong. They get resurrected without merit… Paying attention is the only way to kill a zombie myth.”

Guess which side is guilty of perpetuating “zombie myths”? Yup, it’s the majority who understand that the evidence does not support a large plane impact. Apparently, we’re all failing to pay attention to what Coste and his friends are trying to tell us. Does he back up his condescending contention that we keep pushing ideas that have been proven wrong? No, he does not.

One of the odd issues Coste focused on during the debate was a tree stump that he says could only have been created by a large plane pulling the rest of the tree into the building. He devoted several slides to this stump. Odder still was that he focused on alleged witnesses who were as far as six miles away from the Pentagon (Don Chauncey could not even see the allegedly impacted side of the building from his vantage point six miles away, and he thought the plane he saw was a small commuter jet). Coste’s purpose as he explained it was to pick people who he thinks would have been in a position to see a plane fly over if this had occurred. The problem is that it is extremely doubtful that anyone this far away could have seen anything conclusive.

Coste departs from Chandler in contending that the wings, tail, and stabilizers of the plane “folded in” and were pulled into the building. He even created a series of diagrams showing this occurring. Here is his explanation from our group email discussion:

“… I developed a hypothesis that investigated the mechanics of the plane impact that – based on the structure and connections in the plane – that the wings would have been pushed back by crumpling the rear connections of the wings while leaving the front connections somewhat attached to the airframe.  With the remaining connections – and the forward momentum – would be sufficient to allow the fuselage and the wings to enter the 80 opening between columns 10 and 18. The attached sequence shows the hypothesis that the tail would/could have been rotated backwards from the forces shown and the tail may not have impacted the Pentagon wall at a height above the second story. I recognize that there is no conclusive proof of these hypotheses, but it does provide a reasonable explanation of the observations.”

Dare I suggest that he exhibits clear signs of “confirmation bias” because he certainly hasn’t got a shred of science behind his theory. Chandler, Hoffman, and other members of their team claim that these large sections of the plane would have been turned to “confetti” upon impact. What they all have in common is that they are simply guessing with little or no science to support anything they are saying.

mike-walter

The wings folded in – yeah, that’s the ticket.

Given this, it’s not surprising that Coste puts most of his focus on the witness accounts. But in doing so, he further exposes the emptiness of his position by picking the statements he likes and dismissing the ones that don’t suit his narrative. He used Mike Walter as a solid witness to impact even though Walter’s story has changed multiple times, and he is easily the most unreliable witness on record. Walter is well known for his TV appearance several years after 9/11 when he explained how the plane’s wings “folded in” as the plane entered the building. But it is less well known that he has told other stories, including a version in which he lost sight of the plane behind some trees and then saw a fireball. Coste has no problem standing behind the Walter account while dismissing others as being “embellishment.”

The view from Storti's balcony: the Pentagon is barely visible to the right of the white building.

The view from Storti’s balcony: the Pentagon is barely visible to the right of the white building.

In our presentation, Adam and I pointed to the claims of alleged witness Steve Storti, who says he saw the plane hit the Pentagon from more than three-quarters of a mile away even though its flight would have been almost entirely blocked by apartment buildings until the last split second. He also makes the incredible claim that he could see movement in the windows. He told Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT):

“In the back third of the jet, I could tell you unequivocally there were individuals moving around back there. I know this because I could see blue in the windows all the way back until the final third of the plane at which point some of the windows stayed blacked out.”

Coste employs double standards (and triple and quadruple…) when it comes to doling out credibility to some witnesses and writing off others. He was offended that Adam and I “impugned” Storti and fellow witness Stephen McGraw in the debate. Storti deserved impugning, but in the case of McGraw, I was just pointing out that taking a quote from a newspaper or some other source – without the benefit of further questioning – could lead to some misconceptions about what some people actually saw. In explaining how follow-up interviews of the kind conducted by CIT were valuable in clarifying what some witnesses saw, I referred to Eric Bart’s collection of witness statements where Stephen McGraw was quoted as saying this:

“The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away.”

But Aldo Marquis of CIT followed up and elicited this:

“I didn’t actually see the light pole go over or anything, no. I believe I later saw you know the evidence of the pole having been knocked over umm and I think that was just after the fact.”

Oddly, Coste impugned McGraw himself when he discounted as “embellishment” a later statement that the plane had “cartwheeled” across the Pentagon lawn. Another great example of a double standard.

Subsequent exchanges between me and Coste have further revealed the absolute bankruptcy of his position. I wrote to him in a group email discussion that I think he is starting with his conclusion and then creating a theory to fit it:

“It’s interesting that Popular Mechanics says the wings were sheared off (even though they are nowhere to be found outside), David Chandler and Dwain Deets think they turned to confetti (despite an absence of the necessary debris outside) and you think the wings were dragged in (without any evidence to support this). What you all have in common is that you are all guessing.”

He responded:

“What I did was start with the observation that 1) a plane hit at about 42 degrees and 2) there was an 80 foot opening present in the 1st floor wall and 3) there was no significant structural material left outside the building. I then developed a hypothesis, worked through a sequence of steps and showed that it would be reasonable for the plane to pass most of the (deformed) wingspan through the 80 foot opening. Observation and hypothesis match.”

I rest my case. That part, anyway.

There were a number of false statements made by Coste both during the debate and in later discussions. He says that all the witnesses refute the flyover theory, which is ridiculous. He says virtually none of the witnesses fail to describe a south of Citgo flight path, which is also false. And he says there is not one single witness to a flyover. Also false. And he says that those on my side of the debate are saying that the plane “vanished” after flying past the building. We make no such claim.

Coste put an inordinate amount of emphasis on the significance of witness George Aman, who was interviewed by Ranke. Coste claims that Aman is a south path witness because he says he saw the light poles hit. But I point out that Aman specifically describes a flight path that is north of the Citgo gas station. He is very clear about this. Like other north of Citgo witnesses like Darius Prather and Darrell Stafford, he thought the plane might hit the maintenance building where he was working, and this building is well to the north of where the gas station was (it no longer exists). Of course, Coste finds Aman’s recollection of the flight path to be the least reliable part of his story while this quote from his Library of Congress interview supposedly indicates that he saw the poles hit:

“Yes, and that’s when I looked over here and then when I was looking over here and I seen things fly up in there not knowing really what the hell they were but come to find out they were streetlights. So the plane was clipping the tops of the streetlights off. And I could see the people’s faces in the plane.”

So that quote tells Coste that Aman saw the light poles but he then throws out the description of the flight path.

Coste writes: “So I guess I must conclude that George Aman’s assertion that the plane was between the Citgo station and his office has so many inconsistencies that I would say that his recollection was in error.”

Ironically, Coste says CIT is guilty of cherry picking what witnesses said.

As Coste explained in our group discussion, he thinks the goal is to get 9/11 into a courtroom, and for this reason he seems to imply that any witnesses who make contradictory comments should be disqualified – unless they suit his position; then they’re fine. The problem is that he wants to disqualify the witness accounts that support the north of Citgo flight path on various grounds, including the timing of the statements (what witnesses said closer to the event is supposedly more reliable) and the fact that they believe the plane did crash.

Lagasse says he is 100% certain that the plane flew to the north of the station.

Lagasse says he is 100% certain that the plane flew to the north of the station.

He says (falsely) that “many of the CIT witnesses are questionable.” He thinks Pentagon cop William Lagasse was mistaken about seeing the plane fly from his left to his right and to the north of the station because Lagasse said he was talking to his dog, which was apparently in the car behind him. But to suggest that he actually saw the plane on the other side of the station flying right to left is simply not credible. Lagasse is joined in being very specific about seeing the plane on the north path by Chadwick Brooks, Ed Paik, Sean Boger, William Middleton, Darius Prather, Darrell Stafford, Robert Turcios, George Aman, and others.

Below are the points (in the form of PowerPoint slides) that Adam and I produced for the debate:

 

Highlights from the McKee/Ruff PowerPoint presentation

  • On 9/11 we were asked to believe: the Twin Towers were destroyed because of plane impacts and resulting fires; a 757 crashed into an open field and promptly disappeared underground; and a 757 crashed into one of the most secure buildings in the world without a single large piece of wreckage being visible at the crash scene and without a single piece of video showing that this had actually happened.
  • Why does the Pentagon matter? The clear evidence of a faked plane crash at the Pentagon on 9/11 is a critical element of proving that this was a false flag operation and an inside job that involved the U.S. government. This is because no other entity could have staged this crime scene and then covered up the deception.
  • Burden of proof: Since clear proof of an impact has not been produced, the burden of proof is on those who believe it occurred.
  • Can’t it be an inside job even if we support an impact? Yes, but when we discard some of the most powerful evidence we have, the case against the official story is much weaker.
  • Which witness accounts are not credible? James Meigs, formerly of Popular Mechanics, says “hundreds” saw an American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon. Others say 180 saw an impact. Both are false. To know who saw what, we have to look at what each witness actually said.
  • Things can change when witnesses are questioned: Stephen McGraw was quoted this way by Eric Bart: “The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away.” But when questioned by Aldo Marquis of CIT, he said: “I didn’t actually see the light pole go over or anything, no. I believe I later saw you know the evidence of the pole having been knocked over umm and I think that was just after the fact.”
  • In Ken Jenkins’ The Pentagon Plane Puzzle: “Janet are you with us? You saw a plane crash into the Pentagon?” “Yes, sir I did … I just saw the plane disappear out of my sight beyond the trees and then I just saw massive billows of smoke.”
  • In the best breakdown done yet, researcher onesliceshort starts with 239 alleged witnesses. Then he eliminates these as impact witnesses: 48 were inside the Pentagon; 35 arrived after or weren’t there at all; 31 could not physically see the Pentagon; 20 admitted not seeing impact; 7 were anonymous; 7 were 2nd or 3rd hand accounts; 9 described hearing or feeling the impact or just seeing a fireball; 20 had accounts embellished by the media; 21 could see the Pentagon but not the alleged impact location; and other categories. This leaves just 41 potential impact witnesses. But even among those, details vary widely. And that figure includes numerous witnesses who contradict the official flight path. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863
  • Some witnesses were highly credible: CIT conducted numerous interviews near the Pentagon and found more than a dozen highly credible witnesses who saw a plane approach on a different flight path. http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos/national-security-alert The witnesses drew an almost identical flight path to the north of the Citgo gas station. On-camera interviews in CIT’s video National Security Alert were high quality – clear, thorough, and transparent. Despite these witnesses believing a plane hit, they described a flight path that doesn’t match the damage. They also described the same right bank. CIT offers viewers the opportunity to judge for themselves whether they find these witnesses to be credible. Unless the North of Citgo witnesses are mistaken or lying in exactly the same way then the government’s plane-impact story can’t be true.
  • Mazzucco on CIT: “The work that Craig Ranke (of CIT) has done on the witnesses for the north path is some of the most solid, irrefutable evidence that one could ever assemble on 9/11, period.” – Massimo Mazzucco, creator of September 11: The New Pearl Harbor.
  • Authenticity of Flight Data Recorder highly in doubt: Since there is no way through serial numbers to tie either the Flight Data Recorder or the Cockpit Voice Recorder to Flight 77 or any other plane then neither can be relied upon to substantiate impact. However, it is still valid to point out that this evidence, offered by the government to substantiate its own official story, actually refutes it. So either the FDR data were fabricated, which proves inside job, or they were genuine, which also proves inside job. (In The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, David Ray Griffin presents a report that the FDR was found in the Pentagon rubble at 4 a.m. on Sept. 14 yet the data was downloaded at 11:45 p.m. on Sept. 13)
  • FDR simulation: The simulation done by the National Transportation Safety Board from the alleged FDR data shows a flight path to the north of the Citgo gas station and an altitude much too high for a plane to have hit the Pentagon. Once adjusted for the correct air pressure , Pilots for 9/11 Truth reveals that the altitude of the alleged plane would have been 300 feet higher than even the 180 feet shown on the NTSB simulation. Given that this location is 40 feet above sea level, this means the alleged plane would have been 480 feet above sea level and 440 feet above the light poles.
  • Impossible descent: The simulation showed an altitude of 699 feet above sea level as the alleged plane passed the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) antenna. Descending to ground level would create a G-forces far beyond the capability of a 757, in this case 34 Gs. Even if a plane barely clears the antenna, it’s still 10.14 Gs. The official path requires a plane to fly over, not around, the VDOT antenna. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
  • At the “crash” scene: How could a 757 cause so little damage to the façade and yet not leave a single large piece of wreckage outside? Where did the wings and tail go? If the right engine hit column 17, why is it still partially standing? Why are windows above the 2nd floor opening unbroken? Column 14 still intact on 2nd floor where fuselage would have hit. The Pentagon Building Performance Report states the alleged plane would have lost structural integrity by the time it reached halfway to the rounded C ring hole 310 feet farther inside. So what caused it? Where did the two 7,000-pound Rolls Royce engines go? And who were the guys in dress pants on the lawn, and why were they placing or moving evidence at a crime scene before any investigation had started?
  • Planted evidence: A Virginia driver’s licence allegedly belonging to a hijacker survived the alleged crash and bodies of passengers were supposedly identified using DNA comparison, meanwhile the contents of the Cockpit Voice Recorder were destroyed because of the “intense heat.” All three “crash” scenes on 9/11 featured “hijackers’” ID being found.
  • The last of Coste's diagrams showing what he wants us to think happened to the wings. Science behind it? None.

    The last of Coste’s diagrams showing what he wants us to think happened to the wings. Science behind it? None.

    The wings would have snapped off: A study by mathematician and computer scientist A.K. Dewdney and aerospace engineer G.W. Longspaugh addressed what would have happened to the wings had they made contact with the Pentagon wall in their paper “The Missing Wings,” which was published in 2003 and revised in 2004. http://physics911.net/missingwings/ They found: “… in the ASCE report, the port wing struck a column just to the left of the presumed engine-hole. Since the column did not fail, the wing must have … the entire weight of the wing still, traveling at 500-plus miles per hour, would have produced a bending force that was entirely concentrated on the point of contact of the wing with the support column. This would have snapped all three spars instantly … they would fail as soon as the force of impact exceeded the elastic limit of the material. If they did not fail and if the support columns did not give way, the only remaining possibility would be for the aircraft to remain almost entirely outside of the Pentagon … there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001.”

  • The light poles are valuable to the perpetrators because they appear to establish: trajectory, altitude, and minimum wingspan.
  • You can clearly see a scratch on the road where it appears the light pole that allegedly hit England's cab was dragged into the road.

    You can clearly see a scratch on the road where it appears the light pole that allegedly hit England’s cab was dragged into the road.

    Lloyde England’s tall tale: No one reported seeing it, but taxi driver Lloyde England claims this pole pierced his windshield without even scratching or denting the hood and lodged in the back seat. He claims he and a stranger removed the 240-pound pole, which would have reached a height much greater than his own as it protruded from the car at about a 45-degree angle (he drew a diagram to this effect). You can also clearly see a scratch on the road that appears to have been made by dragging the light pole into place.

  • Faked government video: In September 11: The New Pearl Harbor we see video frames from two Pentagon cameras that were synchronized using a “multiplexer” system. About 100 frames were common to both sets and matched each other perfectly as confirmed by comparing the shape of the smoke cloud. http://luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167 All except one. Just one of these 100 frames does not match, and that is “frame 23,” the very one that allegedly shows a 757 crossing the Pentagon lawn. There is no doubt that frame 23 was doctored either in one set of frames or both.
  • Any one of the following would make for a persuasive case that no plane hit the Pentagon: The accounts of 13 North of Citgo witnesses; the disappearance of the wings, tail section, and horizontal stabilizers; alleged FDR data that shows no impact; video that was provably faked to convince us of an impact; a rounded C ring hole that has no rational explanation. Put it all together and the case that no plane was destroyed at the Pentagon is overwhelming.
  • A puzzling effort to steer 9/11 truth towards an impact: A small group of 9/11 researchers is devoting a great deal of time to producing “scholarly papers” and making presentations to convince us that most of the Pentagon official story is true despite clear evidence to the contrary. In supporting this story, they are much more closely aligned with the so-called “debunkers” than they are with the rest of the Truth Movement. They claim that their position is consistent with “science” while opposing views are biased “beliefs” that are based on “speculation.” In fact, the reverse is true.
  • Plane wreckage hidden in the lawn? “Researcher” Frank Legge, in his paper “What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth,” plays with his own credibility when he makes the astonishing claim that the tiny amount of debris seen outside the building is partly because “the small size of most of the fragments would allow them to be hidden within the texture of the lawn.”
  • Echoing the ‘debunkers’: James Meigs: “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.” David Chandler: “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.” “Defenders of the 757 theory are forced into such absurdities by the absence of 757 debris reported by both cameras and eyewitnesses.” – David Ray Griffin, p. 67 of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited.

Finally, we presented 10 questions that people like Coste, Chandler, Jenkins, and the rest of their team MUST be able to answer if they are to make a case for a plane impact:

  • Why would more than a dozen highly credible witnesses describe a virtually identical north of Citgo flight path unless this is what they saw?
  • Since we know the wings did not penetrate, why weren’t they lying on the lawn? Same for the tail section and horizontal stabilizers.
  • How could the plane have entered through a hole much smaller than required without leaving large pieces of wreckage outside?
  • Why was there no significant damage to the wall or even to windows that would have been hit by the tail and stabilizers?
  • How could the fuselage penetrate 310 feet into the building if the wings and tail section were turned to confetti on impact?
  • How could the tiny amount of unidentified debris around the helipad possibly represent thousands of pounds of aircraft wreckage?
  • What happened to the virtually indestructible engine cores, and why didn’t they create two exit holes?
  • Given that the plane would have completely lost structural integrity halfway to the rounded C ring hole, what can account for the hole?
  • Why were all synchronized frames from the two camera views identical except for the single frame that is supposed to show a plane?
  • Why would the government fake video of the crash if an actual crash took place?

We could have come up with lots more questions. Or we could have boiled it down to two or three. But it amounts to the same thing. Those claiming a plane impact took place have to be able to explain what happened to the plane they claim hit the building. But they cannot. So they have no case. All they do have is an argument that the Truth Movement should turn itself around and start steaming in the other direction where the Pentagon is concerned.

In our email discussion, Coste made his most creative and ballsy statement – he said that it was up to me as the one saying a plane didn’t crash to explain the relative absence of debris on the Pentagon lawn. Think about that one for a moment.

“I think this makes you the advocate that has to explain the lack of debris – what did your entire plane disappear into – where is your debris – where is your entire plane?” he wrote.

As I responded at the time, there is such a thing as trying to be too clever.

 

567 comments

  1. Nicely done, Craig. I have had and still have all the same thoughts on the evidence, as you know. And I have engaged in many fruitless discussions with “truthers” who insist a large jetliner impacted the building that day, without any real explanation of how that could be so based on what we know to be the evidence. I have been subjected to personal attacks, ridicule, and vacuous points when I raise many of the problems you have listed here.

    The main one for me has been: They can’t have it both ways-either the aircraft impacted and disintegrated, leaving most of itself outside the building in the form of confetti-like pieces (for which there is not enough confetti), or-it penetrated intact into the building, in which case why is there not a sufficient hole in the side of the building where the aircraft entered? And why, if there are tail marks on the side of the building, there is no tail outside of the building? How can windows remain unbroken at the alleged crash point? Where did the titanium engines end up, and why didn’t they cause severe structural damage to the building?

    I have already debunked the supposed multiple witnesses, as have many others, by showing the variety, creativity, and inconsistency of their supposed visions (plane cartwheeled across the lawn, plane was sucked into the building, plane scraped the lawn, plane hit somewhere else). And what about the lack of any marks on the pristine lawn? The engines are located below the fuselage when in flight, and for the plane to have impacted at ground level, its engines would necessarily have had to scrape the lawn.

    The whole story is ridiculous, and was the first thing that had me thinking we were being lied to, when the very next day on the cover of the NY Times the photograph did not show a large jetliner sticking out of the building. Then I read Thierry Meyssan’s first book, and it has been quite a ride since.

    Thanks again for sticking to facts, science, and observation, and avoiding speculation and hypotheses that don’t fit the evidence.

    1. The story is indeed ridiculous. There is a serious disinformation campaign that has been ongoing since the attacks began against CIT several years back. Some of the people who have swallowed this impact nonsense have been duped. Some appear to be following their egos. Others’ motives are more suspicious.

      1. Craig, The recent video by Jenkins is on YT. There are photos which I had never seen after minute 35.
        I contribute to CIT and value their witnesses.
        I never saw some of these photos.

        1. jimrobcoyle said:

          “I contribute to CIT and value their witnesses”

          But, jim…..if you believe a plane hit the Pentagon, then you HAVE TO believe that all of the CIT witnesses are either lying or delusional and Sgt. Lagasse has eyes in the back of his head.

          That video doesn’t show any plane parts.

          1. What the hell are you talking about? 35 minutes in it shows all kinds of plane parts. Including the landing gear, the wheel hub, Engine parts that actually belong to an RB211-525 Rolls Royce engine which is one of power plants the 757 used. There is an APU door so please explain why you say the video doesn’t show any plane parts? I’m dying to know.

        2. Jim, there are some photos I don’t think I’ve seen either. But none changes the fact that we have only seen a small fraction of what should have been there had a real plane crashed. Also, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has looked at some of the larger parts and determined that they do not come from a 757. So if some do, as Chandler and Jenkins contend, and if some don’t, as Pilots claim, then parts had to have been planted.

    2. Problem is racism and politics are MORE divided then ever thanks to the 90s generation not being objective thanks to crap schools.

      Now we have people just believing whatever their political leaders tell them so one political leader can say one thing and a different leader totally contradicting yet most Americans will be followers and clueless.

      It’s going to take hunger shortages and water shortages before anything useful happens.

      Here in our area there already is food shortages where you literally have to shop before 1pm or you are not going to get much. I think they are saving the best delieveries for big cites to make it look like nothing is happening.

  2. As far as I am concerned the debate is over about the pentagon unless someone wants to challenge our position with something new and substantial. Coste, Chandler, Jenkins, and the rest of the plane impact supporters have been decisively debunked. Thoroughly shattered and discredited.

    I think the debate with Barbara Honegger will show the emptiness of her hypothesis and she will be proved to be completely wrong as well. I am so disappointed we still have to debate these nebulous, ever morphing, and unfounded theories such as Barbara’s at this late date when we should be making arrests and prosecuting the guilty. It must be done apparently because those unfamiliar with the real evidence at the pentagon are still buying into Honegger’s theory simply because she is prolific and promotes herself to such a degree they miss the fact that she has little or no evidence to back it up. Few researchers know the evidence well enough to argue with her so she has gotten by with relatively few challenges. That is until now.

    It is about time the truth movement start to assert itself with the pentagon evidence the way it does with the controlled demolition evidence. Failing to do so is just impotence at this point. The pentagon evidence is arguably the most damning proof of an inside job that exists. Let’s start putting these disinformants claiming impact at the pentagon in their proper place along side popular mechanics and the JREF trolls. Let’s start holding the so called “leaders” of the truth movement accountable for their baseless positions. Let’s get real and demand that people like Richard Gage come clean about the pentagon and retract his BS statement that did so much damage to the cause. Hold Chandler to account for his sloppy hit piece on CIT. Come on people we are growing old here letting these charlatans run amok.

    The question that remains for me is what are we going to do with this proof that the government staged the crime scene at the pentagon? What are we going to do? Debate it for years more when there is no credible challenge to the evidence?

    I am not interested in 9/11 discussion any more I am interested in naming names and making arrests and getting justice. Play time is over.

    BTW: Yes I can start naming names. Look into Christopher Bollyn’s excellent research for the names to start with.

    I will name a few names right now that are participating in the cover-up and/or obfuscation of 9/11 evidence:

    David Chandler (pentagon), Kevin Ryan (Israeli involvement, pentagon), Jim Hoffman (pentagon), and others. These people should be mercilessly drummed out of the truth movement for what they have done. To even refer to them as “truthers” at this point is an insult to all truthers.

    So called leaders such as DRG and Richard Gage refuse to speak up about this intolerable situation and for that I am seriously disappointed in them both. I say to both of them now to stand up like men, like real truthers, and call these people out on their lies and evasions and obfuscations. Real truthers would do exactly that. Leave no doubt where you stand on the pentagon evidence, come on already!

    1. “It is about time the truth movement start to assert itself with the pentagon evidence the way it does with the controlled demolition evidence. Failing to do so is just impotence at this point. The pentagon evidence is arguably the most damning proof of an inside job that exists.”

      I absolutely agree with this statement. The impact lobby is loud and obnoxious, so we have to at least be vocal and strong on the evidence. And we can’t be scared away from the Pentagon because it’s “controversial.”

  3. One thing that does seem clear to me is that these pro-impact people will grasp at anything – no matter how flimsy or bogus – to bolster their case.

    I always wait until I see someone resort to depths that can’t be explained as an honest difference of opinion. I am definitely well there with Coste now and this is the point where I no longer care about being polite with him out of concern for not appearing divisive.

    When someone tries to spin, of all people, William Lagasse as being a witness to the official flight path, we know we’re dealing with someone whose assignment is to waste our time. And then to spin Storti as being a “solid” witness to an impact.

    It’s a game of whack-a-mole. If you thoroughly debunk one of their absurd allegations regarding a witness, they occasionally concede (often they ignore), but then try to put more homework on your plate by providing you more spin about other witnesses. And attempt to declare victory if you don’t write a detailed treatise debunking each one.

    Fortunately the poll results show people aren’t buying it.

  4. Craig,

    I will comment on the paper by Dewdney and Longspaugh, “The Missing Wings,” which you cite. Two statements made in the paper are:

    “It can be adopted as a general, commonsense principle that if a large, wide and heavy object, moving at a speed of hundreds of kilometers an hour strikes but does not pass through a physical barrier, it must remain on the side of the barrier it struck. Although, large, heavy objects may be destroyed or damaged by such impacts, neither they nor their debris vanish after such an event.”

    “Structural integrity of the wings, as well as the lack of any holes on either side of the main initial entrance hole, preclude the wings from breaking into eight-foot fragments which then passed into the building individually.”

    I take issue with both those statements. Their paper does not take into account the Pentagon wall where the alleged crash occurred had been rebuilt to make it extremely hardened. Secondly, the F4 Phantom sled test provides pertinent empirical information on how airplanes respond to high-speed impacts into hardened objects. To put it mildly, structural integrity of the wings is not maintained.

    1. Dwain,

      I agree that structural integrity would not be maintained. But you don’t address the main point in their paper – that once the wings came into contact with the hardened wall they would have broken off once the elastic limit of the material was reached.

      You still can’t explain how there could be NO recognizable pieces of the wings outside, even small ones. And you seem to ignore the fact that the wings and the rest of the plane is not alleged to have hit straight on. So other than simply linking to the Sandia test, which I argue is not comparable at all, tell me what scientific principles you are using to conclude that the wings would have become unrecognizable bits of metal hidden among the blades of grass.

      I honestly don’t understand how you can continue to claim it’s “plausible” that major parts of this 100-ton plane could have turned into a smattering of bits of metal on the helipad and lawn.

      1. The wings of the F-4 did not strike the wall straight on even though the fuselage did, as they were swept wings. They did not break off. They disintegrated along the line of wing impact into the wall. There was no rotation of wing sections in the horizontal plane. To emphasize this point, the outer part of the wing (outside the width of the wall) continued flying forward for some distance until gravity brought them to the ground.

        Well, your argument that the Sandia F-4 test is not comparable at all lacks substance. My argument that it is comparable is based on the fact that aviation industry specialists use the F-4 test to validate their analysis tools, then apply these tools to other combinations of airplane models and wall characteristics.

        I also maintain the 100-ton weight, being different from the F-4 weight, is not an important difference. What is important that both airplanes are made up of a variety of component types. They both have very high-density engine cores, they both have body structures designed for their respective design envelopes. I would think the F-4 structure is better able to hold together because it is designed for 9 g maneuvering loads, whereas the transport would only be designed for 3.5 g.

        1. I already responded to Dwain in detail about the Sandia test and explained why it isn’t comparable at all. For instance the Sandia wall was 10 ft thick while the pentagon wall was 2.5 feet thick and we do not see the aftermath in the Sandia test so we don’t know if an engine core was laying on the ground after.

          I notice that Adam Syed’s comment is proved true already in that this becomes a game of whack-a-mole and these discredited points keep coming back over and over even though they have been addressed in depth. I am not going to go through all the BS with Dwain again about the Sandia test, been there done that. As far as I am concerned Dwain is not debating in good faith and in my opinion is not a legitimate truther at this point.

          1. Re: the Sandia test. With Ruffadam’s reasoning, this test was of no value to any real situation. The 10 ft. thick concrete barrier sat on an air cushion. Whereas, there is no situation in the real world where hardened walls have no connection to the ground. Hardened walls, such as that of the refurbished Pentagon wedge 1, are firmly connected to the ground.

            1. Your comment does nothing to address the issues with trying to relate the Sandia test to the pentagon. I do not think you are really a truther Dwain. Just my opinion but I have had it up to my eyeballs wasting time with people like you who ignore the obvious. What obvious thing am I talking about? The CIT presentation you previously endorsed Dwain. You are not credible any more Dwain.

              1. What defines a truther, Ruffadam? A person who pursues the truth wherever it may lead. In this case, I have to give up some of my prevision views when new insights and compelling evidence come along.

                1. A truther is indeed someone who finds and tells the truth no matter who likes it or not. It isn’t an issue when a truther changes his or her stance when some new information comes along in fact they should change when they are shown to be wrong.

                  So you changing your opinion isn’t the issue Dwain, the issue is you changed your opinion based on highly speculative information that in no way whatsoever counters the compelling testimony of the NOC witnesses. The God damned Sandia test doesn’t prove shit about the pentagon Dwayne because the plane didn’t hit. SANDIA IS IRRELLEVANT! repeat that over and over in your head Dwayne until you get what the issue is.

                  Even if a plane did hit the pentagon, which we know is not true, the Sandia test still doesn’t prove jack shit about it because we have no idea what was left after the test on the ground. For all we know there was a mangled engine laying there after the Sandia test. So just give it a rest man, it is pure BS Dwain, the plane flew over and NOTHING you have said or come up with shows that conclusion to be wrong. NOTHING!

                  You know something Dwain you may be book smart but your logic stinks. I am tired of dealing with people slinging around BS and pretending to be truthers.

                  If you are a real truther then stand up like one and support the NOC evidence strongly and openly. Follow the implications of the evidence and say it loud and clear that the pentagon itself staged the crime scene on 9/11 thereby proving insider involvement in the crimes of 9/11. If you don’t do that you are NOT a truther.

                  The BS game you are playing here Dwain says some very disturbing things about you. Why would you persist in trying to obfuscate some of the best proof we have of an inside job? Why would anyone do that? Honestly I wish a real truther was there to slap you in the face and tell you how dirty it is to do what you are doing. it makes me sick.

                  1. Ruffadam, even after endorsing CIT and the north path, I was still perplexed at the lack of evidence concerning a flyover. I explored various possibilities with Craig Ranke, but never dispelled my discomfort.

                    Sometime later, I read something by Kevin Ryan about a sudden change in requirements for the Pentagon wall upgrade. Shortly after “W” came into power, the ongoing refurbishment project had a monkey wrench thrown in the works, as there was a sudden requirement to make the wall much more impenetrable. This caused me to consider the Sandia F-4 sled test much more applicable.

                    Then, the big surprise to me was two pieces of information that came together. (1) The refurbishment project did not harden the stairwells, and (2) a major impact indentation between columns 18 and 19 (2nd floor slab) was the exact location of a stairwell. This meant that a wing impacting the Pentagon across a width spanning several adjacent columns was a likely possibility. Because of what the F-4 test tells us, the wing wouldn’t have caused an indentation where the wall was hardened, but it would make an indentation (as the photo shows) in the section that was not hardened.

                    Thus, new evidence (to me, at least) caused me to revise my conclusions.

                    1. It seems like you are giving more weight to what you believe possibly COULD have happened (pattern of wall damage) than what the best(?) witnesses say actually DID happen (alternate flight path).

                    2. Captivescientist, the “best” witnesses lead to a perplexing problem, that of the overflight. That means I am obliged to weight them down somewhat. Another way of saying that, is they describe something that could have happened.

                      However, if what they describe did happen, that leaves a perplexing question…what caused the impact impression on the exterior wall of the stairwell between cols 18 and 19?

                    3. Dwain, this exposes what I think is some of your faulty logic. You lower the value of the north of Citgo witnesses because you can’t think of a reason for the damage other than a large plane? Could you explain why you think the north of Citgo witnesses, who didn’t realize they were contradicting the official story, would describe virtually the identical flight path if they didn’t see it?

                    4. The lack of compelling overflight evidence is a big part of it. I realize I was giving the North Path witnesses the benefit of the doubt. When there were inconsistencies between early oral testimonies (LOC, etc.) and the years-later CIT interviews, I allowed the inconsistencies to go unchallenged.

                      And your question as to why I think their CIT-interview testimonies where consistently supportive of a north path, I have to now wonder what that reason(s) may have been. I don’t know, but I’m thinking it isn’t innocent. Why do I say that? Because an impact into the Pentagon causing the damage that we see in various photographs has advanced in my mind to become a plausible possibility. If I were a member of a jury today, and the jury were asked if there was reasonable doubt a North Path occurred leading to an overflight, I would say, yes.

                    5. Captivescientist, the Sandia F-4 sled test could hardly be more complete. It was a highly-instrumented aircraft, with emphasis on measuring internal structural load paths under crash conditions. This test provides the basis for a specialty area in the aeronautics / nuclear power industries. This validates analysis tools that are now used to analyze impacts of high-speed air vehicles into protective barriers.

                    6. Dwain, you said “Sometime later, I read something by Kevin Ryan about a sudden change in requirements for the Pentagon wall upgrade. Shortly after “W” came into power, the ongoing refurbishment project had a monkey wrench thrown in the works, as there was a sudden requirement to make the wall much more impenetrable. ”

                      I don’t have a copy of ‘Another Nineteen’, do you have any more details about this?

                    7. “even after endorsing CIT and the north path, I was still perplexed at the lack of evidence concerning a flyover.”

                      Dwain Deets,

                      So are you insisting a plane on the north of citgo path can impact the 5 light poles and hit the Pentagon on the first floor causing the directional damage allegedly documented? Or do you agree that a plane on the north of citgo path CANNOT strike the 5 light poles and hit the first floor of the Pentagon and cause the directional damage?

                      Besides the north of citgo flight path proving a flyover. Here are some other supporting items:

                      “Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going.” ~Erik Dihle, ANC worker
                      http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=499&st=0

                      Roosevelt Roberts interview, was located at East Loading Dock – saw the jet commercial airliner flying away seconds after the explosion:
                      http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/ar/t288.htm

                      Dewitt Roseborough, in South Parking Lot describes plane above his head:
                      It was as he was leaving the Pentagon that the world Roseborough knew changed forever. “I got out into the parking lot, just walking along, and all of a sudden, I hear what I would describe as a ‘lion’s roar’ above my head,” Roseborough said.
                      “It caught my attention, and as I looked up, I heard another roar and I saw this airplane flying low. I thought, ‘Oh, my God, this thing is really low.’ “I thought it was going to crash onto the highway,” recalled Roseborough.
                      http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449

                      Not to mention Robert Turcios saw the plane “pull-up” and Darius Prather saw the plane “pivot up” over Rt 27 on the north of path.

                    8. Paul,
                      it puzzles me slightly how you can read Dewitt Roseborough’s testimony as that of a fly-over after the explosion. He clearly describes first hearing and seeing the plane flying low and thinking it might crash, and then the fireball. Had he witnessed the flyover, he would have first noticed the fireball, then the plane, or both about at the same time, with no time to listen, listen again, look around, and think “OMG”.
                      If he was in the south parking lot near the walkway that he ducked under later, then he wasn’t very far from where AA77 passed low over the Route 27/Columbia Pike intersection (clover). He doesn’t say he “saw” the plane above his head, he said he “heard” it above his head – which is a different thing. I find the entire account consistent with a SoC approach and crash into the Pentagon, as witnessed from just around the corner from the crash site.

                    9. Paul,

                      I can see now I have not been altogether clear.

                      I endorsed CIT and the North Path back in 2010.

                      However, I continued researching the situation, focusing on physical damage to the face of the Pentagon. I concluded sufficient evidence existed in support of a large airplane impact. One ramification is the conclusion contradicted the North Path which I had previously endorsed.

                      I presented my new viewpoint at the DC Pentagon conference in Sep 2013. Although i didn’t say I rejected my CIT and North Path endorsement, that is what a person familiar with the topic should have concluded.

                    10. Paul:

                      If you are going to use Roosevelt Roberts as a flyover witness – you should understand that he said the plane was heading to the southwest which is:

                      1) Right back out over Rte 27 – the area where everyone was scanning the sky for another plane (nobody reported seeing that second pass of the plane),

                      2) In the direction of the C-130 flight path – but obviously that would not happen for another couple of minutes after impact.

                      “Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?
                      Roosevelt: Right.”

                      *Editor’s note: Wayne you have already reproduced this same transcript of Aldo Marquis’s interview with Roosevelt Roberts at least twice. Please do not continue to do this. Any transcripts you have already copied into a comment should not be reproduced again. Just refer people to the original comment. Thank you.-Craig McKee

                    11. Jens doesn’t believe explosives were used to bring down the towers so why would anyone think he has ANY credibility? I certainly don’t. I just ignore his and Wayne’s silly nonsense. There is no reason to regard their opinions as valuable. As far as I am concerned they are just JREF’ers here to waste our time.

                    12. ruffadam,
                      Jens doesn’t believe explosives were used to bring down the towers
                      Here is a little challenge for you: Find me two videos:
                      1. A video of an actual explosive demolition of a tall building
                      2. A video of the collapse of any of the WTC towers
                      Both ought to be with original sound from the camera.
                      Chose the videos such that the sounds of the explosions are more obvious in the WTC video than in the other.

                      Alternatively, you could admit right here and now that there were no obvious explosions just before the WTC towers came down – which makes the believe in explosives a little unobvious.

                    13. Jens:

                      I hope that you are not fixated on only one piece of evidence – such as the singular sounds of individual explosive charges. As I am sure you are aware, the Twin Towers were a much larger building that was destroyed than other controlled demolitions.

                      In a parade, a singular snare drum makes a distinct sound. In a parade with a dozen snare drums doing a drum roll, you will never be able to hear the individual strikes by a drum-stick.

                      If you are looking for irrefutable evidence of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers then let me introduce you to this 18 second video of the South Tower’s demolition:

                      What you just saw was that the demolition wave progressed down the South Tower at a speed that was as-fast-as, or faster than, free fall acceleration. If you noticed, by the time the material was ejected outside of the tower from one floor (in all three directions that you can see — left, front and a bit of the right side), the next floor was exploded and – this is the important part – the ejected material that was in mid-air does not have time to fall to obscure the demolition of the next floor. A gravity-only collapse would travel much slower because the structure above would need to be doing work and that slows the destruction to “slower-than-freefall-acceleration.

                      Consequently this cannot be a gravity-only collapse. It had a lot of explosive help.

                      Also note – the material that is ejected is not just floating “dust”, it is the aluminum skin, the steel perimeter columns and other structural material that lands up to 600 feet away. All heavy enough to fall at free-fall acceleration. It takes about 18 stories for the material in the air to begin to obscure the demolition wave.

                      -Wayne

                      PS. The material ejected outside the footprint stopped about the 5th floor because the “floors” below that were open lobby and had no structure to demolish. No need need // place for explosives and that is why the firefighters survived in the fourth floor staircase.

                    14. Wayne,

                      …you will never be able to hear the individual strikes…
                      Which makes the “explosives” theory a bit unobvious😉

                      What you just saw was that the demolition wave progressed down the South Tower at a speed that was as-fast-as, or faster than, free fall acceleration.
                      No, slower than g. David Chandler measured 2/3 of g. This is consistent with momentum transfer in a pancaking of the floor slabs – and exactly what the video shows. What you believe are explosives going of is simply tens of thousands of cubic meters of air expelled each second, with the dust of crumbling drywall and light-weight concrete.

                      Gotta run!

                    15. Jens:

                      I think you missed the point about the material being ejected out of the building. The demolition wave proceeded as-fast-as of faster than material in free fall outside the building.

                      The David Chandler analysis was describing the acceleration of the top of the tower – for as long as it could be observed. What I was pointing out that the demolition wave destroying the outside of the building (in the three sides you can see (left, front and ejections to the right side by implication) is proceeding too fast for a “gravity-only” collapse.

                      If the South Tower was “collapsing” at less than free fall acceleration, the material falling outside would have obscured the destruction of the next floor down. Instead, what we see is the next floor below is demolished before the material in free fall can obscure the view.

                      From this analysis of material in free fall outside the building, I cannot see anything any about what is happening inside to the core’s structure – so the 2/3 of free fall acceleration by Chandler is not inconsistent.

                      North Tower Demolition Wave

                      In this view of the North Tower, at 0:18 – 0:24, you can see the building being destroyed as a demolition wave races down the center line of the building. The demolition wave here is a narrow strip down facade and is visible in other videos.

                      -Wayne .

                    16. It sounds pretty obvious to me.
                      Jens, did you not read the article above?
                      Huh? The article “Pentagon debates expose emptiness…”? Is not about explosions at WTC… *confused*

                      Or either of MacQueen’s articles. Or the complete oral histories?
                      No, I didn’t read MacQueen’s articles, and certainly not the complete oral histories. Why should I? I understand perfectly well that many people would, and did, report hearing sounds of “explosions” when there were such vast fires and collapses – it’s entirely normal and expected.
                      What would also be entirely normal and expected is for the explosive charges, that detonate just prior to an actual explosive demolition, to record clearly on every single video of the event.
                      There exists no such video of any of the WTC collapses. You, Craig, have not one such video, and you know it.

                      It sounds pretty obvious to me.
                      “Sounds”? You mean, you hear sounds… of what, witnesses speaking and using similes, or do you actually hear any “obvious” explosions that are consistent with explosive demolitions? If the latter: Link and timestamp, please! If the former: Please choose words more carefully, when “sounds” is exactly what we are talking about.

                      No explosive charges sounded when the towers collapsed – that is the only thing obvious here. None capable of bringing them down.
                      Additionally, there doesn’t even exist any theory of how this could have been done. You know this is true, right, Craig? No one in the entire Truth Movement has been able to spell out such a hypothesis. After 15 years, that would be most amazing, if the explosives really were that obvious.

                    17. Jens:

                      You said, “Here is a little challenge for you: Find me two videos:10 A video of an actual explosive demolition of a tall building, 2)2. A video of the collapse of any of the WTC towers. Both ought to be with original sound from the camera.”

                      Based on this challenge, I anticipate that that a video with sounds of explosives like you wanted will change your mind about looking at the evidence for controlled demolition.” So here is one:

                      This is from Rick Siegel’s “9/11 Eyewitness.” The only problem with his video is that it was done about three years before the discovery of nanothermite in the World Trade Center dust – so his explanation about the source of the persistent heat in the months following the WTC demolitions should be updated.

                      The following video has some failed controlled demolitions.

                      I use this to explain that buildings have inherent structural integrity – and that when the explosions stop, the building destruction cant proceed.

                      I met your challenge – now what are you going to ask for next? Possibly you could ask for a video of Dick Cheney wiring the WTC for demolition – but I don’t have one of those.

                      -Wayne

                    18. Wayne, my challenge was:
                      Chose the videos such that the sounds of the explosions are more obvious in the WTC video than in the other.
                      You did not meet that challenge, for the second video has loud, clear, crisp, sharp explosion sounds before each (failed) collapse, while the WTC video has sounds that are not obvious explosions. I was rather surprised you’d pick a video shot from 1.6 miles away. The same sounds ought to have overwhelmed the soundtrack of many videos shot much closer.

                      (Oh, and no one found nanothermite, and nanothermite could not explain persistent heat due to it releasing too little heat. I am amazed how so many of you allowed yourselves to be so thoroughly duped by Steven Jones)

                    19. Jens:

                      So … you didn’t like the Rick Siegel “North Tower Sound Wave Analysis” because it was over a 1.8 miles of water I chose Rick’s video because it had a time-corrected audio analysis that accounted to the difference between visual observations and the audio record – the audio travels at the speed of sound – instead of the speed of light.

                      So here is another video with a “same camera” that records video and an accompanying audio track that captures the sounds of explosions. You can hear the biggest two explosions at 2:49 and 2:55 in the video. I am sure you understand that the audio will be delayed, relative to the visual, because of the distance (and speed) of the sound needs to travel.

                      The two large explosions in the above are probably the same explosions that are hears in the Rick Siegel video at 0:51 and 0:57 seconds in the video.

                      I assume that you are are not troubled by evidence that contradicts your cherished beliefs. That is the hallmark of cognitive dissonance.

                      This blog has plenty of cognitive dissonance as evidenced by Craig, Adam, Adam and others inability to accept – even acknowledge – evidence that contradicts their cherished beliefs about a flyover – or a large plane impact.

                      -Wayne

                    20. Wayne, I appreciate the effort – but do you really consider these sounds to be explosions, even obvious explosions?
                      You haven’t met the second part of my challenge – to show an actual explosive demolition where the sounds of the explosions are less obvious than at the WTC.
                      What I want to convince you of is not necessarily that there were no explosions, but that no explosions were obvious – as you previously implied.

                      There are no obvious sounds of explosions
                      There are no obvious flashed of light from explosions
                      There are no obvious shockwaves from explosions
                      There is no obvious high-speed (hundreds of mph) shrapnell flying away from explosions
                      There are no steel segments obviously cut by explosives
                      There are no injuries stemming obviously from explosives (barotrauma and the like)
                      There was no explosives-trained canine that barked
                      Nobody has found explosives in any of the remains (and no, no one found nanothermite, and even if they did, nanothermite is not a steel-cutting explosive; not even Harrit and Jones claim that their alleged nanothermite was used as an explosive)

                      So the obvious reality is: There were no obvious explosive demolition charges. All you have is anomalies that you interprete with a bias towards CD.

                      Now: I don’t know what those loud sounds in your videos are, and I will give it a try identifying them, once you meet the challenge and find me an explosive CD with less obvious sounds. I note for the newest video you posted about 9 hours ago that the sounds were generated much closer to the cam than the tower was (they don’t reverberate), or, if they come from the tower, were generated well after collapse initiation. Why are there no obvious sounds of explosions immediately prior to collapse initiation? And why would anybody rig the lower part of the tower with explosives – do you really believe the collapse would have arrested after the top half was already descenging with great momentum? Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?

                      I’ll have an extremely busy weekend and may not reply again until sunday or monday.

                    21. Jens:

                      Your complete dismissal of the sound of explosions in the previously referenced video clips and the video clips showin demolition waves proceeding down the Twin Towers as-fast-or-faster that the debris in freefall suggest that nothing will shake your purported disbelief of the evidence for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.

                      Since you raised the issue, lets move on to a more technical discussion. You said:

                      ” … do you really believe the collapse would have arrested after the top half was already descending with great momentum? Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?”

                      In fact, using NIST’s own data, in conjunction with measured observations, the descent of the top of the North Tower should have been arrested after about two-four seconds – assuming that it should have started in the first place..

                      You are certainly aware that NIST never simulated the destruction of the Twin Towers – nor did any analysis of the structure once they deemed “global collapse was inevitable.” They had a good reason not to publish their results – the buildings would not have experienced a progressive collapse. They relied on the fraud of Zdenek Bazant’s published papers.

                      A 2009 paper by Szamboti and MacQueen went to the heart of the progressive collapse fraud. There was no observed jolt.

                      In 2011, Bazant published a paper written in response to a paper by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti (“The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, 2009), although the authors simply referred to MacQueen and Szamboti’s work as “… a new objection, pertaining to the smoothness of the observed motion history of the tower top, … raised and disseminated on the Internet”.

                      It appears that Bazant (in desperation?) took up the challenge and wrote a paper describing the progressive collapse mechanism. In order to make the numbers work, he had to assume:

                      1) The floors were much heavier than NIST said they were, and
                      2) The column strength / column resistance was less than what NIST, said
                      3) The acceleration was freefall for the first floor (instead of the observed 2/3 of freefall acceleration)

                      When corrected by Szamboti and Johns in a discussion paper, they showed that because of the momentum transfer and structural resistance, the acceleration would negative (e.g. slowing to an eventual stop) if the correct values were used (e.g those contained in the NIST report or derivable from it). If the observed acceleration was used, then the progressive collapse would have been halted in under 4 seconds.

                      This is an image of the graph showing the Bazant acceleration (blue line) and the effect of using corrected values.

                      You can see that with the corrected values, the downward velocity returns to 0 m/s.

                      You can see more discussion here:

                      https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557-news-releases/465-asce-journals-refuse-to-correct-fraudulent-paper-they-published-on-wtc-collapses.html

                      -Wayne

                    22. Wayne,

                      …lets move on…
                      No, Wayne, let’s not move on when you have misrepresented my previous comments, not answered my questions and not met my video challenge😉

                      Your complete dismissal of the sound of explosions in the previously referenced video clips…
                      Untrue, Wayne! I did not “completely dismis” these sounds – I addressed them, and askey you questions, to which I shall return shortly! I think we should get to the bottom of those two clips and do our best to either corroborate or falsify your allegation that theses sounds are the sounds of explosives exploding to demoligh the tower🙂

                      Your complete dismissal of … the video clips showin demolition waves proceeding down the Twin Towers as-fast-or-faster that the debris in freefall
                      Untrue again, Wayne! I pointed you to the evidence, contained in the very same videos, that the “demolition” (actually just: colllapse) waves proceded slower than debris in freefall – you just need to look at the large, heavy pieces, not the dust, not the fluttering aluminium sheets. You failed to address this – may I take that as you dismissing evidence that refutes your claim?

                      Wayne, I had asked, and you quoted my question:
                      … do you really believe the collapse would have arrested after the top half was already descending with great momentum? Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?
                      Please note the added emphasise on “after the top half…
                      You replied – but ignored the bit about “after the top half…”:
                      the descent of the top of the North Tower should have been arrested after about two-four seconds – assuming that it should have started in the first place
                      Do you see how you answer a question I didn’t ask? Your reply is about the early stages of collapse progression, my question about the later stages. This was misleading on your part, because the elipse that started your quote of my question cut out the crucial context in which I asked it! Here is my question including, in bold face, the bit you clipped out:
                      And why would anybody rig the lower part of the tower with explosives – do you really believe the collapse would have arrested after the top half was already descenging with great momentum?
                      Wayne, please answer that question, and none other!

                      I have to admit at this point that I made a stupid thinking mistake leading up to that question – in my mind, I had “corrected” the sound by placing the event at 10 seconds later in the video, which made me think the two sounds, if they originated from the WTC, did so several seconds after collapse initiation. Of course correction goes the other way: The Onno de Jong videos were shot from 9th Street and 1st Avenue, which is about 3 km / 1.9 miles away, such that sound would take approx 9 seconds earlier:

                      The sound heard at 2:49 min would have been generated at ca. 2:40 min, and the sound heard at 2:55 min at 2:46 min; that’s ca. 10 and 4 seconds prior to visible collapse initiation. If you go to the video and watch around those two time stamps, you will note that there is no corresponding visual event: No flashes, no pressure wave pushing out fire or smoke…

                      Wayne, I further asked:
                      Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?
                      This applies to any stage of the collapse progressions once we see the top segment has tilted such that columns are no longer vertically aligned around the collapse zone, and the entire top has started coming down.
                      (I acknowledge that I have not yet spoken of what caused collapse initiation; these questions go to the question of what happened during the collapse progression – after initiation, whether it was explosives on all levels all the way down, or gravity-driven “pancaking”.)
                      Please answer the quoted question!

                      I also asked, and that goes back to my challenge and the video clip you offered:
                      do you really consider these sounds to be explosions, even obvious explosions?
                      That’s two questions – please answer both (a “yes” to “obvious explosion” would answer both)!

                      What I want to convince you of is not necessarily that there were no explosions, but that no explosions were obvious – as you previously implied. That’s what the last questions are about.

                      You still haven’t met the second part of my challenge – to show an actual explosive demolition where the sounds of the explosions are less obvious than at the WTC. I need now an actual explosive demoltition where the explosions are even less obvious than the two, apparently near, noises in the Onno de Jong video.

                      As far as Bazanz, Szamboti and the “missing jolt” are concerned:
                      Szamboti accepts Bazant’s models as modelling the actual WTC collapses – and that is Szamboti’s prime error. Base assumption false – all that follows is invalid.

                      Let me explain very briefly:
                      Bazant and Zhou, in a paper that Bazant had drafted a day after 9/11, and which they got published in 2002, assumed that IF the collapse would be resisted by the columns on every level, all the way through (that would be, I assume, what AE911Truth calls the “path of greatest resistance”) AND IF somehow the top segment had a chance to fall at freefall acceleration through the height of 1 floor, then the collapse could not have arrested as the potential energy differential per unit height (e.g. 1 story) is greater than what the columns can absorb. This is a limiting case analysis, but both assumptions don’t actually apply to the WTC: The top segment never fell at feefall, there was never a literal 1-story gap – but most importantly, the falling mass didn’t load the columns significantly after it had started falling. 98% of the area of the tower is floor or lateral beams, and only 2% is columns. Plus, the top part descending is proof positive of most columns having failed AND passing each other.
                      It follows that most of the falling mass impacted horizontal members, which were far weaker than the columns and could not nearly offer as much resistance. Hence Bazant’s first paper was far too “optimistic” as far as survivability is concerned.

                      And hence my question:
                      Don’t you agree that the floor slabs would bear the brunt of the downward momentum and would be very much overwhelmed, seeing that their connections could at most withstand a mass of 6 floors if applied dynamically?

                      (Oh, and Bazant’s follow-up papers elaborated on his initial “column loading” model, and are thus also not applicable at any detail level to the actual WTC collapses. NIST, afaik, only made reference to Bazant & Zhou’s limiting case, which was perfectly legitimate. NIST picked the correct part from Bazant, Szamboti the wrong parts. And added a couple more errors of reasoning)

                    23. Jens:

                      You insisted on an answer to this question, “And why would anybody rig the lower part of the tower with explosives – do you really believe the collapse would have arrested after the top half was already descending with great momentum?”

                      So here it is: Buildings have a lot of structural integrity. If you stop blowing-up a building, the destruction stops. You can see thin in numerous exaples of failed contriolled demolition.

                      So the answer is Yes. The building “collapse” would have been arrested without continued demolition.

                      I will try to get to answer your other comments later.

                      -Wayne

                    24. Ruffadam:

                      Excuse me!

                      What part of my discussion about WTC Building 7 didn’t you understand? The only way this can happen is with explosives as I said in this post and the earlier post to this one.

                      Initial
                      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42048

                      Follow-up
                      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42068

                      You can suggest that Jens is either confused about the evidence or misinformed.

                      However, I expect that we are on the same page concerning WTC Building 7. Is that correct?

                      -Wayne

            2. Dwain, I agree with Adam that the Sandia test is not comparable and irrelevant. You can’t offer any reasonable explanation for why the alleged plane would penetrate to the C ring WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY turning to confetti. This is the main reason the Sandia test offers no benefit or insight whatsoever. I really don’t know what it is you are trying to prove. You admit that all you have is speculation and what you claim are “plausible” scenarios. They aren’t.

              1. Craig, I strongly suspect no parts of the plane penetrated to the C Ring, certainly not high enough to hit the wall half way up. I did an analysis once showing no unobstructed path existed between the columns that remained standing after the event.

                1. Whether they penetrated that far or not isn’t really the point. How can the fuselage penetrate even half that distance while the wings and tail are turned to confetti outside? This requires an answer from you. And this is the biggest reason why the Sandia test doesn’t solve anything.

                  1. Craig, I think only the few very dense items penetrated the wall. The fuselage, other than the wing undercarriage and landing gear, likely was pulverized just like the wing and tail.

                    1. I do not find you to be credible at all Dwayne. Not at all. There is no reason whatsoever to think the NOC witnesses are wrong or lying. You offer NOTHING to counter them except some vague and may I say lame excuse that CIT interviewed them much later. You know and I know you know many of them gave the same testimony to the government in interviews shortly after 9/11. I can only conclude that you are being intentionally dishonest now.

                    2. Dwain, Craig et al:

                      What mystifies me about this discussion of the “hardened wall” versus the Sandia test is that the jet in the Sandia test hit a solid block of concrete that was — as I understand it — 10 feet thick. The block was a solid reinforced concrete wall with no pre-existing, built in weak spots. The test was intended to aid in the impact of a plane into a solid nuclear reactor containment dome.

                      The Pentagon wall was reinforced – but nowhere near the strength or mass of the Sandia wall. As you should know, each 7ft x 4.5 ft window (31.5 sq ft) was centered in a section of the wall that was 13.5 ft x 10 ft (135 as ft). This means that 23 percent of the wall area was no more than blast resistant glass (31.5 / 135 = 0.23). This reinforced Pentagon wall had nowhere near the amount of either mass or structural integrity of the Sandia wall.

                      Remember that the reinforced concrete section in the Pentagon wall was only 10″ thick (and began with 23 percent “missing”). The remaining portion of the wall had 6″ of limestone facing and 8″ of brick.

                      To insinuate that the 24″ (2 ft) of the Pentagon wall (with 23 percent missing) was even remotely comparable the Sandia wall suggests that you “are comparing apples and oranges” — although the analogy is probably more like apples and cannon balls (with the 10′ solid Sandia wall being the ‘cannon ball’ and the 2ft thick mixed limestone-brick-concrete wall with 23 percent [7′ x 4.5 ft] voids being the the ‘apple.’)

                      I think you should both reconsider your discussion about these tests in light of the greatly weaker Pentagon wall with built-in openings versus the Sandia concrete block.

                      -Wayne

                    3. Wayne,

                      I don’t suggest the massive concrete block, on the one hand, and the hardened Pentagon wall on the other hand, are more or less similar in shape or, let’s say, strength. In fact, the biggest difference was the concrete block wasn’t attached to the ground, or even setting on the ground. It was on a friction-less surface. Whereas, the wall was attached firmly to the ground.

                      But. the way the aircraft structure behaves should be similar. That is, the aircraft structure isn’t designed to withstand such impacts. The aircraft structure is designed to be as light as it can be, while still being strong enough to hold together at the various design conditions: maneuvering loads, gust loads, etc.

                      The paper which I referenced in the article I wrote on this subject shows an example (computer study) of an F-15 striking a wall at high speed. The wall was probably similar in width to that of the Pentagon wall. And, I presume, it was attached firmly to a foundation. The engine core was shown just as it was breaking through the wall, whereas, all the lighter-weight structure was shown crumbling away as tiny bits and pieces.

                    4. So the undercarriage created a hole that had the rough outline of a plane (small on the second floor and wider on the first)? It’s still just speculation on your part. All of it is.

    2. Craig, I just watched a version of Ken Jenkins video that he gave to me at the Ken O’Keefe event in Berkeley. It showed pictures of airplane debris which I had never seen before. Allegedly inside the Pentagon.
      I recommend watching it and I have helped finance CIT since Pentacon.

      1. I don’t know if you mean a new version or the same one I’ve already seen. I will certainly watch it if it is a new version of what I saw last fall. If you have a link to this version, could you post it here? I’m always interested in the latest attempts to push the Pentagon official story.

  5. Ken Doc of the Facebook group “9/11 Truth Movement” has responded to the 10 questions I posted at the end of this article that impact supporters must be able to answer. Needless to say, his answers require a response.

    He writes: “I easily answered Craig’s 10 questions.”

    My responses to his answers are included below.

    Q1: Why would more than a dozen highly credible witnesses describe a virtually identical north of Citgo flight path unless this is what they saw?

    KD: All of the 14 witnesses claim a plane hit the Pentagon.

    CM: This does not answer the question. And not all of them claim a plane hit the Pentagon. For example, Edward Paik situated the plane over the Naval Annex, but he could not see the Pentagon or any possible impact. So again, the question is why would all of these witnesses describe a flight path that was to the north of the Citgo gas station unless this is what they saw?

    Q2: Since we know the wings did not penetrate, why weren’t they lying on the lawn? Same for the tail section and horizontal stabilizers.

    KD: Because an object (in this case a plane) slamming into a steel reinforced concrete wall will break into pieces.

    CM: This is a woefully inadequate response. Of course it will break into pieces but some of those pieces would be larger than what we saw.

    Q3: How could the plane have entered through a hole much smaller than required without leaving large pieces of wreckage outside?

    KD: Because the hole was not a 16′ hole, the damage left a gash in the first floor that extended over 100′.

    CM: Again, this does not answer the question. I make no claim that the hole was 16 feet wide. In fact, the hole on the second floor is less than 20 feet but with an intact column bisecting the opening. On the first floor, there is a “gash” that is about 80 feet wide where the wall is open but there are still some columns that are partially intact. The uninterrupted opening (no columns in the way) is only about 50 feet. This is clearly visible in the composite photos that have been put together.

    Q4: Why was there no significant damage to the wall or even to windows that would have been hit by the tail and stabilizers?

    KD: Completely false, there are close up images showing damage which likely could have been from the wings and tail.

    CM: It is Ken’s statement that is completely false. We can see clearly in photos that windows above the second floor opening are not even broken. That is where the tail section would have hit. Ken would have to clarify what damage he’s talking about (keep in mind, I don’t mention the wings in this question).

    Q5: How could the fuselage penetrate 310 feet into the building if the wings and tail section were turned to confetti on impact?

    KD: Because the first floor of the Pentagon was a huge open space with nothing to obstruct the plane but a few dozen support columns.

    CM: Again, he misses the point of the question. First of all, even the ASCE report acknowledges that the plane would have lost structural integrity before penetrating more than half the distance to the C ring hole. But my point was that it can’t be had both ways. How could the plane penetrate that far WHILE the wings and tail are turned to confetti outside? It makes no sense.

    Q6: How could the tiny amount of unidentified debris around the helipad possibly represent thousands of pounds of aircraft wreckage?

    KD: Because most of the debris entered inside the Pentagon, the small to midsize pieces of debris were scattered from the explosive fireball from the plane impact.

    CM: Here, Ken simply speculates. This is very common among those pushing a plane impact. Does he realize that Chandler and company claim that major parts of the plane were turned to confetti OUTSIDE the building? How does he know that most of the debris entered? And I don’t even know what he means by “small and midsize pieces” being “scattered. Scattered where?

    Q7: What happened to the virtually indestructible engine cores, and why didn’t they create two exit holes?

    KD: Well one engine core part was found and I’m not sure where the other engine went.

    CM: One part that appears to be from an engine was found. But a 757 engine core should have been much larger than that. No one has contested this. And the fact that he doesn’t know where the other engine went is telling.

    Q8: Given that the plane would have completely lost structural integrity halfway to the rounded C ring hole, what can account for the hole?

    KD: There are several theories as to what caused the 12′ exit hole. Even the FBI can’t say exactly how it happened. It could have been the landing gear or something else, I’m not really sure. But if you look at the pile of debris in front of the hole, I would assume it was part of the plane caused that hole.

    CM: He doesn’t know. He assumes.

    Q9: Why were all synchronized frames from the two camera views identical except for the single frame that is supposed to show a plane?

    KD: I believe the CCTV has clearly been manipulated, edited and photoshopped. This is pretty much the only thing I agree with Craig on.

    CM: I’m glad we agree on this, but, as you see with his following answer, he offers no explanation for why they would do this.

    Q10: Why would the government fake video of the crash if an actual crash took place?”

    KD: Exactly, why would they fake a plane crash considering they just flew to planes into the Towers. And I’m not talking about the hijackers.

    CM: This does not answer the question. And he asks a pointless question in return. Why would he assume they would do things the same at all three sites?

    My conclusion is that Ken Doc’s answers fail to address the issues raised in the questions.

      1. Brand new pearls of integrity:

        Mike Collins: “People out there want to TRICK and MISLEAD you! One of them is named Craig McKee and he writes a disinformation blog which seeks to convince you that holograms and russian missiles hit the Pentagon. His small group of conspiracy sheep write articles to confuse people and spread misinformation, while ignoring facts.”

        Ken Doc: “Collins is not a shill and I can say that with 100% certainty. He doesn’t talk very nicely to people he disagrees with but the arguments he makes are spot on.”

        Holograms and Russian missiles hit the Pentagon? The most juvenile disinformation imaginable, and Ken Doc thinks his arguments are “spot on.”

        1. Bu..but Craig, that’s just Mike’s snarky rhetorical STYLE! He’s just a big kidder! You don’t actually believe he thinks that do you? You must be even more gullible than previously suspected! LOL!

          You call yourself a truther, but can’t even be bothered to READ BETWEEN THE LINES to find the substance of Mike’s argument that I’m 100% certain is there. ROFL! Lighten up! You’re acting like someone died!

          1. Captivescientist,

            Yes, of course, I forgot that Collins just gets mean with people who are mean to him first! He’s like a mentor to all of us. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

    1. Ken Doc of the Facebook group “9/11 Truth Movement” has responded to the 10 questions I posted at the end of this article that impact supporters must be able to answer. Needless to say, his answers require a response.

      He writes: “I easily answered Craig’s 10 questions.”

      My responses to his answers are included below.

      Q1: Why would more than a dozen highly credible witnesses describe a virtually identical north of Citgo flight path unless this is what they saw?

      KD: All of the 14 witnesses claim a plane hit the Pentagon.

      CM: This does not answer the question. And not all of them claim a plane hit the Pentagon. For example, Edward Paik situated the plane over the Naval Annex, but he could not see the Pentagon or any possible impact. So again, the question is why would all of these witnesses describe a flight path that was to the north of the Citgo gas station unless this is what they saw?

      Ed: What makes these witnesses highly credible? I know for a fact that Lagasse was interviewed in Nov. of 2001 just a few short months after 9/11 and he speaks of the image of the plane striking the Pentagon being etched into his mind. He makes no mention of a North Side flyover. This didn’t happen until 5 years later. Not quite as fresh in the memory.

      Q2: Since we know the wings did not penetrate, why weren’t they lying on the lawn? Same for the tail section and horizontal stabilizers.

      KD: Because an object (in this case a plane) slamming into a steel reinforced concrete wall will break into pieces.

      CM: This is a woefully inadequate response. Of course it will break into pieces but some of those pieces would be larger than what we saw.

      ED: Why would they be larger? Exactly how large would they be? Who told you that they would be larger?

      Q3: How could the plane have entered through a hole much smaller than required without leaving large pieces of wreckage outside?

      KD: Because the hole was not a 16′ hole, the damage left a gash in the first floor that extended over 100′.

      CM: Again, this does not answer the question. I make no claim that the hole was 16 feet wide. In fact, the hole on the second floor is less than 20 feet but with an intact column bisecting the opening. On the first floor, there is a “gash” that is about 80 feet wide where the wall is open but there are still some columns that are partially intact. The uninterrupted opening (no columns in the way) is only about 50 feet. This is clearly visible in the composite photos that have been put together.

      ED: Again you make an assumption that the hole isn’t big enough. Obviously it was. So you’re question is loaded.

      Q4: Why was there no significant damage to the wall or even to windows that would have been hit by the tail and stabilizers?

      KD: Completely false, there are close up images showing damage which likely could have been from the wings and tail.

      CM: It is Ken’s statement that is completely false. We can see clearly in photos that windows above the second floor opening are not even broken. That is where the tail section would have hit. Ken would have to clarify what damage he’s talking about (keep in mind, I don’t mention the wings in this question).

      ED: Again you make assumptions that there would be significant damage to a particular portion of the building? How can anyone try to explain the kinetics of an exploding aircraft as it strikes a building. Again your question is loaded. Why not apply the same standard to the portions of the building that were significantly damaged?

      Q5: How could the fuselage penetrate 310 feet into the building if the wings and tail section were turned to confetti on impact?

      KD: Because the first floor of the Pentagon was a huge open space with nothing to obstruct the plane but a few dozen support columns.

      CM: Again, he misses the point of the question. First of all, even the ASCE report acknowledges that the plane would have lost structural integrity before penetrating more than half the distance to the C ring hole. But my point was that it can’t be had both ways. How could the plane penetrate that far WHILE the wings and tail are turned to confetti outside? It makes no sense.

      ED: Because the nose of the fuselage contains the landing gear which has significant weight which means more mass and therefore more momentum to keep going after impact. This is why you see the landing gear and the front wheels outside the exist hole.

      Q6: How could the tiny amount of unidentified debris around the helipad possibly represent thousands of pounds of aircraft wreckage?

      KD: Because most of the debris entered inside the Pentagon, the small to midsize pieces of debris were scattered from the explosive fireball from the plane impact.

      CM: Here, Ken simply speculates. This is very common among those pushing a plane impact. Does he realize that Chandler and company claim that major parts of the plane were turned to confetti OUTSIDE the building? How does he know that most of the debris entered? And I don’t even know what he means by “small and midsize pieces” being “scattered. Scattered where?

      ED: Again, another loaded question. Who says that the debris around the helipad is unidentified? and who said that, that debris represents thousands of pounds of aircraft wreckage? The FBI on scene were working in conjunction with the NTSB to identify plane parts from other debris. So aircraft identification procedures were put in place.

      Q7: What happened to the virtually indestructible engine cores, and why didn’t they create two exit holes?

      KD: Well one engine core part was found and I’m not sure where the other engine went.

      CM: One part that appears to be from an engine was found. But a 757 engine core should have been much larger than that. No one has contested this. And the fact that he doesn’t know where the other engine went is telling.

      ED: Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The engine parts that were found belong to a RB211 Rolls Royce engine. The same engine used in 757’s along with the PW2000 made by Pratt & Whitney. Also no exit holes were made by engines. The exit hole was more than likely made by the front landing gear wheel assembly. This can be deduced since it was sitting outside the hole.

      Q8: Given that the plane would have completely lost structural integrity halfway to the rounded C ring hole, what can account for the hole?

      KD: There are several theories as to what caused the 12′ exit hole. Even the FBI can’t say exactly how it happened. It could have been the landing gear or something else, I’m not really sure. But if you look at the pile of debris in front of the hole, I would assume it was part of the plane caused that hole.

      CM: He doesn’t know. He assumes.

      ED: Again another loaded question with nothing but speculation. You can’t just assume it would have lost complete structural integrity.

      Q9: Why were all synchronized frames from the two camera views identical except for the single frame that is supposed to show a plane?

      KD: I believe the CCTV has clearly been manipulated, edited and photoshopped. This is pretty much the only thing I agree with Craig on.

      CM: I’m glad we agree on this, but, as you see with his following answer, he offers no explanation for why they would do this.

      ED: Havn’t studied this issue enough to answer.

      Q10: Why would the government fake video of the crash if an actual crash took place?”

      KD: Exactly, why would they fake a plane crash considering they just flew to planes into the Towers. And I’m not talking about the hijackers.

      CM: This does not answer the question. And he asks a pointless question in return. Why would he assume they would do things the same at all three sites?

      ED: It’s possible they wanted to cover up secondary device explosions.

      My conclusion is that Ken Doc’s answers fail to address the issues raised in the questions.

      REPLY

          1. To be clear, Ed Brotherton and Mockingbirdpost are one and the same. Ed, it’s essential that you use one name when commenting on this blog to avoid confusion. Thank you.

  6. People promoting the official story about the Pentagon should receive the same respect and deference as those promoting the official story about the WTC, ie, none.

    In most truth circles, if someone were to repeatedly and vehemently argue that planes and burning jet fuel brought down the WTC towers, they would be shown the door. They would not be a given a forum and a microphone to spread their disinformation far and wide.

    And yet this is what we see with regard to the Pentagon. People making the most outlandish claims are invited to speak at conferences, mentioned in books, and generally given a level of respect that they in no way deserve.

    The human drive to conform is strong, and if certain people are held up as role models, certain other people will parrot their opinions unthinkingly. It’s pretty sad to see the extent to which this has happened in the truth movement — although the poll results from those debates give me hope.

    1. I agree, Sheila. And in the much earlier years of the truth movement, there were indeed individuals who claimed to be truthers in other regards (LIHOP, or even remote controlled planes) but insisted that controlled demolition was (1) an unproven theory and (2) destined to make us look foolish in the eyes of the general public. Exactly what some still use as their rationale for opposing a faked plane crash at the Pentagon.

      Many of those individuals were shown the door. One example: many of us surely remember Jeffrey Orling on the teleconference email list serve. (He posts as JSanderO at the “International Skeptics” forum and can be seen regularly bashing 9/11 truth and AE.) He also used to work for AE. Infiltrator for sure. Glad truthers came to their senses and showed him the door.

      I think that Wayne Coste needs to be shown the door. Anyone who dismisses the following witness as unreliable:

      https://truthandshadows.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/lagassenorth.jpg?w=300&h=225

      While at the same time vouches for the accuracy and authenticity of someone who had this vantage point:

      https://truthandshadows.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/steve-storti-balcony.jpg?w=300&h=225

      There is no longer a shred of doubt that this person is not “debating” in good faith. This goes beyond incompetency. This goes beyond an honest difference of opinion. This is professional spin in our midst and it’s time it be shown the door.

        1. Sheila and Adam:

          You know of course that in his 2001 interview that is available in the Library of Congress that Lagasse said the plane was 60 feet from him on 9/11:

          [audio src="https://stream-media.loc.gov/afc/911/afc2001015_sr342a01.mp3" /]

          “Sgt. William Lagasse of the Department Protective Services Police at the Pentagon.

          On September 11th the morning of the terrorist attack I was refueling my police cruiser at the Barrack K gas station approximately one-eighth of a mile from the heliport side of the Pentagon.

          While I was refilling my tank I was standing outside the vehicle. It was a really nice day. It was a beautiful blue sky.

          Ummm . American airlines 757 flew approximately 100 feet above the ground level. Maybe 60 feet in front of me. And that was probably – I’m trying to think here – give some estimate of speed – at the time I thought was was probably 400 miles per hour. Which was about right. The wing blast from the wing vorticies knocked me into my vehicle.”

          The transformers that he was pointing to in the CIT interview — where he said was the center line of the fuselage was located — was about 350 feet away from where he was standing. I don’t know about you, but it is hard to imaging a police officer confusing 60 feet with 350 feet (his 2001 firm memory version) with a 2006 or 2007 reconstituted version.

          Did you really watch him as he explained how he reconstructed the events of the day? Did you see him when he realized that he had been at a different gas pump that the one he began the interview claiming to be at (because if the Citgo Security Camera video)? Did you ever think that he might have been confused and turned around? You know that 60 feet away from him would have been the approximate location of the plane during the south-of-Citgo flight path.

          1. Wayne why do you and the other impact supporters such as Chandler refuse to acknowledge the gigantic elephant in the room? That being the undeniable implications of the NOC flight path.

            The NOC flight path that has been established without doubt by over a dozen eye witnesses who all drew virtually identical flight paths on a photo of the area. The flight path is set in stone and backed up by multiple lines of other evidence such as doctored video presented by the government itself Wayne and it cannot be denied by picking at minutia the way you are. Just stop with the BS already the NOC path is proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

            Your so called witnesses are absolute garbage by comparison to the gold standard NOC witnesses and you would be laughed out of court trying to use their laughably bad “testimony” to support your case. We ripped your so called witnesses to shreds in the debate and believe me when I tell you it could have been much worse if we had more time.

            Face the elephant in the room Wayne or just stop talking man. You MUST explain how it is possible for all these NOC witnesses to be wrong or lying in some sort of plausible way or else your impact scenario is FATALLY EVISCERATED!!! Face it or shut up man because I am sick of the BS that this is still a debate. It isn’t a debate, our side has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that impact was impossible. All that is left now are unreasonable doubts and lies on the other side. So which one are you Wayne? Unreasonable, or are you simply a liar?

            Trying to twist and worm Lagasse’s testimony into your scenario is down right dishonest so I am starting to lean toward liar myself. Lagasse said he would bet his life on the NOC path he drew. All the other CIT witnesses corroborate that path including George Aman. That flight path is absolutely fatal to the impact scenario. You have done ZERO to counter this undeniable truth.

            Are you simply psychologically unable to admit it when you are wrong? What is the real issue here with you and Chandler and Jenkins and the rest of the cabal pushing this BS lie? Is it just ego? What the hell is wrong with you people? Are you getting paid to do this shit? At least that I could sort of understand, even though it is evil and wrong on every level, at least it would be a reason to do what you are doing. I just don’t get it. How do you think you are even remotely credible at this point? You refuse to address the giant elephant standing on your face. Sickening.

      1. Infiltrator? Adam your are a paranoid person… How about I learned and revised and updated and ADVANCED my thinking and decided that many of the truth people are delusional and science deniers, though they refuse to believe this. I think most are well-intentioned… but they simply are wrong and are stubborn and refuse to budge one iota.

        NIST made mistakes for sure. I am not supporter or promoter of NIST. I am 68 yr old semi retired architect who has been politically left my whole life. I don’t take the word from the media or the US give spokesman without a huge grain of salt. After 7 years if study I am pretty convinced that the buildings collapsed because of failures in the connections from warping of the steel members due to heat expansion. When the connections fail, the structure loses its integrity… the loads – floors and contents and parts of the structure begin to drop and their mass is more than enough to destroy the floors they fall on and make the collapse go unstoppable and runaway.

        I don’t believe for a second that there are paid infiltrators in the truth movement. Frankly very very few even take it seriously. It is perceived as no threat.

        Whatever caused 9/11 is not excuse for the disgusting USG response which has killed millions of innocent people and is turning the ME to a wasteland leaving hundreds of millions stateless and pissed off. I am a pacifist and a rationalist. The 9/11 conspiracy is now simply and interesting way to pass some time from my desk top PC a few times a day… But it’s not the only site I visit for this purpose… ballet and sailing and politics…

        You can disagree with me, claim I am stupid or uniformed but calling me an infiltrator is slanderous. A word to the wise is sufficient. Dial it back Adam.

        (Editor’s note: jsandero wrote this as if I had been the one to call him an infiltrator, but it was actually Adam Syed. So I changed the two references to me that were clearly intended to be for Adam.-Craig McKee)

        1. Yeah. I do strongly suspect infiltrator Mr. Orling. Sorry if it hurts your feelings. And you’re petty damn naive if you actually think there are no infiltrators at all. Cass Sunstein wrote the memo on “cognitive infiltration” and specifically mentioned 9/11 truth.

          Do you lurk all the time at this blog or did your JREFer buddy Oystein point you to it?

        2. While this is off-topic for the Pentagon discussion of this blog – the problem with a gravity-only collapse of the north tower of the WTC is: why there is so little debris in the footprint of the towers. Why did the survivors in the 4th floor stairwell look up and see “blue sky above” them? Why weren’t they under the debris of 106 stories above them? What pushed all the debris outside the footprint of the twin towers?

          https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557-news-releases/411-destruction-of-the-twin-towers.html

          The “collapse” of the WTC twin towers cannot be a gravity only collapse.

          -Wayne

        3. Thermal expansion is a laughably stupid concept to be pushing as a means of building destruction Jeffrey. You make yourself into a literal joke for even suggesting it. First of all the steel below the fire level would not get hot and therefore would not expand and therefore would provide resistance to the falling structures above. No resistance from the structure below the fire level is observed however so your lame (NIST) theory is busted and totally exposed as utter unscientific crap. Your theory is absolute bunk and complete hogwash and the speed of the fall of the buildings proves it.

          By the way for something to qualify as slander it has to be knowingly false first of all and harmful second of all. I have serious doubts about ANYONE pushing the kind of BS you do Jeffrey. As far as I am concerned you are an agent provocateur or an infiltrator if you prefer that terminology. Who else would come here and sling official BS but an agent? As far as I know you are an infiltrator so I am not making any sort of false statement to my knowledge and neither is Adam Syed. You are not an honest man that is for damned sure.

        4. I will add also Jeffrey that you and your fellow JREF’ers are scumbags and traitors to not only your country but to humanity itself. You and Michael Shermer and Penn Gillette and the amazing shit head Randy are utter filth and the garbage of the human race. You do nothing but promote official lies on every subject imaginable and you are a stain on the Earth for doing it. So put that in your pipe and smoke it pal because it isn’t slander it is true. Stick to debunking spoon benders where you belong jerk.

  7. Let me offer you an alternative hypothesis for the Pentagon.

    There seems to be agreeance of that frames 23 are photoshopped, and this is proven. Also this will link into Q8, Q9 and Q10.

    Try this: Play the surveillance sequence but remove the faked frame 23. Rid your minds of any assumptions, and notice what you see. You will see that the explosion comes from the wall. A ball of fire goes up and a streak of smoke shoots out over the lawn away from the wall. Then the smoke drifts to the left by the wind.

    The hypothesis is: Nothing hit the Pentagon. The hole inside the building was created before. Then an explosion by the wall revealed the hole by knocking out the facade.

    1. Interesting point to consider there Slorri. I think however that there is no need in your theory for the hole to have already been there since internal explosives could account for what we see even if the wall wasn’t weakened beforehand, otherwise I think you make an excellent point worth consideration.

      1. A prefabricated hole would be safer for them inside the building, Rumsfeld et al.
        The fireball looks mostly like pyrotechnics and the black smoke came from the dumpsters outside. So not much of a blast needed. Mostly something like a Hollywood special effect.

        Also, if we look at the cross section where the pentagon collapsed later, it appears to be very even, with no rebar. Like if it was constructed to come down at that side. You know, where the little table with the book on top was.

        The alleged renovation and reinforcement might have been a preparation for the collapse and creation of the hole for to make it look realistic.

        The thing is, if this is true, then all the witnesses are lying, including April Gallop.

          1. I made a blanket statement there. We can not and should not trust any of the witnesses in this case, 9/11.

            Why would they be lying? Well, I kind of have realized that they are. Perhaps they are screwing with us, or just want to muddy the waters.

            Look at England and the lamp pole in his cab. What is that all about? Makes no sense. Perhaps the witnesses are simply distractions.

            Gallop’s story does not go together with prefabricated damage inside the building.

        1. Yeah I don’t get how you conclude April Gallop would be lying? If you conclude that the visible external explosion itself was fake Hollywood effects that still would not rule out real internal explosives that were intended to kill the financial investigators in that area like Gallop. I still do not think the scenario you propose (for the wall to be pre-weakened) was necessary though. They could achieve the same result from a powerful shape charge placed on the inside wall. Remember the perps wanted to kill everyone in that area to cover up the “missing” 2.3 trillion. Like I said though other than your insistence that the wall had to be pre-weakened I think your theory is very interesting. Consider the possibility that pre-weakening was not necessary though.

        2. Slorri:

          There is a problem with the pre-planted explosives creating the hole in the wall hypothesis.

          As shown in in slides 6-8 and 15 – 25 of this presentation, there is a large tree in front of column 16 that was destroyed on the morning of 9/11 leaving only a shattered tree stump. The bulk of the tree is missing. There are no photos of remnants of this tree being blown out onto the lawn in the immediate aftermath of the “event.”

          https://gallery.mailchimp.com/84a2c6cbe080c5515da932a5d/files/Pentagon_Debate_Jan27_Final2.pdf

          It can be hypothesized that the wings of a large aircraft sheared off the tree and began dragging the tree int the building. It is also possible that the rear elevators (tail) contributed to the tree being pulled inside the building.

          Take a look at the tree and tree stump and explain how any explosion could have destroyed the tree with nothing left outside the Pentagon wall.

          I can only see this as evidence of a large plane impact.

          -Wayne

          1. Oh my God again with the tree stump BS Wayne? That stump proves nothing it could have been blown outward just as easily as inward. There was tree debris visible all over the place outside the pentagon. We even pointed some of it out on your own picture during the debate. Give it a rest man and face the elephant in the room.

          2. David Chandler offers us the case of the missing foliage (that might have been hit by one of the plane’s engines) and Wayne gives us the case of the missing tree (that he hypothesizes might have been pulled into the building by the plane).

            Proof for either? None. The fact that you put more importance on a tree stump than on two missing wings shows your theory has no credibility.

            1. I can’t say much about the tree, or the fallen lamp poles even.

              But I recommend you all to have a look at the surveillance photos they provided, the video I posted above. Look at that fireball. What do you see? Really? There is no force in it, it is just a “puff”. The only force I can spot is the streak of smoke shooting out over the lawn.

              Further I conclude that nothing flew in towards the pentagon at that moment because we see absolutely no sign of vortices. If for instance an airplane or a missile had flown into the wall we would have seen, in the next moment, large vortices messing up that smoke.

              These surveillance photos prove to me that nothing hit the pentagon and there was not much force in that explosion by the wall.

              My theory is that they used the same strategy both at the twin towers and at the pentagon. Prefab holes in the building, covered by the facade that they blew out and revealed the holes. Like a magic trick.

              The idea that they aimed for to kill the accountants inside a room is a bit too good for to be true, in my mind. But perhaps it worked as a hoax inside the main event. Ah well, the accountants are gone, now no one can find the missing money. To bad.

              1. Slorri:

                That is a brilliant observation about the vortices. If there had been a flyover above the fireball, the vortices would have created a circulation pattern that would have distorted the fireball. The images of the security cameras did not capture any such vortices based dispersal of the fireball.

                Thanks for another piece of physically observable evidence that – once again – shows that the flyover hypothesis is not possible.

                -Wayne

              2. Slorri:

                It has come to my attention that you probably don’t have access see the slides related to the earlier debate where the tree at column 16 was discussed. I have posted it in an alternative location.

                http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/Pentagon_Debate_Jan27_Final2.pdf

                As shown in in slides 6-8 and 15 – 25 of this presentation, there is a large tree in front of column 16 that was destroyed on the morning of 9/11 leaving only a shattered tree stump. The bulk of the tree is missing. There are no photos of remnants of this tree being blown out onto the lawn in the immediate aftermath of the “event.”

                Craig and Adam and Adam tell me that the tree is a distraction. But live “still green” trees don’t burn in the 15 minutes (approximately) that it took to suppress the fire at the 80 ft opening in the first floor. (I cut, split and burn wood for supplemental heat – unseasoned “green” wood doesn’t burn by itself.)

                Explosions from the inside would have blown the tree out onto the “pristine lawn” — Explosions in front of the wall to blow the wall inward would also have blown the tree outward onto the “pristine lawn.” The only explanation I can envision for the shattered tree stump is a large mechanical force directed toward the building that would have pushed and dragged a large fraction of the tree into the 80 ft opening in the first floor of the building.

                Again, thanks for the comment about the lack of vortices in the immediate aftermath of the fireball.

                -Wayne

    1. Indeed. And why was the Pentagon video that was released provably doctored?

      I think he’d just say that they wanted to hide the fact that it might not have been Flight 77 but a different large plane. A weak argument.

      1. Craig said “I think he’d just say that they wanted to hide the fact that it might not have been Flight 77 but a different large plane. A weak argument.”

        I’ve never heard that argument. What’s the premise for it?

        1. I think that given the idea supported by so many the plane was not Flight 77, it could be argued that video would reveal something about the deception. I believe they doctored the video to hide the fact that there really was no crash.

  8. In your article above, you said,

    “There were a number of false statements made by Coste both during the debate and in later discussions. He says that all the witnesses refute the flyover theory, which is ridiculous. He says virtually none of the witnesses fail to describe a south of Citgo flight path, which is also false. He says there is not one single witness to a flyover. Also false. And he says that those on my side of the debate are saying that the plane “vanished” after flying past the building. We make no such claim.”

    Question: What exactly do you say happened to this plane — that you so carefully document approaching the Pentagon — if it didn’t impact into the Pentagon. As you know, your favorite “gold standard” witnesses – Brooks, Lagasse and Aman vividly describe the impact?

    1. Chadwick Brooks says he could have been wrong about the impact Wayne but since you are pushing the official narrative you have not gone through all the material available which supports the flyover. CIT spoke with Brooks after the video was released and Brooks admits he could have been wrong about impact.

      Your main question is a red herring and completely beside the point. We don’t have to prove anything about what happened to the plane after it flew over the pentagon. All we have to prove is that it didn’t hit the pentagon and our side has proved it.

      I believe Wayne that you are another in a long line of people who simply are not debating in good faith and cannot, for whatever reason, admit it when you are proved wrong. I am with Adam Syed on this Wayne I do not think you are debating in good faith and frankly I do not think you are a truther.

      1. Adam:

        Interesting that you mentioned Chadwick Brooks. I was going through the Library of Congress interviews and listened to the one by officer Chadwick Brooks.

        [audio src="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr335a01.mp3" /]

        In the interview, he notes that the plane flew over him (which is what the physics say should happen absent a very pronounced banking maneuver). He also said he saw the plane impact the light poles – not once, but twice. In his CIT interview years later, he describes a very different recollection from his November 25th statement.

        Here is what he said in his November 2001 interview. He doesn’t sound uncertain at all.

        at 0:16

        My name is Chadwick Brooks. I’m a Federal Police Officer for DPS Department protective services at the Pentagon

        at 1:46

        What I remember vaguely was I stopped and got some breakfast – and I was doing my paperwork in the car. Where I was located was right across the street from a gas station. Which is adjacent from the Pentagon. How many yards I don’t know. Actually pretty close by. It is right across the street. I happened to be sitting there. At this time it was a little before 9:30 – a little after About 9:30. I just happened to look up to my left, up into the air and seen a plane.

        A few seconds shortly after that I heard what seemed to be a tractor trailer or something coming behind me. Well, it felt like it was coming behind me.

        I looked again – but this time I looked, I didn’t see a truck. I looked to my left and low and behold I noticed the plane was going awfully low.

        Now granted. at this time I hadn’t registered the two events that occurred in New York. I really just thought the plane was flying awful low. A few seconds later – out of nowhere I just literally – hard to explain – saw that the plane was going straight down. At this time I got out of my car. Something was wrong. Again, it still hadn’t registered the two events in New York.

        A few seconds after that – I literally seen the plane just go nose down into the Pentagon. A very awful sight because at the very end the plane literally went full throttle. And to this day I don’t know if I was able to watch it or not.

        But to just be frozen in time like that. To see that plane LITERALLY CLIP THAT LAMP POLE.

        The closest – People asked how close it felt. Almost like if I had a rock I could have hit it. Just an instant – just a moment. That happened really quick – It was just like being in a movie.

        Unbelievable, unbelievable as soon as the impact, There was a loud thump – a loud boom and chaos …

        at 6:05:
        I guess just knowing that there were people on the plane at the time, JUST LITERALLY FLYING OVER ME – what were they thinking. I know they had to see us. and just literally going into the building like that – literally full speed – enough to KNOCK A LIGHT POLE LIKE A TOOTH PICK – just the shear impact. […]

        -Wayne

        1. 36:54

          Craig Ranke: “Did you see it hit any light poles?”

          Chadwick Brooks: “No, we didn’t see it hit any light poles. But of course, the trees and everything else, everything’s kinda, everything’s kinda, blowing back and forth here I guess because of the altitude of the plane, and the velocity of the plane…”

          1. Yes Adam. I’ve done my homework. I know that Chadwick Brooks gave one definitive account in November 2001 and a completely different account in 2006 or 2007.

            One is right and one is not.

            You can choose which version you want to believe — but that is your choice. But the record is clear. Two incompatible accounts from a single witness five years apart.

            As psychologists know, memories change over time and become less reliable.

            I prefer to give more weight to the recorded testimony that is closer to the event than the testimony given many years later.

            -Wayne

            1. No sale on this BS either Wayne. Brooks accounts cannot be spun into being completely different because he was asked completely different things in each interview and you have taken out of context things he said as Adam Syed explains below. Your spin does ZERO to explain why all the other witnesses drew nearly identical flight paths to Brooks. So they are all wrong in the same exact way huh Wayne? Or are you saying they are all in on the same lie? Utter bullshit. Brooks drew a NOC path and said on camera that he did NOT see the light poles hit. He also said on tape that he could have been wrong about impact. Quit lying man. Face the elephant in the room or slink away like the coward David Chandler. Your BS here is just digging you a deeper hole man.

              1. One little correction to that Adam – he didn’t say “on tape” that he could have been wrong about impact. He said it privately to CIT after he was made aware of the implications of his testimony; i.e. after the original Pentacon from 2007 was released (since Ranke mentions the private correspondence in NSA from 2009). Granted, we have to take CIT’s word for this, but I have every reason to believe they’re not lying about this. They have shown me to be the most honest investigators out there, with only a desire for truth and justice and no interest in fame or money.

                Yes, Wayne’s BS here is just digging him deeper. Wayne, you’d best be advised to drop this. If you’re being paid to do this, I’d request reassignment. You’re convincing virtually no one. You were outvoted 17-1 in favor of McKee/Ruff in the teleconference debate. So I would submit to you that you’re not just wasting our time, but your own as well.

                1. A postscript to my first paragraph above: one of the “many reasons” I know CIT is not lying about the private correspondence: if they were, Brooks would almost certainly have come out publicly and said so. And then the anti-CIT crowd would have had something genuine to hold against them. But that sure never happened, did it?

            2. Wayne, you simply believe whoever supports your unsupportable claim of a plane impact. I have no idea how anyone can seriously watch the interview in National Security Alert – where Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks agree that they are 100% certain that the plane was on the north side of the gas station – and conclude that the plane was on a completely different path.

              I keep wondering why a truther would continue to argue in favor of such an important part of the official story. Particularly when the evidence is so clearly against him.

        2. Furthermore, Wayne,

          The absolute strongest part of what you have to offer can be found in the first of Brooks’ two mentions in 2001 of the light poles. When he said “But to just be frozen in time like that. To see that plane LITERALLY CLIP THAT LAMP POLE.” (The caps are yours, obviously. Listening to the audio, Brooks did not go out of his way to accentuate those specific words.)

          But when asked in 2006 to clarify whether he saw poles get clipped, he said no.

          Furthermore, your duplicity in “debate” shows itself when you say that in the 2001 LoC interview, Brooks stated “he saw the plane impact the light poles – not once, but twice.” (your words)

          Only the first of those two mentions can possibly be interpreted to mean that he saw the poles get hit with his own eyes, as opposed to merely deducing it. The second mention: “and just literally going into the building like that – literally full speed – enough to KNOCK A LIGHT POLE LIKE A TOOTH PICK – just the shear impact.” (caps accentuation once again yours)

          He is not saying there that he actually saw the pole get clipped. He was talking about the speed of the plane, the throttling of the engines.

          But at any rate, he clarified in 2006 that he didn’t see the poles.

          Finally, you use caps for highlighting purposes on the following quote:

          “I guess just knowing that there were people on the plane at the time, JUST LITERALLY FLYING OVER ME – what were they thinking.”

          If you actually listen to the entire audio recording of the interview, you will hear the context of this quote. He is reflecting on how 9/11 shook him as a human being and changed him from that point on, i.e. being afraid of flying and freaking out whenever seeing a low flying plane. In that context, he is referring to the fact that he was just tens of feet away from [alleged] people who were being terrorized and about to lose their lives.

          In fact at 6:00 in the interview, if we include the words immediately before the snippet you cherrypicked, here is what we have: “I really don’t want to fly on a plane again if it was up to me. I guess just knowing that there were people on the plane at the time, just literally flying over me – what were they thinking.”

          The context is not of a specific delineation of a flight path. Yet, you seem to accentuate those words as if to imply that the words somehow contradict NoC.

          I don’t think you’re incompetent Wayne. It’s obvious you’ve been going through the government’s archives as well as CIT’s archives far and deep. You likely knew, well before this comment of mine, that Brooks clarified he didn’t see light poles get hit in 2006. If you went to the LoC interviews to cherrypick fragments of sentences, out of context, then you almost certainly had seen the entire Chadwick Brooks interview from the original 2007 Pentacon presentation (not just the excerpts highlighted in NSA). So I do not post this comment to enlighten you. I post it to expose your duplicity with the facts and debate to all the contributors and lurkers here. Your arguments and talking points rely on duping people who don’t have a sophisticated understanding of this issue but fortunately some of the most seasoned contributors to this blog do.

          1. Adam:

            Of course I know that when interviewed by CIT, Chadwick Brooks told a completely different story about what he saw that day in regards to the light pole (and plane location). That acknowledgement was in my prior comment in this series:

            As I wrote, “In the interview, he notes that the plane flew over him (which is what the physics say should happen absent a very pronounced banking maneuver). He also said he saw the plane impact the light poles – not once, but twice. In his CIT interview years later, he describes a very different recollection from his November 25th statement.”

            The issue is that for these CIT witnesses to represent the “best evidence for 9/11 being an inside job” they can’t be contradictory in their statements. CIT’s and your subsequent assertion of a flyover is in direct contradiction to vivid descriptions to plane impacts by these witness – you, yourself, discredit them by saying they can’t be trusted.

            I learned something from this discussion – That Brooks could have tailored his CIT video testimony to support a desired story. Adam Syed said just a bit earlier,

            “One little correction to that Adam – he didn’t say “on tape” that he could have been wrong about impact. He said it privately to CIT after he was made aware of the implications of his testimony; i.e. after the original Pentacon from 2007 was released (since Ranke mentions the private correspondence in NSA from 2009)”

            The phrase “after he was made aware of the implications” should be a red flag to anybody that attempts to rely on his witness testimony.

            Thanks for the gem!

            1. You have completely ignored the contextual issues I raised in my above comment to you Wayne. And as for your new whopper: Brooks did not realize when he described the flight path that this flight path contradicted the official story because he wasn’t aware of what the official path was, as weren’t most people.

              I agree with Adam Ruff; your arguments are beyond empty; they are in the red. If I were on a 9/11 forum where a person claimed to be a truther, but spent inordinate amounts of time trying to insist that plane crashes and fires took down the buildings, I would be highly suspicious of that person AND after a while I’d no longer engage the person after it becomes clear that the person is not debating honestly and in good faith. I am at this point with you Wayne. As Craig said, it simply defies basic human logic and rationale to watch the Lagasse and Brooks interviews, and actually conclude that both are wrong. Yet you twist logic into pretzel form in order to arrive at that conclusion.

              I am done engaging you Wayne. You will undoubtedly feel the need to “win” by having a last word, in which case, you may have it.

            2. Wayne once again you avoid like the plague the real issue which is that the totality of all the witnesses including the ones you are trying your best to distort and contort to fit your scenario all saw the plane NOC. They all independently corroborate each other and establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the plane was NOC, their combined testimony constitutes damning evidence that the plane was NOC. That is the end of your whole scenario right there.

              Impact is impossible from NOC so the only remaining possibility is that the witnesses were fooled by the fireball into thinking the plane hit. So yes they were wrong about impact but this can be easily understood considering many of them could not see the damaged area and just assumed because of the explosion and fireball that the plane they saw hit the pentagon. It is an unavoidable logical conclusion Wayne. The plane could not have hit from NOC so it MUST have flown over.

              You cannot in any way shape or form dispute the established NOC path. It is over you simply cannot accept it or you refuse to acknowledge it for some nefarious reason. Sherlock Holms that fictional detective said it best: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, MUST be the truth.”

              NOC is irreconcilable with impact therefore impact is impossible and must be eliminated. What remains is that the witnesses must be wrong about impact and the plane had to fly over.

              If you were honest about the witnesses and really examined what they said and looked at their vantage points you would know that most if not all of them could not actually see the damaged area of the pentagon. They assumed the plane hit, they did not actually see the plane hit. Those witnesses were fooled by the same trick as these spectators:

              Now please tell me Wayne were these witnesses wrong about the car vanishing? Yes.
              Were they wrong about the car driving down the road toward them? No.

            3. “I learned something from this discussion – That Brooks could have tailored his CIT video testimony to support a desired story.”

              Do you have ANY basis for asserting this, Wayne? Any at all? No, you are just insinuating it because your task is to discredit any witnesses who challenge the official story at the Pentagon.

              Witnesses can’t be used if they’ve said anything contradictory? And you use Mike Walter and Don Chauncey???? Walter told several stories but I haven’t heard you address that except to say that the earliest account would be the most reliable. But one of the accounts he told back in 2001 was that he couldn’t see the impact because trees were in the way. But it’s convenient for you to ignore this. Chauncey was six miles away and he described a small commuter jet.

              I agree with Adam Syed that you are clearly being dishonest here. You say witnesses can’t be relied upon if they say contradictory things and yet you accept that they saw an impact even though this is contradicted by their detailed descriptions of a north of Citgo path.

              You are defending the official story, Wayne. No, not all of it, but most of it. You are joining Chandler, Jenkins, Legge and the rest of their crew in causing real damage to the Truth Movement. And the best you can do is be glib about it (“Thanks for the gem!”).

              You should be ashamed of yourself.

              1. RuffAdam:

                The key point from the Don Chauncey witness testimony is that he observed it from a distance. He saw the plane and did not report a “flyover.” A flyover would have been obvious to have see from his vantage point. The fireball would have been a significant part of his view – but the flyover would have been very obvious.

                Here is what he said:

                At 36:00 – 38:00 from https://archive.org/details/cbs200109110912-0954

                CBS: __ and Andrea

                Announcer: Joining us by phone is Don Chauncey. Don, are you there?

                Don: Yes I am.

                Announcer: You witnessed what happened at the pentagon — What did you see?

                Don Chauncey: From my offices I was able to see a white jet — Gulfstrream type commuter jet — I guess. It came at a high rate of speed. I could see National Airport’s tower from our offices. And it just increased its speed as it got closer to the Pentagon. Then I saw the big yellow ball of fire.

                Announcer: And just exactly is your office — from where are you watching this?

                Don: We — our offices are right off of St Bartimus Road and the Beltway. So I overlook the beltway from my office.

                Announcer: Could you tell, Don, did the plane come out of National?

                Don: No absolutely not. It appeared to be a US Air commuter jet that Went over the top of our building which is the normal flight pattern — I guess — for commuters. And this looked like it was coming –I guess down Columbia Pike from Arlington — from down that way. And then picked up a high rate of speed. from my desk right now I can see the Pentagon — basically where the metro station is and the buses — I can see that to the right — but I can’t see the south parking area.

                Announcer: What is the reaction of others in your office […]

                No report of a flyover from someone who should have been able to see it.

                Based on the evidence, I can easily support the large plane impact. Anybody who looks at the evidence will come to the same conclusion. But since NOC advocates don’t look at the evidence and rely only on CIT interviews to support the flyover meme – you will remain unconvinced.

                Supporting a large plane impact does not include the “pentagon taken by surprise” and the 19 al queda hijackers got around the “defense” systems of the US military.

                -Wayne

                1. Chauncey is the worst possible witness you could have come up with Wayne. His testimony is worthless, he was 6 miles away and on the wrong side of the pentagon to see the demolished facade and you have no idea if there was a forest of tall trees or buildings obstructing his view because you have never been there. For all you know Chauncey might not have been able to see the pentagon at all.

                  Why don’t you do what real investigators like CIT did and actually go there and see what his POV really is and ask him detailed questions on video tape? Why don’t any of you pro impact charlatans do that? The fact is you haven’t done any legitimate investigating the way CIT and P4T have so pardon me for saying so but you have no credibility AT ALL by comparison. You are an armchair quarterback at best, you are not even in the same league as CIT and those of us who have been researching this for almost a decade. I bet you will not even make a phone call to Chauncey and record the results. You are no investigator.

                  Furthermore you are engaging in an extremely blatant logical fallacy here by making the argument that if Chauncey didn’t see it (the flyover) it didn’t happen. WRONG! You would be and should be laughed out of the courtroom for even presenting Chauncey.

                  It is just this kind of dishonest tactics Wayne that lead me to the conclusion that you are not a real truther.

                  1. I went to Google maps, took a ride on 495 near St. Barnabas road to check out Don Chauncey’s POV.

                    Major fail.

                    You have to get down near the river on 495 before you get much of a look at the airport area. You certainly could not see fine detail at this distance.

                    I am unable to locate any tall structures that could have served Chauncey.

                  2. ruffadam:

                    Apparently you have never driven out of Alexandria, VA going east on I-95 toward St Barnabas Road (Rte 414). There is a significant elevation change. I verified that Chauncey’s location was about elevation 260 ft (or 230 ft higher than the Pentagon).

                    We agree that he was about 6 miles distant and east of Alexandria VA by a mile or so. In the news report, he does not give an exact address so we don’t know what building he was in or which floor he was viewing the plane approach the Pentagon from.

                    I included Don Chauncey in the Debate slides because he was a remote witness to the approach and fireball – and especially to the absence of a flyover. A flyover would have been noteworthy in the interview.

                    Using a direct line on a topographic map it can be seen that there were no obstructions from his reported location to the Pentagon. He could have seen the Pentagon as he reported.

                    1. Wayne, you have got to be kidding. There are no steep hills near the Potomac. The area is flat.

                      And, your diagram is grossly, absurdly out of proportion. On the vertical axis, you have 100 feet showing as a greater distance than 3,100 feet on the horizontal axis. You make it look as if Chauncey was on a hill, towering over the Pentagon. In fact an elevation of 230 feet is just .0068 (less than one percent) of the 33,580 feet from Chauncey to the Pentagon.

                      The Pentagon sits in a bowl and is easily missed even driving right by it. When I first moved to this area, I passed it many times without noticing it. The idea that anyone would see it from six miles away, on the other side of the river from Alexandria, is absurd.

                      Truth is, we have no idea if a person named Don Chauncey even exists, not to mention where he was located that day and what he saw. The media was instrumental in the deception and we know that some witnesses were in fact actors.

                      How you can trust some anonymous person calling into a news program, over the witnesses that CIT interviewed on video, who all were in the immediate vicinity of the Pentagon, and who we know definitely exist because we saw and heard them on video — well that is just beyond me.

                      Here is a pic of what the Pentagon looks like as you drive past it. See, very easy to miss.

                    2. This is some seriously funny shit right here, Wayne…..this is about the funniest piece of shit I’ve ever seen from an Anti-Truther, and buddy…..that’s sayin’ somethin’!

                      I’ve heard some outrageously hilarious nonsense from Dwain Deets and Uncle Fetzer, but this is simply way over the top!

                      I’ve been following this thread from the beginning without posting a comment, but this is so hilarious I just had to add to what Sheila said.

                      In your “diagram” of the “topography” of Arlington, Va., I see what could pass for Mt. Rainier, then perhaps Mt. Wilson, a couple more mountains, then I see what looks like Mt. Ararat, when I squint my eyes a little, I think I can see Noah’s Ark, then there’s poor ol’ Don Chauncey…..way up in the stratosphere on Mt. Everest, with his Oxygen bottle handy, just waitin’ for a plane to show up.

                      Yep…..that just blows those thirteen NoC witnesses clean out of the water…..huh Wayne?

                    3. Wayne, we know you love to hop around from topic to topic without really dealing with any of the objections to your mischaracterizations of evidence. But your diagram alleging to show the vantage point that Don Chauncey would have had to see the Pentagon has been exposed as a gross and absurd distortion. I think you should concede this before trying to muddy other waters.

                2. Spare me the meme that only you are looking at the evidence Wayne because it is bullshit. We talked extensively about the physical evidence (what little of it there is) and the photographs during the debate. We spent most of our rebuttal time on it so quit lying.

                  1. Craig said you all were missing me and that I needed to reply.

                    While I don’t have a photograph from the office building at St Barnabas Road, here is a ten story building that is located there. You can see the building in the attached PDF.

                    http://www.hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/DonChaunceyView.pdf

                    I don’t know why you missed me – you don’t seem to have been listening.

                    The reason for including Don Chauncey in the Pentagon discussion was that he was a remote witness who would have been able to observe a fly-over and did not.

                    You said “Chauncey is the worst possible witness you could have come up with Wayne. His testimony is worthless, he was 6 miles away and on the wrong side of the pentagon to see the demolished facade … ”

                    I never said that he saw the “demolished facade.” You weren’t listening (or reading) — That was not the point. That no-flyover observed was the reason for including Chauncey.

                    1. I posted five successive comments days ago starting here: https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41072 about Chauncey including comments about the building you claim he was located in which is not on St. Barnabus but rather on Oxon Hill Rd. That building is the only one in the area Don could have been in to possibly see part of the back side of the pentagon. It remains in doubt still that he could even see the back side so I posted phone contact information for occupants of that building so you could call them and ask them to snap a photo from their window to prove if they could see even the back side of the pentagon or not. I figured you could at least make a phone call since by comparison CIT actually flew from CA to DC and interviewed their witnesses in detail on sight and on video. You don’t even have proof that Chauncey even exists. The worst of it all though is that even from the building on Oxon Hill road Don’s view of Columbia pike was completely blocked by the high rise buildings in Crystal City so he could not have seen what he claims to have seen. Why don’t you respond down below where all these comments about Chauncey are.

                      The fact is Wayne you didn’t do shit as far as investigating the witnesses you posted in the debate. Chauncey isn’t just a bad witness he is a highly suspect one. Why don’t you put some actual effort into investigating the way CIT did? I know a hell of a lot more than you do about your own witness Wayne and that is because I took time to investigate. Anyway if you are going to respond then please respond where I made all the comments days ago. Just click the link, I made it easy.

        3. The important thing is which direction was Brooks parked when he witnessed the plane left of him.

          For the plane to be on the south path he would have to be parked facing the Navy Annex.

          In the CIT interview he is parked with the Navy Annex on his left, Arlington Cemetery forward and the CITGO to his right.

          He clearly says to Craig Ranke that the plane was over the trees forward of his car.

          John Wyndham tries to hand wave Brooks and Lagasse by saying they are mistaken.

          This should be easy to figure out. It can’t be both south and north of CITGO (unless there were two planes).

    2. Does Lagasse describe the impact?

      I am aware of only the CIT interview. He says:

      “Did I see what the plane did? No, there was a big fireball.”
      -Lagasse

      1. Travis:

        Lagasse describes the impact in detail in the CIT video. He describes the impact twice.

        CIT Interview

        [at 41:15]
        And it went into the building with a very slight, you know, [inaudible due to background noise] – it didn’t yaw substantially until it hit the building – and it kinda made a[flat hand rotating from side to side gesture] — it “sloothed” into the building. Which I guess is indicative of hitting the building and then smashed into it.
        Craig: Can you explain that again – it did a what into the building?
        Lagasse: A Yaw. It rotated on its yaw axis. The tail- instead of the plane doing this [indicates a straight on impact with his hands] from here it looked like the tail went in – it didn’t hit at a 90 degree angle [Note: North-of-Citgo impact requires a 90 degree impact – South-of-Citgo would create the effect Lagasse describes].It was not flush – it hit offset. It wasn’t that it went in head-on – it went in at an angle – and then it poofed.
        Craig: It only made that angle at the very last minute? — at the very last second rather?
        Lagasse: from my point of view – yes.

        [at 46:40]
        Lagasse: Don’t know. Like I said it came from that direction. The biggest problem is – I know how a plane manoeuvers. There was no way that thing was off that heading by much before it got to here at that speed. So that is what I based my assessment on. Did it fly right over the Navy Annex – did it have one wing over the Navy Annex – did it almost hit the hotel — those I don’t know because I didn’t see it.
        Craig: But from as far as you can tell for sure – that stone fence that we zoomed in on over there is the fence at Arlington National Cemetery. And as far as you can tell, the fuselage was over that.
        Lagasse: Best guess – that’s about where the fuselage was.
        Craig: How high was it at that time?
        Lagasse: About 100 feet – 150 feet AGL – Above Ground Level. You are here so you can get a pretty good perspective. If I’m standing in my car door – the roof is here – so if it were really high it would have been obstructed. If it were really low, it would have hit those trees. – or it would have hit those trees. So if you draw a line from the tallest trees over there and kinda slope it all the way down to the Pentagon, you can kinda figure it out for yourself.
        It had to be between there (the hill / trees] and hit the Pentagon. so I would say between 100 and 150 feet AGL.
        Craig: Were you driving a car like this – a plain white unmarked police car like this?
        Lagasse: Exactly like it.
        Craig: Exactly like that. Have you seen the release of the Citgo Security video?
        Lagasse: No.
        Craig: OK You could see your car in there. From what you can recall after you saw the plane – first – did you see the plane hit the building.
        Lagasse: Yes. Did I see what the plane did? – no. There was a big fireball. When the plane hit it just kinda disappeared. Like I said, it made that little yaw movement and then it just disappeared.
        Craig: Did you see the plane pick-up at all. Maybe to make it over anything before it went back down again.
        Lagasse: No
        Craig: You didn’t see it pick-up- at all?
        Lagasse: No

        1. Wayne,

          Lagasse, Brooks, Aman and numerous others described very specifically that the plane flew to the north of the gas station. You quote them as saying they believe the plane hit (they were fooled along with many others) but you won’t listen to them when they say where the plane was. How can you rationalize their details accounts of the plane’s path? It seems that you just ignore that part or make up ridiculous nonsense to explain it away – for example, Lagasse couldn’t face north and talk to his dog at the same time.

          1. Craig, you and CIT are doing the rationalizing here: you started to reject those parts of the witness accounts that support the “official” story – apparantly for no better reason than that they support the “official” story, and instead believe the parts that contradict is.
            All you can deduce validly is that the witnesses – your witnesses – are mistaken in parts of their accounts. It requires prejudice to pick which parts.

            It is, IMO, easier, more reliable, to estimate the location of a plane that is on the ground or almost on the ground than a plane that’s up in the air. People tend to misestimate size and distance of flying planes. That’s why, a priori, I would consider a statement that places the plane lower than the roofline (i.e. plane is seen in front of building face, extremely close to the ground with lots of references) as more reliable than a statement that places it relative to some feature on the ground when it’s flying up in the air (i.e. plane is seen against the open sky, with no direct reference).

            1. Jens: “It is, IMO, easier, more reliable, to estimate the location of a plane that is on the ground or almost on the ground than a plane that’s up in the air.”

              I have had to read this comment (and others of yours) several times to try and figure out your logic. First of all, you misinterpret what I might be “implying.” In fact, I think my statements are quite clear and direct. No need to read between the lines.

              There are a couple of dozen pieces that we are told come from a 757 that crashed at the Pentagon. Some of those items appear to be plane parts but we don’t know if they actually came from a plane, and we certainly don’t know if they came from a plane that crashed at that location. Given the absence of 100 tons of wreckage that we should have seen, it is quite reasonable to suggest that the very few pieces that were photographed could have been planted. Why would any reasonable person who claims to be a truther not consider this possibility?

              You are claiming a plane crashed even though you have no physical proof of this. There is no plane at the site of the alleged crash. You want me to prove that a plane crash would leave large pieces outside? Really? The hole was nowhere near large enough to accommodate a 757 and yet NOT ONE SINGLE LARGE PIECE WAS VISIBLE EITHER INSIDE OR OUTSIDE. And you want me to believe a plane crashed there?

              In the absence of more than a token amount of “wreckage,” the burden of proof is on you.

              If, as I believe the evidence indicates, the event at the Pentagon was designed to fool onlookers into thinking a plane crashed, then some will say they think the plane crashed. Maybe most will think this. But we have to look beyond the surface and analyze what exactly the witnesses said and whether their accounts are credible. Perhaps you agree with Wayne Coste that Steve Storti is credible when he says he saw people moving around in the plane from three-quarters of a mile away. I notice that you haven’t criticized him for pushing Storti or Mike Walter or Don Chauncey.

              I don’t believe in just picking the part of the testimony that suits me. That’s Wayne’s job. But when you have at least a dozen who describe a virtually identical flight path complete with right bank – and that path is to the north of the Citgo gas station – then the official story has a problem. The damage we saw could not have been caused by a plane that was not on the official path. So we have people like William Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks who describe on camera that they are 100% certain the plane was on the north side. Do you actually think that all the north side witnesses, who corroborate each other very specifically, could all be mistaken in exactly the same way? It’s simply not credible, particularly in the absence of a plane at the “crash” scene.

              1. Craig “Perhaps you agree with Wayne Coste that Steve Storti is credible when he says he saw people moving around in the plane from three-quarters of a mile away.”
                Of course not, silly.
                Storti, like EVERY eye witness, is unreliable. I think I made that quite clear previously that hanging your case on witnesses would be quite mad.

                I don’t believe in just picking the part of the testimony that suits me
                Then you ought to accept the NoC witnesses who saw the plane crash.
                You don’t. Therefore you pick.

                people like William Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks who describe on camera that they are 100% certain …
                Sure ^^ And because of this, it’s 100% certain?

                the plane was on the north side. Do you actually think that all the north side witnesses, who corroborate each other very specifically, could all be mistaken in exactly the same way?
                Yes. They were all interviewed by the same team, weren’t they?

                It’s simply not credible, particularly in the absence of a plane at the “crash” scene.
                You can simply deny the evidence, but that doesn’t make the plane go away. The plane that several of your witnesses described crashing where it was in fact found, shredded to small pieces.

                1. Now it’s on you to prove that the bits of debris we saw are small “shredded” pieces of a plane. How much of the 100-ton plane can you really account for?

                  And you need to explain why the NoC witnesses would all be “mistaken” because they were interviewed “by the same team.”

        2. I must have seen an edited version. Thanks for the transcription.

          Obviously, if you were to believe this account, you would have to wonder what happened to to lightpoles.

          1. You have got to see this video!

            This is best video evidence for deception that I have found, besides the impact video double frame of course.

            1. A few problems with the physical evidence:


              This piece has extremely clean rivet holes. It is as if it never had rivets or the rivets were removed for replacement.


              This piece is more forward than the fuel tanks. This would bean that this piece would have been smashed against the wall at 500+ mph before the explosion. Since the explosion would have been behind this piece, it would have forced it further into the pentagon. For this to be more convincing, you would need the “n” piece from the opposite side of the plane.

              I think they are too clean as well. I think most of us would assume that the paint would have burned off following the explosion.

  9. With all due respect, I don’t see how one scratch on the roadway convinces you of the pole being dragged into the road.

    It indicates to me just what we see– the pole was moved out of the traveled lane. The white car has taken advantage of that parking space now.

    As I have offered elsewhere on this site, the pole appears to have been perpendicular to the lane, with its base facing east. This leads me to conclude it wasn’t the portion that purportedly impaled the windshield because those extracting it would not take the base any further away than necessary. A curved, heavy round object is very unwieldy.
    A broken foot waiting to happen.

    I remain open to other evidence that explains what the heck happened here.

          1. He’s yet another individual who’s written some good blogs on the WTC demolitions, including a debunk of Popular Mechanics which is promoted by AE.

            “Credibility capital,” perhaps?

    1. You’re right that it’s not conclusive. But it does appear to have been dragged into that position. I’m not sure why it would be dragged anywhere unless it was being removed from the road. It’s just one potential piece of the puzzle.

  10. I think the blog is long overdue for a Shanksville thread. I’d like to see Taylor and Coste and the rest attempt to “debunk” Domenick DiMaggio’s findings.

  11. Dwain, you said to Craig:

    “And your question as to why I think their CIT-interview testimonies where consistently supportive of a north path, I have to now wonder what that reason(s) may have been. I don’t know, but I’m thinking it isn’t innocent. Why do I say that? Because an impact into the Pentagon causing the damage that we see in various photographs has advanced in my mind to become a plausible possibility.”

    Do you think a 757 impact is the only plausible explanation for the damage?

    1. Captivescientist,

      A 757 is the size aircraft that is consistent with the damage. The engine cores and wing carry-through structure (the densest parts) is just the right width (when considering hitting the Pentagon at an angle to the perpendicular) to match the hole in the 1st floor. The damage to the stairwell exterior wall between Cols 18 – 19 is about where a mid-section of the wing could have been.

        1. I was always perplexed over it. The Pentagon Building Performance Report (PBPR) said it was caused by the right wing. I tended to discount that because I didn’t trust that report. But, I didn’t have an alternative explanation.

          Interesting, I now notice the PBRB doesn’t describe the wall as a “hardened wall.” They note that the refurbished windows were not broken, but I would say that is a serious understatement in not pointing out the hardened wall portion did not show any indication of wing impact, whereas the standard stairwell wall section did.

      1. Dwain, you do realize that most of the Truth Movement is stating that the Pentagon was the scene of a faked plane crash? This means that the perpetrators wanted it to look like a plane hit the building.

  12. Dwain, you said:

    “Captivescientist, the Sandia F-4 sled test could hardly be more complete. It was a highly-instrumented aircraft, with emphasis on measuring internal structural load paths under crash conditions.”

    I was wondering what was left after the impact. The video I have seen stops while everything is covered by smoke, is there a video or analysis of the remains?

    “This validates analysis tools that are now used to analyze impacts of high-speed air vehicles into protective barriers.”

    Is LS-Dyna one of these tools and do you know if Purdue have made their simulation data available?
    I found some animations here:
    https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/

    but at first glance they don’t appear to have modeled any walls.

    1. The Perdue animation makes the whole area look like a flat landing strip. The topography is quite varied, as anyone who has been down there knows.

      What evidence is there to conclude that the right engine sucked a lamp fixture?

      The new “blink” analysis done by Jenkins seems to show a left engine belching smoke.

      I can’t find a single witness who mentions engine smoking before impact.

      Shouldn’t the smoke linger at least into more frames of the parking gate video?

      Can anyone comment on where the “blink” fuselage appears in relation to pole #5?

      1. In the F4 video we see the plane is stopped by the wall and a lot bounces back off. Purdue’s 757 simply enters the ‘Pentagon’ as if the reinforced wall isn’t there because, well, it isn’t. No walls, no floors. I wonder what they modeled the plane out of.

        “What hasn’t been done much, or, to our knowledge hasn’t been done at all, is to create a visualization that looks realistic in the sense that you would recognize the Pentagon and the plane and is, at the same time, true to physics.” Voicu Popescu

        Audacious!

        1. Captivescientist:

          In the Sandia test, the jet in the Sandia test hit a solid block of concrete that was — as I understand it — 10 feet thick. The block was a solid reinforced concrete wall with no pre-existing, built in weak spots. The test was intended to aid in the impact of a plane into a solid nuclear reactor containment dome.

          The Pentagon wall was reinforced – but nowhere near the strength or mass of the Sandia wall. Each 7ft x 4.5 ft window (31.5 sq ft) was centered in a section of the wall that was 13.5 ft x 10 ft (135 as ft). This means that 23 percent of the wall area was no more than blast resistant glass (31.5 / 135 = 0.23). This reinforced Pentagon wall had nowhere near the amount of either mass or structural integrity of the Sandia wall. A plane penetration through this wall type of wall is quite likely – it is nowhere the strength of the 10 ft thick solid concrete block and has large holes build into it.

          The reinforced concrete section in the Pentagon wall was only 10 inches thick (and began with 23 percent “missing”). The remaining portion of the wall had 6″ of limestone facing and 8″ of brick. The brick and limestone add to wall mass but not a lot of structural strength.

          Once the 1st floor wall is breached for 80 feet (between columns 10 and 18) the initial damage is effectively limited to the first floor. See slides 17 – 22
          https://gallery.mailchimp.com/84a2c6cbe080c5515da932a5d/files/Pentagon_Debate_Jan27_Final2.pdf

          With the damage limited to the first floor, there is not much reason to model the floors as they contain the damage between the ground slab and the second floor slab. The internal walls are trivial from a structural point of view.

          Slides 66 – 72 in the above presentation talk about the hardened wall. 100 tons of airframe mass moving 400+ mph hitting 100 ton wall will be really impossible to not give way.

          Is there something specific you have a question about? I’ll see what I can do to answer it.

          1. Talk all day long about the irrelevant Sandia test Wayne it doesn’t distract me from the fact that you are avoiding the elephant in the room. The established NOC flight path is FATAL to your impact scenario. You and Dwayne can play this little game all you want trying to distract us all but in the end it does ZERO to refute the NOC flight path. Until you address the gold standard witnesses you are just playing games here. A very sick and sad game may I add.

            1. Actually, a refutation of the NOC is in the works. I will share it when it is ready.

              But since physical and photographic evidence is irrelevant to the NOC and flyover meme – you will, by definition, remain steadfast in your flyover hypothesis.

              1. Oh Wayne I will wait with baited breath for you to show us all how all those NOC witnesses were either wrong in the same exact way or all lying. It should be great for a big belly laugh when you actually say something out loud which is so obviously stupid and false. While you are at it though tell me how the tail of an airliner moving that fast doesn’t even break a window. When you explain that I will award you the grand prize physics trophy for being the most full of shit this month.

                To give you an idea of how fast the alleged airliner was going when it allegedly hit the pentagon here is what happened to a car hit by a rocket sled traveling almost as fast.

                Now watch that and then tell me how the tail didn’t even break a window. Utterly absurd.

                By the way it is the lack of physical evidence that makes up another separate proof that no airliner impacted the pentagon. No damage from the tail = no tail impact. No serial numbers on parts in the aftermath = planted evidence. Oh and there is no where near enough debris either so that also proves no airliner hit. Where did the engines go? Your scenario is disproved multiple different ways but you will never under any circumstances admit the truth because your agenda is not to expose the truth but to try and obfuscate it.

                You are the one in denial Wayne, extreme denial, and you are the one ignoring the fact that the NOC flight path has been established and proved beyond any reasonable doubt and that alone is fatal to your argument. Good luck with your refutation but know this ahead of time Wayne I will check what you say for accuracy so if you think you are going to get away with twisting and distorting testimony and just flat out lying about what witnesses said, you aren’t. I am onto your tactics. Your shameful attempt to distort and contort Lagasse and Brooks as supporting your case was entirely dishonest. I plan to go back and check for gross distortions in your statements during the debate about George Aman as well. I bet your interpretation of Aman’s testimony is distorted as all hell.

                One after the other though you people just keep coming. I guess the plan is to see if you can wear us all out over time. The truth doesn’t get tired Wayne.

                I said to Craig before the debate that no matter what the results were and no matter how decisively we won that you would continue to promote your nonsense as though the debate never took place. If the results were 10.000 to 1 you would still do the same. Here you are doing exactly that. You are not a truther. You are incapable of admitting when you are wrong, which is a very serious character flaw.

                1. ruffadam:

                  Since you asked about the tail impact, I thought I would talk about the hypothesis for the probable mechanics of the plane entering the first floor – and how it might have affected the tail.

                  The link below provides some background information about the aircraft structure and the hypothesized sequence shows that there would be forces to rotate the tail rearward. This would make the tail hit at an angle and be lower than the full height of the tail when standing on the runway. The exact amount of the tail rotation rearward is unknown – but the structural analysis shows that there would be some.

                  https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/73408408/67665635/name/Pentagon_Plane_Impact_Seq_03.pdf

                  The key issue is that the structural backbone of the airframe would have transferred forces back toward the rear — and this would have created a rotational force to push the tail rearward (see the plane structure in the linked pdf). The lower part of the structure below the tail would not be subject to the same forces because the first floor wall gave way. The upper part of the aircraft structure is impacting the second floor slab head on so it continues to transmit forces rearward. This is unlike the first floor wall area which has given way and no longer has a mechanism to create forces that would then be transmitted rearward.

                  While you and Adam and Craig will howl that this is wild speculation – because there is no video if it – it is consistent with the structure of the plane and the hypothesized impact into the Pentagon wall at about the second floor slab level.

                  The plane entering the building is consistent with witness accounts – some of which are CIT “gold standard” witnesses (your words not mine).

                  Again, there are no witnesses to a flyover that you appear to believe in in the absence of any evidence.

                  1. Wayne said: “the hypothesized sequence shows that there would be forces to rotate the tail rearward.”

                    NOTHING would move or rotate rearward in an impact. The sudden slowing would force everything forward. This is why when a car hits a stationary object the passengers are thrust forward, and sometimes right through the windshield. If you cannot even grasp this very simple concept then I think you need to rethink even speaking here at all.

            1. captivescientist:

              I believe that you are referring to slides 66 – 72 in the debate presentation:
              http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/Pentagon_Debate_Jan27_Final2.pdf

              From the ASCE “THE PENTAGON BUILDING PERFORMANCE REPORT,” January 2003
              Page 11:

              “The new construction consisted primarily of either filling in existing voids in the original construction or creating framing around new openings. This new work mainly entailed concrete slabs on composite steel deck and beams. Where the loads exceeded the capacity of the existing concrete columns, new steel columns and foundations were provided.

              The structural class for fire resistance was type 1B (protected, noncombustible) as defined in the BOCA National Building Code. The original concrete structure inherently possessed such ratings, and the new steel beams and columns achieved the protection with sprayed-on insulation (generally two-hour rating for floors and members supporting only one level and three-hour rating for members supporting more than one level).

              As described previously, the original exterior Ring E wall is mostly non-load-bearing masonry infilled in a concrete frame. The exterior surface is 5 in. thick limestone, which covers the frame, backed by 8 in. unreinforced brick that is infilled in the frame. In some areas the backing is a cast-in-place concrete wall. At the locations inspected for this study, the brick infill at the fifth story was not in contact with the columns, but was separated by a 2 in. gap crossed by metal ties between the mortar joints and dovetail slots in the column face. (According to consultation with an engineer from the authoring firm, at other locations the brick was mortared tight to the columns.) Concrete columns exist at 20 ft on center in the fifth story and at 10 ft on center in the lower stories. The fifth story has no windows, and the brick is interrupted by a concrete beam between the fifth floor and the eave of the roof.The remaining stories have 5 by 7 ft windows in the majority of the 10 ft bays, and the head of the window is the soffit of the concrete edge beam of the floor above.”

              Also:

              The Pentagon wall was reinforced – but nowhere near the strength or mass of the Sandia wall. As you should know, each 7ft x 4.5 ft window (31.5 sq ft) was centered in a section of the wall that was 13.5 ft x 10 ft (135 as ft). This means that 23 percent of the wall area was no more than blast resistant glass (31.5 / 135 = 0.23). This reinforced Pentagon wall had nowhere near the amount of either mass or structural integrity of the Sandia wall.

              Remember that the reinforced concrete section in the Pentagon wall was only 10″ thick (and began with 23 percent “missing”). The remaining portion of the wall had 6″ of limestone facing and 8″ of brick.

              To insinuate that the 24″ (2 ft) of the Pentagon wall (with 23 percent missing) was even remotely comparable the Sandia wall suggests a comparison between apples and oranges” — although the analogy is probably more like apples and cannon balls (with the 10′ solid Sandia wall being the ‘cannon ball’ and the 2ft thick mixed limestone-brick-concrete wall with 23 percent [7′ x 4.5 ft] voids being the the ‘apple.’)

              -Wayne

              1. Thanks, I’ve found a copy of the ASCE report (search b03017.pdf). It’s been removed from the official site – all the internet links are dead.

                I’m sorry, I thought my point was quite clear – that the Pentagon walls/floors were stronger than *nothing at all*. That’s why I said ‘no walls, no floors’. If anything, you are the one ‘insinuating’ that the concrete block is comparable to metal (cannon ball), while the Pentagon wall is comparable to fruit (apple), or even thin air.

                A few points/questions:

                The ground floor looks taller than the rest in photos, how high is the foundation?
                Why do you describe the windows as voids? They were very thick, blast resistant, and could not open. You seem to be giving me an image of a sort of Flintstones Pentagon, with walls of apple.
                Do you have measurements for the floor slabs? They would be especially strong from this angle.
                Apparently the windows had steel supports holding them in place, two 8″x8″ vertical tubes from top to bottom, and two horizontal 4″x4″ connecting those.
                Do you know anything about the ‘kevlar’/embankment material and the steel plates it wrapped around that that were supposed to stop blast debris from entering the building?
                I read the bay frames were 21″x21″ concrete with steel, are these included in your bay size? Do you have any details about these or any columns?
                Dwain mentioned a wall upgrade after GWB came into office, do you know anything about this?

                1. Captive Scientist:

                  You asked many question anf I don’t have the answer to them at this time. I will need to get back to you.

                  As far as my comment that the windows are “voids,” this is from the perspective of their resistance to a momentum driven impact. The Sandia lab sled test was impacting a plane into a 10 ft thick solid concrete block. The Pentagon wall was 5 inches of limestone and 8″ of bricks with 10″ of reinforced concrete (NOTE: 10″ of concrete – that is how thick my basement walls are in my house). The window openings, even with the extra steel framing, create a wall much less robust than the Sandia test. The points of connection to the slabs would be the weak point.

                  If you look at the 16 ft opening on the second floor, you will see that the wall has effectively broken away along the structure at the top. It has either fallen down or been knocked inside. If you look at the images, you will get the impression that the wall may have been “tough,” but the connections to the structure were no match for the momentum based impact. .

                  -Wayne

    2. I thought this reply was going to Captivescientist. Anyway, I don’t think LS-dyna was used. But, I did find a study that compared transports with fan engines impacting containment barriers, and relating those to the F-4 Sandia test. They point out the most significant factor is related to the differences in engine weights.

      http://www.enea.it/it/Ricerca_sviluppo/documenti/ricerca-di-sistema-elettrico/nuovo-nucleare-fissione/lp2/lp2-025-1059-cirten-unipi-rl.pdf

      1. Thanks, that one used Msc.Marc/Dytran, another Finite Element Analysis system. The F15 study you mention in your Pentagon article and the Purdue studies on the Pentagon and the WTC used LS-DYNA. NIST WTC7 report used LS-DYNA and ANSYS.
        It seems they are more concerned with the total load over time on the block/target than the state of impacting plane/missile. However I’m curious about the plane itself, especially in light of Shanksville.

      2. I noticed a mistake in your 2013 article on the Pentagon; the plane parts apparently going through the wall in Fig.15 are actually an error in the simulation involving the interaction of SPH particles with the ‘solid’ elements of the block. It doesn’t represent a realistic scenario.

      3. Dwain, earlier you said (regarding Fig.18 from the F15 paper) “..all the lighter-weight structure was shown crumbling away as tiny bits and pieces.”

        I don’t think what we see in Fig.18 necessarily shows a plane would turn into tiny bits and pieces or ‘confetti’. Most of the mass appears to be in a big blob in front of the wall. Even the individual particles we see were always particles as they modeled the plane with Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. They may be rendered as pixels, but these points have a radius of diminishing influence that in reality could contain metal or whatever. The size of this sphere is even larger than the traditional ‘solid’ finite elements that SPH particles are analogous to. Up close, an SPH model whose particles were rendered as pixels would appear as mostly empty space.

        Since they model they plane as a hollow shell of particles they had to include the entire mass of the aircraft in the skin (except the fuel and engines). Of course, this will affect the behavior of the plane (even if it can be made to approximate the Sandia load over time on the block as the mass is still there just in a much smaller volume). They fiddle with various constants to make their load/time graph look more like Sandias, but validation against something so specific would appear to say little about the accuracy of the simulation as a whole.

      4. Dwain, sorry I gave the wrong references above from your article ‘The Pentagon 757’.

        You should actually remove “Fig. 5 – F-15 computer model impacting hardened wall. (Ref. 8, Fig. 5-18)” (not Fig.15).

        Also, do you have any thoughts on what I said about “Fig. 6 – F-15E computer model impacting wall. First external fuel tank, then engines contact wall. (Ref. 8, Fig. 6-6)” (not Fig.18)?

  13. I read the comments and I remember why I dropped out of the truth movement. Do you guys know Randi’s Kids devised a plan to gain entrance into this movement and tear it apart from the inside right?

    So today you have “established credible” 9/11 truthers who do nothing all day but try to discredit the work of other 9/11 truthers.

    For example, I, Domenick DiMaggio being a 9/11 truther, do not believe thermite has been proven to have been used at the WTC. I do not however attack those who discuss it, I promote my Shanksville work.

    See one is detrimental to this movement and one is positive for this movement.

    This small vocal group of people still claiming the truth movement is “divided” on a plane impact at the pentagon are as full of shit now as they were in 2004. The majority of the truth movement doesnt believe that. Hell, even people who aren’t 9/11 truthers aren’t sure a plane hit it when you talk to them in private.

    And that’s why there are small teams of people who have been assigned to discrediting the Pentagon research since like 2005 or so. And it continues to this day. And it’s obvious to anyone who sees it.

    1. The JREF’ers have been up to no good for a long time that is for sure and not just with 9/11 but you know the NSA’s Q group has been at this for a long time too. They use all sorts of dirty tricks to try and tear us down and divide us but you know what Dominick? The truth ALWAYS wins in the end. No matter what they do the truth cannot be defeated, the only thing they can even remotely hope for is to suppress the truth for a while. So in essence they are like cockroaches scurrying around hoping and praying the light doesn’t get flicked on. These disinformation artists promoting the lie about impact at the pentagon are a dying breed, discredited and demoralized, just like the corporate media. No one is buying the BS they are selling anymore.

    2. Domenick,

      You’ve addressed something that I think is at the core of this contrived Pentagon “controversy.” The people who claim to be truthers but who are actually doing real harm to the movement are focused on attacking not the official story but other truthers. They attack those who challenge the official story. They smirk and taunt and peck at any piece of valid evidence that helps prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

      And they do this on the flimsiest of premises – that they don’t want us to be embarrassed when the mainstream media calls us “lunatic conspiracy theorists.” Gee, maybe it would be safer if we abandoned all this “inside job” stuff and stuck to the safer charge of incompetence. That way, the media might like and respect us! (For Mike Collins and other 9/11 adolescents, this is sarcasm.)

  14. Craig et al:

    Regarding your referencing the Dewdney/Longspaugh paper. Remember that those authors went through a lot of discussion about the Pentagon and the hole on the first floor. However, in their illustration and their concluding discussion about what happened to the wings – they ignored the 80 ft opening in the first floor wall and only showed the intact columns and 16 foot opening on the second floor. Look at their diagrams!

    http://physics911.net/missingwings/

    If it had been the case that all the columns were intact, then you are right — that the wings should have been outside the Pentagon wall. However, the witnesses said that it hit the wall and the plane disappeared into the building. Into the 80 foot opening on the first floor.

    Dewdney/Longspaugh did a dishonest bait and switch in their discussion. When they said about the wings that they MUST BE left outside – they gave the impression that all the columns were intact – after they had something else said earlier about the first floor. They then substituted the second floor diagram as the level where the wings impacted to support their argument

    An unquestioning reader would have assumed that their story would have lined up. I invite your other blog followers to look at the http://physics911.net/missingwings/ website and observe the obvious bait-and switch.

    Serious researchers don’t do bait an switch. Dewdney/Longspaugh made an error that discredits them as serious researchers.

    Apparently they fooled you.

    -Wayne

    1. I don’t follow. They claim 5 broken columns on the first floor, for 34 ft.

      Nowhere do they mention the second floor.

      1. Travis:

        Their error is so egregious it is clear that they are incompetent as researchers.

        In their introduction they set the stage by talking about the first floor opening with this statement and image. The ASCE is describing the first floor opening.

        “In the engineering report, four of the columns are missing altogether, while a fifth column on the right side of the initial hole is bent (outward), but intact. We may therefore take the width of the gap as 5×3.1 = 15.5 m (50′ 10″)”

        As seen in the quote below, they claim that because the wings were not broken “into eight-foot fragments” so that they could pass between the surviving columns, they could not pass “into the building individually.”

        Dewdney and Longspaugh use this figure to assert, for purposes of their discussion that the plane and wings impacted the second floor at a level orientation. (NOTE: the SECOND floor.)

        This figure shows the columns on the second floor. Because of the surviving columns, they use this as the basis for their “into eight-foot fragments” argument.

        “As can be seen in the drawing, the engines could only have penetrated the building by being allowed to slip between support columns. This drawing was made before the authors viewed the ASCE engineering report, but it happens to match it rather closely. There would be no way, of course, for the wings to enter the building without taking out any support columns in their path. Structural integrity of the wings, as well as the lack of any holes on either side of the main initial entrance hole, preclude the wings from breaking into eight-foot fragments which then passed into the building individually. In any case, a majority of windows on the ground floor (not to mention all floors above them) remained unbroken after the crash.”

        In summary:

        1) They are aware of the damage to the first floor from the ASCE report
        2) They then continue their discussion about the columns on the second floor
        3) Conclude that because the columns on teh second floor are intact, the wings could not have gone into the building
        4) Therefore they must be on the outside.

        Are we agreed that Dewdney and Longspaugh are incompetent (at least in regards to this piece of analysis)?

        -Wayne

        1. I agree that the last two graphics are disingenuous, and does cast doubt on the authors’ integrity.

          Thanks for pointing that out.

          It is hard to imagine what would happen to the fuel-laden wings at 500+ mph, perhaps they are being overly-simplistic.

          I do maintain however that the damage/debris patterns seem inconsistent with the official story. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find any other crashes that would approximate this one satisfactorily. The alleged speed, target, and angle are just to specific to this case.

          What is your take of the lightpoles? Some pilots contend that 5 light-poles would be sufficient the explode the wings. One pole was enough to take down a MacDonald Douglass in 1987:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255

          So perhaps the entire Dewdney article is pointless, since the wings would not have survived the light-pole assault anyhow?

          1. Travis:

            The wings for DC-9 (NWA 255) and a Boeing 757 are different. Slides 60 – 65 haave a brief description of the light poles and the NWA 255 accident (with a link to the FAA report).

            http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/Pentagon_Debate_Jan27_Final2.pdf

            As far as the wings being destroyed by the light poles, I believe that is not likely. This image shows the structural spars that are in front of the fuel tanks.

            This shows the entire plane structure and the location of the fuel tanks can be seen.

            This is a mid-spar for a Boeing 747:

            The wing spars are more robust that the DC-9. The initial operation of a DC-9 was 1965. The Boeing 757 was first flown in 1982. In the 1960s (as I understand it) bird impact studies required stronger structures. I believe that the 757 series incorporated the new requirements.

            I am not an expert on aircraft, but this is what I have found when researching the wing issues.

            -Wayne

  15. Wayne plows ahead as if the debate never took place. He offers hollow, empty arguments. He offers non-arguments. He offers convoluted arguments. He cherry picks. He takes witness testimony out of context.

    No one here is fooled. You really should give it up. The teleconference debate has happened. It was a formal, structured debate. Both sides laid out their position.

    I thought one of the reasons for having the teleconference debate was to move toward finally putting this to rest.

    I think that in future, members of the truth movement should simply cite this formal debate (both the link to the audio as well as Craig’s articles and the above screenshot), and then move on and not have more minutes/hours/days of their lives sucked into this so-called online “debate.”

    Real truthers have REAL work, research, activism, outreach to accomplish… as Rome burns…

    1. Adam Syed:

      The Pentagon “debates” were not sufficient to answer and respond to all the assertions that were made. That is why there was a lot of follow-up comments- to correct the record.

      I am still waiting for the witnesses to the flyover. I only know of Roosevelt Roberts and he wold have see the tail of the plane a mile away in the 10 seconds he took to get to the east loading dock.

      If the flyover is the best evidence we have that the Pentagon was an inside job – I still waiting for the strong evidence. From what I have seen in your replies is that there is nothing more than wishful thinking.

      1. Who said the flyover was the best evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? I know I didn’t say that. The evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon is the best evidence we have because no entity other than the U.S. government could have pulled off this deception. You have no evidence a crash took place except the official story, which seems to provide you with much of your material.

        1. I think the collapse of building 7 guarantees that 9/11 was an inside job.

          Knowing that, one would assume that the official Pentagon Story is false as well. There are just too many incredible things that we are asked to believe.

  16. A while back I said I was working on the evidence for the approaching plane. We put together an article about this and it is now posted.

    https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557-news-releases/475-pentagon-plane-approach-captured-on-video.html

    In short, the CITGO video captured shadows that would be consistent with a plane passing by the CITGO station. Exactly 3.0 seconds later the CITGO security cameras captured a reflection of the fireball. Fifteen seconds after that Sgt. Lagasse is seen backing out of the CITGO Station on his way to the Pentagon.

    Based on the interval of time, it can be estimated that the plane was flying about 400 mph. Because of the margin of error caused by the each security camera frame being a snapshot taken three times a second, there is a one-third second uncertainty in any measurement.

    It is significant that the shadow appears in the camera pointed toward the south-of CITGO flight path.

    Like everyone else, I wish the video record of what happened at the Pentagon was more complete – but this is a major addition to the evidence.

    -Wayne

  17. Why do people believe that the few seconds of video purported to be from the Pentagon that morning is at all real? The date time stamp is off by one day. It has been shown to be doctored. There should be more camera footage from many more angles. Why would anyone, particularly a “truther,” put any trust into that short clip that the US Government released years later?

    1. A very good question. We know the video was faked. But David Chandler and Ken Jenkins want us to believe the video is real and that it shows Flight 77. I wonder why.

    2. Nikogriego:

      Wrong video. You apparently replied before you read the article.

      It is NOT the Pentagon Security Gate Camera. It is about the CITGO security camera.

      -Wayne

  18. I said I was done here, but I can’t help but highlight a bit more disinformation and disingenuity from Wayne Coste:

    WC: “If the flyover is the best evidence we have that the Pentagon was an inside job”

    I’m not sure what the name of your logical fallacy is off the top of my head (straw man? red herring? someone help me out) but I don’t know of one single person, ever, who has said that “flyover is the best evidence we have that the Pentagon was an inside job.” Craig already addressed this, above.

    WC: “I only know of Roosevelt Roberts and he wold have see the tail of the plane a mile away in the 10 seconds he took to get to the east loading dock.”

    Let’s break that down…

    “I only know of Roosevelt Roberts”

    I don’t buy that and I think you know it to be not true. You know the information about the people reported via Erik Diehle. I know you also were forwarded the CIT thread about Dewitt Roseborough some time back. And there was the TV interview on the day of 9/11 of a character named “Mr. Gurma,” who said, “It missed the navy annex, it missed the Pentagon, I thought it was a flyby.” You might point to that as being weak evidence, and indeed I’m sure it’s why CIT didn’t include it in their presentations, because there was no first name nor definitive spelling of the last name, hence virtually impossible to track him down for an independent interview. But since you specialize in presenting exponentially weaker (or in your case, flat out dubious or false) evidence than that, it is certainly fair game to point out publicly that you HAVE been made aware of all these other testimonies that point to that conclusion.

    “and he wold have see the tail of the plane a mile away in the 10 seconds he took to get to the east loading dock.”

    Your would haves, could haves, should haves do nothing to negate his testimony that, after the explosion “ten seconds TOPS” he did indeed see a “commercial aircraft” flying away from the building over the south parking lot, just above the light poles.

    I suppose I’m masochistically curious as to how you’ll attempt to prolong this.

    1. Adam Syed said:

      “I’m not sure what the name of your logical fallacy is off the top of my head (straw man? red herring? someone help me out)”

      It’s a “Straw Herring”, Adam.

      1. Adam Syed:

        Sorry. I replied to the question when it was sent through the Yahoo group. Here is what I said:

        You may be right about the “no steep hill” part, but here is the source of that profile image. It is from Delorme TopoUSA 7.0. As far as I know, this software is pretty accurate. I’ve used it for hiking and bicycling. You can see the profile with a smaller vertical scale at the bottom of the image.

        Here is the original image with a larger vertical scale.

        Now will you talk about what happened to the tree in front of Column 16?

        -Wayne

          1. Craig:

            Sorry. The vertical scale is NOT a problem.

            The question that resulted in me digging out this analysis of heights – and line-of-sight visibility – was the question (a good one I might add),were there any topographic obstructions that would have prevented Don Chauncey from actually viewing the Pentagon and surrounding area. The goal was to see if I had to retract my support for Chauncey because there were hills in his line-of-sight.

            Based on the analysis, using Delorme Topo USA7.0, Don Chauncy would have had a clear view of the Pentagon from a building with – probably – three or more stories. There were no topographic impediments to him seeing the Pentagon.

            The approaching plane coming down Columbia pike would have been, clearly, within his line-of-sight because the plane was 100 ft or more higher than the Pentagon as it passed the VDOT tower and Sheraton.

    2. Adam Syed:

      I believe that you and Adam and Craig should have a conference call to figure out exactly what you want your message to be.

      As I recall, in the post debate discussions, Craig said something to the effect that ‘The north pass effectively required a flyover.’ That was the strongest evidence of an inside job. [Note: I used single quotes because it was my memory – I could go back and look for the quote – but it isn’t actually relevant. I am asking for clarification.]

      If the three of you agree that a flyover is NOT part of your theory of what happened, I will be glad to drop it from these discussion.

      I would like all three of you to make such a statement that flyover is not possible. Otherwise it is not a “straw man” – it is “YOUR MAN.”

      So — Flyover or not – what is your collective opinion.

      -Wayne

      1. “As I recall, in the post debate discussions, Craig said something to the effect that ‘The north pass effectively required a flyover.’ That was the strongest evidence of an inside job.”

        Wayne,

        This is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I said. Why do you keep misrepresenting my statements? I think I write very clearly. If you continue to do this I may have to conclude you’re doing it on purpose. Let me restate once again. Please take note of this so you don’t get confused in the future.

        The evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon is among the strongest evidence we have that 9/11 was an inside job. And this is because no other entity than the U.S. government could have faked a plane crash at the Pentagon.

        Also, we do not have a collective opinion. We are three people who strongly agree on the Pentagon (and most aspects of 9/11). If we form a political party, I’ll let you know.

        I understand that you want to keep the focus on “what happened to the plane” rather than on the fact that it could not have hit the building. As to “the flyover,” I think I’ve been clear about the fact that a plane that flies towards the building, and then does not hit the building, must have flown over. But regardless of how many people saw it, or even if no one did, the fact remains that the plane flew on the north side of the Citgo station and could therefore not have impacted. Also, there is no physical evidence that a 100-ton plane hit that wall. This we have gone over many times.

        Speaking for myself, I don’t even consider this a theory. I say the burden of proof is on those who claim a plane crashed. You can’t prove it; all you can do is speculate and twist things. You’re the one with the theory.

    3. Adam Syed:

      If you are going to use Rosevelt Roberts as a flyover witness – you should understand that he said the plane was heading to the southwest which is in the direction of the C-130 flight path – but obviously that would not happen for another couple of minutes after impact.

      “Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?
      Roosevelt: Right.”

      Here are the transcripts of his relevant statement. I’ve read them- I trust you have also.

      I can’t believe that you are “hanging your hat” on these comments.

      -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Library of Congress interview:
      [audio src="https://stream-media.loc.gov/afc/911/afc2001015_sr348a01.mp3" /]

      at 1:29

      Roosevelt Roberts: As I hang up the phone, the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time – watching the TV it was almost timed. So precise. As I hung up the phone and ran to the center of the dock – and I looked up and I saw another plane flying around the south parking about like 9:11 or 9:12 in the morning. And then there was dust and stuff coming from the ceilings and you could hear people scream. So what I did was turn around and drew out my weapon – I didn’t know what was going on – I thought we were being invaded – I didn’t know what was happening. So I ran back in South Loading and I start forcing people out of the building …

      -=-=-=-=-
      CIT’s interview with Roosevelt Roberts)

      Aldo Marquis: Hello, Roosevelt?

      Roosevelt Roberts: Yeah. Yeah.

      Aldo: Hi. Than- thanks for taking my call. Um-

      Roosevelt: Okay.

      Aldo: -Yeah- yeah, just- uh, uh, we- b- had been listening to the uh. . . the uh recordings that. . . I guess Jennifer Brennan, which is the daughter of one of the other

      police officers there. . . uh, what-

      Roosevelt: Right.

      Aldo: -he- what he had. . . uh, what. . . I guess she had done with you guys. . . Um. . . if I can really quick. . . just, uh- if you can just tell me your story.

      Roosevelt: Oh! Ho- hold on one second, uh, you caught me driving. Um. . .

      Aldo: Okay. Well you know what, let me- let me just ask you a couple of quick questions. There’s- there- there is mainly a- a couple specific things. When you- you had

      mentioned, uh. . . right as you hung up the phone. . . you- you ran outside- what which parking lot- which dock were you at?

      Roosevelt: I was in south parking, and I was at the east loading dock when I ran outside and saw the low-flying aircraft above the parking lot.

      Aldo: Okay. . . Was it a- was it a- a jet or was it a- do you remember what kind of plane it was?

      Roosevelt: Uh, it looked like to me at that time, uh, uh, uh, large, uh, aircraft-liner.

      Aldo: Like a-

      Roosevelt: It wasn’t a- it wasn’t a jet; it was a commercial aircraft.

      Aldo: Okay. Did it have propellers, or did it have jet engines?

      Roosevelt: It looked like jet engines, at that time.

      Aldo: Jet engines. Okay. Um, uh- so- uh- y- how close were you to running outside ’cause this seemed to be pretty qui-eh- at least from what your account sounded like; it

      sounded like literally the explosion happened, and then you ran outside. I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when you heard the explosion and then saw that plane?

      Roosevelt: From the time the explosion hit, oh. . . I ran outside and saw- it’s a loading dock, and you can run right out to the. . . look out and look off.

      Aldo: Uh-hum.

      Roosevelt: And then uh. . . you see the flickering lights. . . uh, and saw the area, and then. . . uh, real quick I realized that it was some sort of attack, and there was

      going to be a counter-measure with it.

      Aldo: Right. So, how many seconds-

      Roosevelt: Uh. . .

      Aldo: -would you guess?

      Roosevelt: Maybe, uh. . . ten seconds tops.

      Aldo: Ten seconds tops?

      Roosevelt: Ten seconds tops.

      Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?

      Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn’t miss it.

      Aldo: Wha- what color was it; do you remember?

      Roosevelt: Uh, it was- to me at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.

      Aldo: Like silver in color; but you saw it over the south parking lot.

      Roosevelt: Right; around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like.

      Aldo: Okay. And ho-

      Roosevelt: Had to been no more than- had to been no more than fifty feet or less than a hundred feet.

      Aldo: Wow. And s- ho- do you remember how many engines you saw on it?

      Roosevelt: Uh, couldn’t tell for the engines.

      Aldo: And it was- was it moving fast?

      Roosevelt: Oh, it was moving extremely fast. It was like, uh. . . maybe you saw the aircraft maybe for like, uh-a quick five seconds.

      Aldo: For a quick five seconds. But you definitely- and you saw it over the south parking lot. . . over lane one?

      Roosevelt: In the south- in the south parking lot over lane one.

      Aldo: Okay. Do you- do you remember which direction it was headed?

      Roosevelt: Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there’s a highway. If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north

      heading towards the pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, ’cause 395 went right into 27.

      Aldo: So from where- from where it had headed away from the pentagon, which direction was it heading?

      Roosevelt: From the w- uh, can you repeat that one more time, please?

      Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the pentagon, this- this second plane,-?

      Roosevelt: Right.

      Aldo: -wh- do you remember which-

      Roosevelt: Right.

      Aldo: -which direction it was heading?

      Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like,

      um. . . southwest. . . coming out.

      Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around?

      Roosevelt: Correct.

      Aldo: Okay.

      Roosevelt: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across.

      Aldo: Okay, so-

      Roosevelt: And that was-

      Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

      Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you’ve got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the

      plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the pentagon.

      Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?

      Roosevelt: Right.

      Aldo: Okay. Okay.

      Roosevelt: ‘Cause it banked out, and it was like U-turning and coming around and coming out. It looked like, uh. . . for those brief seconds it looked like it- it- it, um.

      . . uh, how do I want to say this, uh. . . it missed the wrong target, and it was going, like. . . out of the way, like back to the airport, or something like that.

      Aldo: Oh, like- so it was headed towards the airport, it looked like.

      Roosevelt: Well, no, not heading towards the airport; it’s almost like if a. . . if a pilot misses good he’ll try to do a banking and come around, because he missed the

      target: he missed the landing zone.

      Aldo: Got it. Got it. And you’re, you’re- are you a hundred percent sure it was a jet: an actual jet plane?

      Roosevelt: Commercial aircraft.

      Aldo: Commercial aircraft. Okay. So there was another-

      Roosevelt: Right.

      Aldo: -so there was another commercial aircraft in the area as- as the, uh. . . the plane hit then, basically. Is that what you think?

      Roosevelt: Yes, sir, that’s not what I think: I saw it. It was two aircraft. That’s for sure.

      Aldo: Okay.

      Craig Ranke: Now where- where did it seem like it came from?

      Roosevelt: It seemed like, uh- when I saw it, by the time I got to the dock, it was already in the parking lot at lane one. And it was so large, you couldn’t miss from

      seeing it.

      Craig: Right, but from what-

      Roosevelt: And that-

      Craig: -direction did it seem like it came from?

      Aldo: He said it came f-

      Roosevelt: It seemed like. . . that it came from, um. . . it- hold on a second. It seemed like it came from, um. . . southwest-lookin- the same way it came in, or appeared

      that it came in, it seemed like it was southwe- that the thing came in. . . uh. . . almost like where that ne- that first plane had, um. . . flew into the, um, pentagon right

      there. It- it- di- it looked like it came from that direction.

      Craig: So from the same direction as- as- as the f-

      Aldo: -From the impact side, basically, from that direction.

      Roosevelt: Everything- right.

      Aldo: Got-

      Roosevelt: Exactly.

      Aldo: -got it.

      Craig: Okay.

      Aldo: A- okay. So- an- an- but- would- now how long would- I mean would you be sure that it was about ten seconds that it would take you to run from the phone to the

      outside, or would you think it was less than ten se- ten seconds?

      Craig: Or a little bit more?

      Roosevelt: It would’ve t- it would’ve taken about ten seconds, because after impact I stepped out the little, uh, booth that I was in. And the distance between. . . that

      booth and the edge of that dock is about, maybe, I don’t know like. . . seven steps away from there.

      Aldo: Wow.

      Roosevelt: So, they’re extre- extremely close.

      Aldo: Got it. Got it.

      Craig: You were right there.

      Aldo: You were right there. Okay. Woul- um-

      Roosevelt: Yeah.

      Aldo: -would it- w- I’ll let you get going there, um, would it be possible to get a- an email from you so we could s- even get, um, like you to draw on a map exactly where

      you saw everything, where you were standing, ’cause. . . I’m trying to gage everything, and it’s kind of hard without seeing it on a overhead. Would that be possible?

      Roosevelt: Oh, sh-. Yeah, that’s not a problem, um. . .

      Aldo: Oh-

      Roosevelt: My email address:

      Aldo: Yeah. Or- yeah, go ah-

      Roosevelt: .mil

      Aldo: .mil. Okay.

      Roosevelt: And now I’ve, uh, switched from, uh, being (inaudible) service to, uh, special- to a-uh special aid, and I work for the Anti-Terrorism Force/Protection

      Directorate now.

      Aldo: Okay. Alright, excellent. Wou- um, would- y- we definitely would love to- what- when’s an- another good time to get in touch with you where we could speak more at

      length with you?

      Roosevelt: Um, I’m going to be back in the office. . . uh, no later than two o’clock.

      Aldo: Okay. We’ll, uh, we’ll try to give you a buzz back later then, and- thi- I’m assuming this is your cell phone, or it transfers to your cell phone?

      Roosevelt: Uh, yes, sir; it’s my cell phone.

      Aldo: Okay, great. Um, you’ll definitely be hearing back from me a- and uh- I appreciate you taking the time to talk to us, Roosevelt.

      Roosevelt: Hey, no problem; any time.

      Aldo: Alright, buddy, we’ll te- talk to you soon.

      Roosevelt: Okay, stay-

      Aldo: Y-

      Roosevelt: -safe.

      Aldo: You too, man, bu-bye.

      Roosevelt: Out.

  19. OK I have just done some light research into Chauncey’s supposed view from his office off St Barnabus (not Bartimus) Rd and the beltway. First of all from the satellite view it does not appear that there are any tall buildings near that area. It appears to be residential even after you cross the beltway. There are a few businesses such as a home depot in the area but I see no office buildings that Chauncey could have been in that area “off St Barnabus and the beltway”. Look for yourself and remember that for Chauncey to “overlook the beltway from his office window” and “See the tower at Reagan airport” he had to be south of the beltway. There is only one candidate building that could possibly be his vantage point in this area.

    http://www.gosur.com/map/?gclid=CMDh55Kq0csCFYclgQodxvEPTg&z=16&ll=38.812666,-76.962878&t=hybrid&lang=en

    If you look at this map of the area only the building located where St Barnabus turns into Brinkley Rd could fit the bill and only if Chauncey’s office was located on the northern most part of this complex. Now this building is technically located off Brinkley Rd but it is close enough to St. Barnabus to overlook that issue. It does not appear to me to be any more than two or three stories tall but I will confirm that later with a street view.

    There do no appear to be too many Don Chauncey’s in Virginia Wayne perhaps you could call these people and find the one who called the news and gave the account on 9/11. A real investigator would do that but I don’t think you are a legitimate truther at all. I have already discovered that at least one Don Chauncey passed away in 2011 but I will let you do some work for yourself.

    http://www.whitepages.com/name/Don-Chauncey/Virginia

    Anyway I am going to get a street view of the area and prove that there is literally no view at all from Chauncey’s supposed location. I expect you to admit you were wrong after I do this Wayne although something tells me that you will not drop your agenda just because I prove that you presented bogus witness testimony. Will get back to you later with street views and I can tell you already Wayne that it is looking very much like your witness is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

  20. Well Wayne it is looking very much like you are busted with Don Chauncey at least. I have just done an extensive street view examination of the area where Don could have been located and the building I thought in my above post could have been his location is a single story florist and garden center building with absolutely no view whatsoever of the Pentagon. I have pictures if you want to see it and Craig tells me how to post them here. So the next thing I did was look at the nearby buildings that might be tall enough to see the pentagon and only one is even a possibility. However that 10 story office building is located at 6009 Oxon Hill Rd and not off St. Barnabas Rd. so why Chauncey would say he was off St. Barnabas Rd. instead of Oxon Hill Rd. raises serious issues about him if he was in fact looking from his office window from this building. Oxon Hill is a bigger roadway than St Barnabas so it makes no sense for Don to mention St. Barnabas if his building was located on Oxon Hill. Let’s assume that Don doesn’t know his own office address though and assume he was in this building at least on the 4th floor or higher I still think it is impossible to see the pentagon and I intend to contact tenants of the Constellation Center building on the highest possible floor (the 10th) and see if they have a view at all of the pentagon. Then I am going to shut you down as hard and as publicly as you should be for doing such shitty “research”. I am never again going to consider the opinion of people like you, who have never been on site and actually interviewed witnesses the way CIT did, I am simply going to dismiss you as the charlatans you really are. Oh and remember after I do this for you that you were too lazy to do it yourself and you were too lazy to pick up the phone and try to locate this “witness”.

    http://www.loopnet.com/Property-Record/6009-Oxon-Hill-Road-Oxon-Hill-MD-20745/L5910sw4Q/Sale-Lease/?LID=118354&LinkCode=21740&From=Profile&FromLocation=Profile&ng=y&ngu=%2fListing%2f118354%2f6009-Oxon-Hill-Road-Oxon-Hill-MD%2f

    By the way the building was built and completed in September of 2000 so it is at least possible for Don to have been in it. I am going to further check for tall buildings and obstructions in between this Oxon Hill building and the pentagon so this building too may be busted shortly as well.

  21. OK I have found contact details for people located on the 7th floor of this building and they work for the IRS office of procurement. Do you want to call them Wayne or do I have to do that work for you as well? Interesting though that Don might be an IRS employee though huh? Anyway lets see if one of these folks is willing to snap a picture from their window looking at the pentagon huh?

    https://www.irs.gov/uac/Office-of-Procurement

    1. After further investigation I have found evidence that even if Don was in the 10 story building on Oxon Hill Rd I described above he still could not see a plane coming down Columbia Pike toward the pentagon because his POV would be blocked by high rise buildings in Crystal City which are anywhere from 10 to 20 stories high and would make it impossible to see Columbia Pike or 100 ft above it. Not only that but Don would not be able to see any part of the Pentagon except the very back facade with the metro station because of the tall buildings in Crystal City.

      Chauncey being able to see what he said he saw about the approach is quite literally impossible. Chauncey is not not just a bad witness but a highly suspect one who may have fabricated his story completely. I have pictures of all this I will be posting later as soon as I put them onto photobucket or some other storage service.

      I notice though that Wayne has not responded to any of my comments about Chauncey though and I have to wonder why that is? A real truther would be pleased to know the truth about a witnesses credibility right? Aren’t you glad to know that Chauncey is most likely a bogus witness Wayne? Isn’t the truth what you are really after?

      1. Here is the building on Oxon Hill Rd. which is the only building tall enough and close enough to Don Chauncey’s claimed location. http://s150.photobucket.com/user/AtomicBomb_bucket/media/Constellation%20center%20complex.jpg.html?sort=3&o=2

        Now from this building even on the 10th floor Don could not have seen Columbia Pike or the plane coming toward the Pentagon because of these buildings in Crystal City blocking his line of sight. http://s150.photobucket.com/user/AtomicBomb_bucket/media/By%20pentagon%20on%20highway%20looking%20toward%20Chanceys%20POV.jpg.html?sort=3&o=8

        I do wonder why Wayne has no comment?

        1. Good work Adam. Incidentally, and I know you’ve probably had the Photobucket account for year, but Imgur is a good source because images can directly embed into comments here, no clicking another link needed.

          I “wonder” why Wayne has no comment also.

        2. Here is an illustration that should put Chauncey to rest once and for all. Chauncey said in his call in clip that he saw the plane coming down Columbia Pike and putting on a high rate of speed. Well as you can see Chauncey could not even see Columbia Pike because that whole area of his POV was blocked by the high rises in Crystal City. Notice also that the POV Wayne used in the debate is very different than the actual POV from the only building Don could have possibly been in to see part of the back of the Pentagon. Interestingly the explosion and fireball would have been blocked from Chauncey’s claimed POV as well by the high rises in Crystal City.

          http://s150.photobucket.com/user/AtomicBomb_bucket/media/Overhead%20view%20with%20colored%20legend.jpg.html

        3. ruffadam:

          Sorry if my delay in replying caused you so much distress that you had to go and make many of my arguments for me.

          First, Congratulations, I see that you abandoned your prior assertion that, “Brinkley Rd [location] … It does not appear to me to be any more than two or three stories tall…” You did this without any help from me.

          Second, Congratulations, you seem to have found the 10 story building at “6009 Oxon Hill Road, Oxon Hill, MD 20745” without any help from me.
          http://www.hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/DonChaunceyView.pdf

          Third, Congratulations, I see that you identified the building at 6009 Oxon Hill Road, as having been build before September 11, 2001. However, according to the realtor records in the above PDF, slide 7 shows that it was built in 1989.

          Fourth, Congratulation on finding that the road where the building is actually located is Oxon Hill Road. However, from slides 5 and 6 in the above PDF, it is clear why Don would have actually said that he was located off of St Bartamas Road. That is where it was located. Furthermore, you didn’t read the transcript which clearly said, “Don: We — our offices are right off of St Bartamas Road and the Beltway. So I overlook the beltway from my office.” So he did not claim to be on St. Bartamas Road proper. You really should read before responding.

          Fifth – You have made an absurd claim. You said that the high rises in crystal city would have prevented a visual of the plane approaching the Pentagon along Columbia Pike. Apparently you made this statement because you believed that all the buildings within the red area of your image are too high and too dense to see over and/or between them.
          http://s150.photobucket.com/user/AtomicBomb_bucket/media/Overhead%20view%20with%20colored%20legend.jpg.html

          Your own diagram with the corrected yellow line (I have no objection to your enhancement), shows that there would have been ample opportunities to see the approaching aircraft along Columbia pike. Slide 8 of the PDF shows a 3D Google Maps version of the 2016 Crystal City Landscape. Slide 9 shows a 2001 vintage view of Crystal City.

          In conclusion, it appears that you have done some homework, but you made a fatal assumption about the height of buildings obstructing views in Crystal city.

          -Wayne

          1. So then Wayne you will be calling the occupants of the seventh floor of that building to verify they can see the pentagon then? I provided a link with all their phone numbers on it and I confirmed for you they are on the 7th floor. Do 1/100th of the investigating that CIT has done Wayne and see what you come up with. Maybe you can even ask them to not only take a picture to see their view but also if they know Don Chauncey or perhaps a tenant of the building on a higher floor. Seriously though Wayne you should not even be allowed to present “witnesses” that you cannot even prove really exist. Very poor work on your part to not even make a few phone calls.

            As to your flat out false statement that Chauncey could see through the high rises in Crystal city well all I have to say is that you should prove that instead of just asserting it. I have checked the line of sight from that building and you simply cannot see through the buildings, there are no “lanes” to do so because of the direction he would have been looking from.

            Call the numbers and do some real investigating Wayne or don’t you have the guts to find out? While you are at it why don’t you prove that Don Chauncey is a real person. Next thing you can do is admit that it is a logical fallacy in the first place to say that if Chauncey didn’t see the flyover then the flyover didn’t happen.

            From my investigation with the correct POV drawn on the map in yellow Chauncey could not even see Columbia Pike at all. It remains your task to prove that I am wrong. So basically the flyover could have happened out of his view totally. Now even if we assume Chauncey is real and we assume he could somehow see through the highrises in Crystal city, even then it is a logical fallacy to claim that if Chauncey didn’t see it (the flyover) it didn’t happen.

            CIT has run vast circles around you Wayne. Their investigation is far superior in both quality and quantity. You are not even in the same league. You have zero credibility by comparison since you have not even attempted to contact any witnesses at all let alone video tape their testimony.

          2. Wow your slide #9 of Chauncey’s supposed POV in yellow is laughably bad Wayne because if you followed that elevation gain in your slide Chauncey would have been on top of Mt. Everest not 260 ft on a slight hill 6+ miles away. This one slide is so damned disingenuous in fact that it serves as a shining example of what you are all about Wayne. Also the angle is such that you cannot even see the actual POV and you have to guess. I estimate that the yellow line you drew on slide #9 is already at 400+ ft up by the time it reaches Crystal City. Very deceptive Wayne and in my opinion downright dishonest. Why don’t you draw the actual POV line on your slide #8 Wayne? Is it perhaps because there is no way to see through the high rises from that perspective? Why don’t you get a street view from the actual POV Wayne, why use such a deceptive picture which is at the wrong angle? Why try to cheat the elevation so drastically? Yeah I think you are busted Wayne. Anyway from what I understand your efforts to promote the official story are not resulting in any success so this is all just a tempest in a tea cup really.

            1. Adam:

              So I guess this is where we will need to leave Don Chauncey discussion.
              http://www.hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/DonChaunceyView.pdf

              1. We agree that there is a 10 story office building near the St Bartamas exit on I-495 where Don Chauncey said he was located. This is shown in the PDF.

              2. He was 6 miles distant

              3. There are no topographic impediments to seeing the Pentagon area. Trees and tall buildings could be an impediment to a continuous view of the Pentagon building – but an aircraft 100′ above the Pentagon (e.g. passing the Sheraton) should not have such impediments.

              4. That Don Chauncey was not able to see the west side of the Pentagon where the plane impacted (Note: Don did not say that he saw the plane impact the west wall)

              5. That a high resolution photo from about the 5th to 10th floor of the Oxon Hill Office Building would be informative about what cold be seen.

              So where we disagree is:

              1. Whether the vertical scale of the topographic diagram leads to the wrong conclusion about what could be seen

              2. Whether the high rises in Crystal City / Pentagon City were sufficiently high and dense enough to preclude Don Chauncey from seeing a plane as it passed by the Sheraton – traveled down Columbia Pike and created the fireball – and no plane flying away.

              ——
              Therefore I suggest we move onto a more local witness that reported actually seeing the plane impact the wall and who was talking to her husband on the phone at the time. He was in a position to see any fly-over but did not.

              Here is a partial extract of a blog. You and others can check it out in more detail.

              The message – aircraft impact and no flyover observed.

              ——–
              https://911reports.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/dawn-vignola-account-vs-cit-methods-by-erik-larson/

              Shortly after they saw the impact, Dawn called WUSA, the local CBS channel, and was interviewed live on the air. Tim was listening to the questions as they were asked by the TV reporter, and he can be heard in the background offering his input to Dawn, some of which she passed on over the phone. Later, Tim was interviewed by CNN. Dawn’s account has not changed since that interview; it is the same account she gave to Citizen Investigation Team in 2007 (judging by what CIT has said about it), and the same account that was given to me. Dawn is no longer in contact with Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman. There are a number of hits for ‘Hugh Timmerman’ online, but I did not attempt to track him down for comment; CIT has said they could not locate him.

              Since 9/11, various people have claimed that AA 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. As there are numerous witness accounts of an AA 757 crashing into the Pentagon, some crash skeptics have questioned those accounts. For instance, in the case of Dawn’s account, blogger Steven Welch alleged that Tim was ‘coaching’ Dawn in her account, and claimed neither testimony could be considered credible. And, according to Dawn and Dan in my interview of them, when Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (CIT) interviewed them in November 2007, Craig and Aldo were not simply interested in receiving Dawn’s account and verifying the view from the apartment. Rather, they sought information that would support their theory that the plane known as AA 77 had flown over the Pentagon, dismissed the elements of Dawn’s testimony that did not support this theory and attempted to persuade Dawn and Dan they were mistaken and their theory was correct. (For 2 sides to this story, see the ‘Plan271’ thread at CIT’s forum)

              CIT insists they’re objective and have not done anything improper in their investigation and reporting. For instance, in a 12/12/09 podcast interview by Paul Tassopulos, Craig Ranke said, “Citizen Investigation Team, myself and Aldo Marquis, have been to Arlington, Virginia several times to interview dozens of eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack. We went there with no pre-conceived notions about what happened- we went there with no particular theory in mind. Our entire goal was to objectively ask the people on the street what they saw, and report it, and let the chips fall where they may.” (2:05) However, it is clearly not the case that they went to Arlington with “no pre-conceived notions about what happened”; as early as 1/11/06, before Craig and Aldo joined the Loose Change forum, Aldo Marquis had posted an article online titled “Meet Agent Lloyd A. England (Pentagon Plant)“. Lloyd England says the plane knocked a light pole through his cab’s windshield, and numerous photos place him, his damaged cab and a broken light pole at the scene. Aldo attempted to show that England could not be telling the truth about what happened, and that the scene was staged. If the plane knocked the light pole through the windshield of England’s cab, the plane was on the ‘South of Citgo’ path, (not on the ‘North of Citgo’ path, as CIT claims certain other witness accounts prove), and this disproves CIT’s ‘flyover’ theory. And according to Pentagon crash witness Mike Walter, when he met Craig and Aldo at his barbeque on the first trip to Arlington, “They were saying things like, ‘Are you sure the plane didn’t land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?’ They kept coming up with all these scenarios.”

              1. Can someone explain this photo to me?

                In this photo, you can see 3 holes in the C-ring. One seems to line up with the official flight path, and two seem to line up with the north-of-Citgo path. It is easy to make out the soot on the building above the holes.

                There is also soot on the E-ring, lots of it.

                Now why isn’t there any on the D-ring? Why can I not find a photo of the D-ring? If 3 fiery objects blasted through the C-ring, you would think that they would have been larger and more powerful as they transited the D-ring.

                  1. What I meant to say is that the courtyard between the D and C rings is two stories higher than between the C and B rings.

  22. I’m just sitting in the back seat and reading all of this stuff and looking at the pictures of what might be the hole in the side of the Pentagon caused by an aircraft including the wings. Could someone put up a picture of the hole i hour after it happened. No airplane debris in the hole and nothing on the lawn.

    Why all this talk about who saw what and where? Dan Rather said he couldn’t see anything and the photos show there isn’t anything right after it happened. Can anybody explain why the windows on each side and above the hole is not broken. There are no holes other then a fifteen foot hole. And the debris in the hole is that of the building. There was nothing on the lawn until much later..

      1. Does it matter if they are blast resistant and a hardened wall is not the point. Right after the damage was done to the building all there is is a small hole round hole under the second floor. It is about 15 feet clean cut whether by a blast or whatever it was that caused the damage.

        What is always being shown is the damage after the building is collapsed.

        There are shots of the hole before the building collapsed. Focus on the hole and the windows right beside the hole. Let’s suppose a plane hit in this area regardless if the trajectory is from the South side or the North side, There would have been more damage then just a fifteen foot hole.

        Now suppose it was an explosion from the inside or a bomb from an airliner going over the Pentagon like most everybody is saying, it is still a small fifteen foot hole and the debris in those first shot is material from the building.

        No plane or pieces of a plane or confetti …. nothing…. and the lawn is in perfect shape.

        That’s what those photos show. Then 45 minutes after there is fire everywhere and part of the building is collapsed. Now you guys are the smart guys, how does a fifteen foot hole collapse the whole front of that section, especially if the thing was reinforced?

        There is the Dan Rather video shot 45 minutes after the damage was made and he says there was only a hole before the building collapsed..A woman employee walked out of the initial damaged are with her baby in her arms with one bare foot.

        Whatever you choose, it has to fit in that fifteen foot hole. Direction and who saw it is secondary. How in the world can an employee walk out of the damaged area with a child if there was kerosene all over the place. Jet fuel stinks and burns your skin when you have it on you, yet this woman walked out and never smelled it nor burned her bare foot.
        .

    1. Eliza Holiday your right, the North-pass is the credible story.

      What caused the fifteen foot hole before the building started to fall apart?

        1. Most every one agrees it is right and damn straight.

          What caused the fifteen foot hole? It couldn’t have been a large aircraft. Consequently the poles were not knocked down by an aircraft. The aircraft went on the North side of the gas station, but not low enough to hit the poles.

          I keep looking at the hole and there is no way a large aircraft caused this hole. It’s much to small.

          All the people that has been talked about, saw something in the air, but whatever it was, it didn’t hit the building. It was just a fifteen foot hole below the second floor, before the building started to collapse..No debris on the lawn nor any scrape marks.

          Explain why all this stuff got unto the lawn. Who put it there after the original explosion? Dan Rather said the building wasn’t collapsed in the video shot with the building behind him only 45 minutes after the first explosion..

          All this debating on whether it was on the North side verses the South side is irrelevant because the hole is to damn small for an aircraft with two big engines to hit the building from either side. On top of that a woman and her child walked out of the hole before the building started to collapse. Who cares what side of the gas station the plane was on, nothing that big hit the building. It seems quite clear the plane was on the North side but it didn’t hit the building because the hole is two small.

          So what knocked the poles down? What made the hole? We see a fire ball but no kerosene was used. After the explosion there was nothing on the lawn. How did all that debris get unto the lawn when the explosion didn’t do it?

          Any fireman knows you don’t put water on a kerosene fire yet the fire truck is pumping water. And nothing on the lawn.

          The whole thing stinks but not of kerosene.

          1. Just to clarify, the hole was only that small on the second floor. On the first floor the hole (completely open with no columns in the way) was about 50 feet wide. If you include partially standing (or hanging) columns, the opening is more like 80 feet. Some throw around figures like 100-120 feet, but this is really more the width of the area that sustained some type of damage. We know that Agent Mike Collins (who I wrote about Jan. 1) says the hole is 120 feet wide, but he is a known liar as I have chronicled in detail. Recently on the Facebook forum “9/11 Truth Movement,” he said that I believe holograms and Russian missiles were used at the Pentagon. Of course, not one of the admins said a word about this obvious lie. No surprise.

            1. Craig Roger:

              Craig, thank you very much for your correction. Talking about the hole in the first floor you said: “If you include partially standing (or hanging) columns, the opening is more like 80 feet.”

              The 80 feet is approximately the distance between the engines of a 757. Slides 15-26 form out January Debate show some of the details of that 80 foot opening.

              https://gallery.mailchimp.com/84a2c6cbe080c5515da932a5d/files/Pentagon_Debate_Jan27_Final2.pdf

              Additionally, there is the issue of the shattered tree stump that is in front of column 16 in the photos. The tree was impacted and destroyed with no remnants outside on the “Pristine Lawn.” Explosions would have blown the tree stump outwards (if explosives were inside the building blowing the wall out – or — outside blowing the wall inward). No evidence of the tree outside on the pristine lawn. Fresh cut trees don’t burn within the15 minutes it took to extinguish fires outside the Pentagon.

              A large plane impacting that area can explain the shattered tree stump.

              -Wayne

              1. Wayne Coste

                Thanks for the photos I am more convinced then ever no plane hit the building by just looking at the URL you provided.

                The tree stump is sticking up by how much?

                Roger

  23. The two aircraft strIking WTC towers were both flying well above VMO. They completely and utterly, explosively; disintegrated into the buildings . Above VMO proves hey were specialist aircraft deployed for purpose.
    By that same token, and in terms of damage done ; If we moot a similar specialist aircraft was deployed to strike the Pentagon, with a 15 foot diameter fuselage if that is the established size of the hole – at 400 +mph; would the damage field not be as we saw it? authentic ?
    Is it beyond all reasonable doubt it is not ?
    If I consider how completely the aircraft entered WTC, it is conceivable to me similar dynamics were at play at facade of Pentagon. Considering the frenzied damage observed in the above ‘Myth Buster’ 500+mph sled/blade car impact; the wild fragmentation before exploding into brown DUST; these dynamics can be extrapolated onto craft impacting building facades at high speed.
    I am not convinced it wasn’t.

    1. The wall of the Pentagon and the facades of the WTC 1 and 2 have virtually nothing in common. One is solid reinforced masonry, the others are glass, steel columns, pan flooring, and thin steel netting. To compare impacts and expect the same results is incorrect.

    2. fremo.remo.The VMO proves there was no aircraft.

      You said… “….at 400 +mph; would the damage field not be as we saw it? authentic ?”

      Sure if it was a tank. They don’t have huge aircraft like that was seen, that can fly at 400 mph at 1,000 feet never mind at ground level, because the air is to thick and would rip the wings off. Also a plane that low can’t fly a straight line, never mind making the fancy loop and down to the building. Also what do you do with the air displacement of a huge aircraft a few feet off the ground?

      It’s impossible.

  24. Craig Mckee for a guy who is supposed to be collecting all this information concerning 9/11 and especially on topic with the Pentagon, you said….. “Just to clarify, the hole was only that small on the second floor. On the first floor the hole (completely open with no columns in the way) was about 50 feet wide. ”

    Amazing. The very first shot before there is any collapse of any kind, there is a hole on the main floor ….below,,,,, the second floor. That means a very big aircraft is supposed to go over the big electrical reels but still stay under the second floor, plow into the Pentagon not leaving any tell tail signs, not damaging the second floor, nor the windows beside the hole and especially with the phony shot from the government of something white going over the lawn at about five to ten feet.

    Either all this talk is forming images in your mind or you are a “spook” trying to get everyone concentrating on details of who saw what and from what angle.

    The hole was in the main floor as the videos point out. nothing is caved in beside the hole nor above the hole.

    PLEASE look at this video at the 2:23 mark and tell us on what floor the hole was..And then look at 8:02. with the fire truck and tell us how much debris is on the laws, including any part of any sized plane. Not after the collapse but before.

    The hole is on the main floor and about 3 meters or about 15 feet.

    1. Wow. Nice video.

      This leads me to believe that the photographs of the airplane debris were staged or/and ‘photoshopped’ sometime after the 11th.

    2. At 2:23 that is the second floor hole. Below that on the first floor covered by smoke in the video is the wider hole. As to the debris on the heliport area there just isn’t much of it at all and it all appears to be small enough to have been placed there by hand.

        1. Yes that is something Wayne should really consider before he insists that the tree he points to in his slides was dragged in instead of blown outward. Wayne doesn’t seem to be very responsive though when evidence is talked about that disproves his assertions.

    3. Roger,

      You should have a clue what you’re talking about before accusing someone else of being a “spook.”

      The hole shown in the video you linked to is on the 2nd floor. The first floor is being obscured by what is being sprayed by firefighters. A better view can be seen in the same video at 6:41. This is basically the same composite as the one at the top of this article.

      You don’t have to convince me that the plane could not fit in the hole; I have already been very clear about where I stand on that. It was not necessary to fire off an insult or accusation even if I had been wrong about the hole. But I’m not, as anyone who has studied the Pentagon closely would know.

      And three meters is not 15 feet, it is 9.8 feet. Very sloppy, Roger.

  25. ruffadam your supposed to be a credible investigator, yet you point at something above the first floor. Remember the government said it is down on the first floor and faked all the damage coming from the south side, going in at an angle all the way to the back C ring under the second floor.

    You guys are arguing a point the plane was on the North and you are right. So the damage that was faked showing it came from the right or South side, is all phony. On top of that, the plane never hit the building as this video shows.

    After every thing is cleaned up, there is no damage to the concrete floor and no burn marks that should be there if “jet fuel” ignited and carboned everything up….. nothing. And also, there is a support beam severed but still there in the hole and bent outward.

    Your proving the big aircraft was on the North side is great, it proves the prefabricated damage going angle ways inside the building coming from the South is all fake. And if the plane supposedly came in on an angle, the right side engine would have hit the building first causing a gaping hole, but there isn’t anything. But……. to add to all the “fakeness” no plane hit the building. small or big. The following is another video showing the hole in the C Ring which supposedly was done by airplane debris yet there is no airplane….. nothing…. just building material. So if the damn thing turned to confetti, then only confetti hit the C Ring and just went up in the wind leaving only building material in the hole.

    1. And your criticism of ruffadam is also not warranted. Actually it wasn’t criticism; it was another insult based on your own error. Stop doing this if you want to continue posting.

    2. Roger why are you even arguing with me? I know no plane hit the pentagon, all I said was the damage shown in the video at the time index you indicated was 2nd floor damage. I mentioned it because you asked in your post about it. So calm down man and try to grasp what people are saying before you fly off the handle.

  26. You’re on the ball Craig McKee, I mis-typed, it should have been 5 meters.

    As for the 6:41 mark, that was a shot showing the dimensions of the plane.and from the documentary “ONE NATION UNDER SIEGE”. Nevertheless, the plane does not fit in the hole that is 5 meters big.

    You said… “The hole shown in the video you linked to is on the 2nd floor. The first floor is being obscured by what is being sprayed by firefighters. ”

    the only thing with that is the plane is allegedly hitting the first floor where the circle is and note right in the middle of the hole is a support beam still hanging there. The fire hose spray is on the fires above the alleged entry hole. The plane is not allegedly having hit above the first floor. Why the focus above the first floor?????

    The reason for my remark is because of all the focus of the plane on the North side and supposedly having hit the building. Whatever caused the damage to the building certainly was not an Airliner. The guy who saw something 6 miles away could have seen the plane flying over the building.

    You said…. “……even if I had been wrong about the hole.”

    That’s a big mistake, much bigger then a 3 meter hole.

    The fact you spent the effort to prove the plane was on the North side is great. The plane did not make any hole in the building…… anywhere.

    1. Roger, you are arguing with the wrong people. Ruffadam and I agree a large plane could not have hit the building. One of many reasons is that the hole isn’t big enough. But the fact remains that the hole on the first floor is not 15 feet. I would appreciate it if you were to check on this and then concede that you were mistaken. It would indicate good faith on your part.

    2. Roger you do not seem to get it. The north of Citgo approach path PROVES that no plane hit the pentagon so yes we know that no plane hit the pentagon. Arguing about the fake damage is what gets you nowhere because they faked just enough damage to get those people who want to believe the official story to believe it. Wayne for example will sit here all day and argue about the size of the hole and the damage inside etc etc. What impact believers like Wayne cannot do is refute the fact that a north of Citgo (NOC) approach proves that no plane hit AND it proves the damage was faked. So I focus on the NOC evidence because they cannot disprove it and it shatters the case for impact. See if you would just think about what people are saying you would know who to argue with if you are going to argue.

  27. Craig Mckee you said….. ” But the fact remains that the hole on the first floor is not 15 feet.”

    I don’t know why you would say that since all the photos say it is 15 feet……. Here is a specific shot of the hole……

    https://www.google.ca/search?q=size+of+hole+in+pentagon+9/11&espv=2&biw=1008&bih=580&site=webhp&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikjoCZq9rLAhVBzWMKHfPRDgAQsAQIKw#imgrc=P6Ve0s6Iv4ERfM%3A

    You said…. “I would appreciate it if you were to check on this and then concede that you were mistaken. It would indicate good faith on your part.”

    I did check just in case you were right. I’ve been wrong before and had to “own up”. What does the photo say.

    I agree with you and Adam Ruff that there couldn’t have been any plane used that day to hit buildings. Not only does the fact the Airliner was on the North side, the hole in the building at the main floor is to small.

    There isn’t enough damage to the building.

    Your focusing on a hole on the second floor. gives the impression the plane hit the building.

    I’m not trying to rehash everything, just say it right so folks don’t get the wrong impression.

    1. But Roger, it is you who is giving people the wrong impression. And I am not focusing on the second floor; I’m simply correcting your incorrect statement. How can you read this article and claim I’m leaving the impression that the plane hit the building?

      Please look at this composite photo and look at the hole that you think is on the first floor. You will see there is a wider hole below it.

      http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-hole.html

    2. Interesting videos. I think it also important to note that if a 757 were to hit 5 light poles, you would expect to see large intact wing sections in the area. I would also expect that part of the tail would have survived enough to be recognized as such.

      No witnesses report seeing 2 planes, so that kinda rules out the drone/other plane idea.

      Most plausible is a bomb coupled with a flyover 757 as subterfuge.

      Second most plausible seems to be that the plane hit on the north approach. But if this was the case, what the hell happened to the light poles and the obviously fake story of the cab driver?

      I would venture to guess that they created a customized bomb in preparation for this event while they were “remodeling”.

  28. Well Craig and Adam, you’re right. I have to eat crow. The photo everyone is looking at is the second floor. I brought up both photos and compared, then I could see what you’re saying. I was duped. Even when looking at the photo you brought up, it is impossible that a huge
    airliner did that damage.

  29. So I looked again and looked at the video of “In Plane Sight” which was mentioned in the article you presented, and said it was disingenuous. What is interesting to note is if you put the Airliner in front of the building as is pictured, the nose of the plane is right where the 15-16 foot hole is on the second floor.

    The plane couldn’t have allegedly hit any lower because of all the electrical reels on the pavement in front of the building.

    What is incorrect is that the hole is not on the main floor, but what is correct, the plane could not have fit in the 15-16 foot hole.

    The gap on the main floor is much wider then the hole on the second floor. But what is interesting is the plane couldn’t have been any lower because it would have taken all the reels into the building. They are still there in front of the building.

    I know you agree there wasn’t any plane hit the building and you proved the plane was on the North side of CITCO service station. The downed light poles and the cab thing is all fake.

    The whole blasted thing is a fraudulent made up story.

    1. It is.

      And we should assume that WTC, pentagon and Shanksville are related.

      Listen to the words of William Rodriguez:

      “Culpable or not, if this is what 9/11 represented to the administration, how, we asked Rodriguez, would he describe 9/11 to a child? He responded without hesitating.

      “I was a magician for thirty years. . . It is very easy to do misdirection, to make you look into one place while you’re doing the magic with the other hand.” He’s obviously inferring that in plain sight, the planes struck; out of sight, bombs exploded. “It’s just a big magic trick,” Rodriguez concludes. “It’s an illusion.”

      Guess it would take an illusionist to know one.”

      William Rodriguez was, it is told, a caretaker at the WTC, and an associate to the amazing randi. He holds the key to 9/11, literally.

  30. I have two questions at the moment after reading through this interesting debate:

    1.) Regarding the McKee – Coste debate on January 27th: Is it correct that the poll about who “won” the debate was held among the participants of that particular teleconference call? If so, could Craig please comment on these participants? I understand that this teleconference has been held monthly since 2011 or so, with an evolving audience. Are there any requirements for participation, or any positions that will get a participant denied (e.g. Judy Wood theories)? And, perhaps most interestingly: Open, self-selected groups tend to consist of like-minded people. Is it unreasonable that perhaps before the debate a large majority of the participants were already decided on the CIT/NoC/TaS position, and that this may be a significant factor determining the poll result? (Imagine the debate was listened to by 20 911Blogger regulars, and a poll was taken – what would be the result). In short, I simply doubt the poll is representative of the truth movement at large, but not knowing the history and participants of that teleconference, I’d appreciate if Craig could comment on this.

    2.) I have never waded through ALL of the large body of witness accounts and other evidence, genuine or contrived, concerning the Pentagon event, so there is a lot I cannot speak on with competence or even confidence. For the moment, could Craig, the Adams, and others who promote the “NoC” evidence explain to me what, in your best judgement, this evidence proves or implies, and what it doesn’t imply?
    Was there an actual plane – no doubt about it – that flew low and somewhat to the north of Citgo towards the Pentagon?
    Was that a large plane, consistent with a 757 or similar sized (as opposed to, say, a conventional drone, a missile or a figher plane)?
    If yes to both, then is it true that it MUST have either crashed, or flown over the Pentagon?
    In other words: Are you convinced that the NoC evidence necessarily implies a flyover – such that IF there was NEITHER a plane crash NOR a flyover, THEN all the NoC witnesses must have been mistaken and there was no plane flying the path NoC they pointed out?
    I am trying to figure out the logical structure and implications of this theory.

    Thanks

      1. How do you come to such an assessment? I would not have the slightest idea how the entry or exit hole of such plane crashing through such a building ought to look like. I cannot look at the photos and state with any confidence at all that a plane could or could not have caused this, or what kind of plane doing what kinds of flight paths.

        So seriously: How do you do that?

        1. Jens, the nearly round hole in the C ring has no rational explanation. Even the American Society of Civil Engineers concluded that a plane would have “lost structural integrity” by the time it got halfway to the C ring. So it could not have created a round hole.

          1. Craig,

            a bomb can create a round hole (I assume; I actually have no experience with bombs, or analyzing bomb damage). Bombs create holes after having lost structural integrity – it’s the pressure of fast-moving gas and debris that relates the destructive power of a bomb, not it’s solid structure.
            That means structural integrity is not a requirement for a hole-making ability.
            It is said that the mass flow of plane debris and deflagrating fuel is what blew out the hole.
            Again, I cannot decide by looking at the hole if this is plausible or not, and you have not actually explained how one decides this. I am sure the ASCE did not state the argument/claim that a plane would have “lost structural integrity” THEREFORE it could not have created a round hole. The conclusion is yours, not theirs – right?

            1. I admit that I am not very familiar with plane crashes or bombs, but I think the energy would have dissipated over a larger area. If there was enough energy remaining to penetrate the C-ring wall, I would think that it would be spread over a much larger area. The fuselage is hollow, so I cannot see how the energy would be focused enough. It would be somewhat plausible if an engine was said to have penetrated the wall.

              This is just my take on it, I hope you didn’t find the JFK remark too distasteful.

    1. Jens,

      Let me start with your second set of questions. Most of what you ask is address in this current post and others on Truth and Shadows. I would suggest going over some of those, and if you still have questions, by all means I’ll do my best to answer them. In a nutshell, though, I believe a large plane flew towards the Pentagon but on a flight path that contradicts the official one and which is irreconcilable with the alleged damage path (light poles, “exit” hole, etc.) I believe that a north of Citgo approach means the plane could not have hit the building.

      To your first set of questions about whether the teleconference group is predisposed to agreeing with my and Adam’s position:

      This is not a group per se, it is a monthly call that is open to any truther. We have participants who believe a variety of things. We have discussion topics and guest speakers, and while we may agree on a given topic, we are just as likely to see an issue differently. Some are involved with local groups while others are individual authors or researchers. We share a belief that we have been denied the truth about 9/11. Anyone can join and participate in the calls. Many points of view have been represented on our calls and I don’t think there is any bias towards my Pentagon position, although it is my experience that the majority of serious 9/11 researchers clearly believe there was no plane crash at the Pentagon.

      You might well have seen a different result if 911blogger had hosted the debate but that would likely have been the result of the fact that many who support the research of Citizen Investigation Team have been banned from there.

      We’ve had many well known and not as well known truthers from all over the world as participants and/or guest speakers. People like Christopher Bollyn, Massimo Mazzucco, Barrie Zwicker, Barbara Honegger, Aldo Marquis, Dwain Deets, Wayne Madsen, Paul Zarembka, Elias Davidsson, Elizabeth Woodworth, and many others have been involved.Our agenda and minutes go out to more than 150 truthers each month, including many who don’t participate in the calls.

      1. Thanks for the comments, Craig.
        I’ll construe your first reply as asserting that there was in fact a large plane that approached the Pentagon, and since it neither crashed nor landed nor was teleported to a 5th dimension, it must have flown over, or past, the building, somehow. That’s good enough for the moment.

        As for the participants of the teleconference: Thanks. I had wondered if perhaps you have a good, or rough, idea of where the 20 specific participants that happened to be on that particular call and be invited to vote stood before the debate. But won’t press the issue.
        I am aware of the censorship at 911Blogger – I am myself not allowed to post there. I brought it up as an example of a place that would clearly be biased against the CIT stance.

        1. Jens, I know where some people stood before and others I did not know. I am actually only aware of two participants who seriously push the idea that a real crash took place: Coste himself and Dwain Deets. But I think that rather than indicating a bias on the part of the group, I think this is pretty representative of where the movement is. Those pushing the crash scenario are very vocal and seem oddly intent on giving support to a major element of the official story.

          1. If I might speak up, since my name was mentioned in the context of the phrase, “oddly intent on giving support to a major element of the official story.” I would say, any advocate of the official story would denounce my suggested scenario in the strongest of terms. I am hypothesizing elements within the government and defense industry purposely rigged an airplane to fly at high speed into the refurbished (and now hardened) wall of the Pentagon, with the intention of it looking deceptively as if no airplane had crashed, at least not looking like any previous airplane crash into a building.

            1. Dwain,
              …with the intention of it looking deceptively as if no airplane had crashed…
              This is garbled nonsense – wasn’t it you who earlier asked: “How can we know what the perpetrators wanted? Any suggestions we might have can be nothing other than guesses“? Oh yes, it was you🙂

              1. Yes, Jens, you are correct. I did this time around assume the perpetrators were competent. Seeings as how the air defense shut down, I assumed it was high-level elements within the U.S. government that arranged it. And, for the parts involving airplanes, I assumed they went to the professionals in the aviation defense industry to work out the details.

            2. Dwain, let me get this straight. You’re suggesting that the perpetrators crashed a 757 into the Pentagon in such a way that it would not look like a 757 crashed even though they wanted people to think a 757 crashed. This seems bizarre to me. And unfounded.

              Even if this did make sense from their point of view, how could they be certain that there would not be a recognizable piece of the wing – or even a very large portion of the wing – visible on the lawn? Are you suggesting that they could have been certain that the wings would turn to confetti? Or “fold in,” as Wayne Coste and Mike Walter contend?

              It’s not just those who support the official story who won’t buy this, it’s everyone. It seems to be more speculation, which I think is what your view is all about.

              1. Craig. Assuming they were professionals, they would have the state-of-the-art methods to analyze high speed aircraft impacts into hardened barriers, and the specialists to analyze the planned impact. They would have the detailed specs on the planned refurbished wall, and maybe were the ones to raise the concern, saying the wall needs to be stronger. The analysis tool I have been referencing, the Riera Method, would have shown the lesser-dense parts turn to confetti if the airspeed is above some value. I don’t know the value, but they would know.

                  1. Craig, I’ll hang my case on three items of evidence:

                    1. The impact damage between cols. 18 – 19, at the second floor. See image in the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report (Fig. 5-8). It’s important to me because the wall at that point was part of a stairwell casing, and stairwell casings were not hardened. I have not heard any reasonable explanation of that damage other than wing impact.

                    2. A hole in the first floor where the right engine reasonably would have hit. The high density of engines make them the most likely component to break through the hardened wall.

                    3. Similarly, a hole where the left engine reasonably would have hit.

                    This evidence, coupled with the analysis tools used routinely by the DOD and nuclear industry for airplane/missile impacting hardened barriers, makes this more than pure speculation.

                1. “..the Riera Method, would have shown the lesser-dense parts turn to confetti if the airspeed is above some value. I don’t know the value, but they would know.”
                  How would they know?

          2. I think that rather than indicating a bias on the part of the group, I think this is pretty representative of where the movement is.
            I am not saying this is wrong – you may be right. But it’s difficult to verify – how could one do a representative poll within the movement? I have been surfing blogs, Facebook groups, activists’ websites for perhaps 2 years, It is indeed my subjective impression that a majority would believe no plane hit the Pentagon. Not the 90+% your group had, though; more like perhaps 2/3. Not a small number among those also believes no planes hit the WTC. This seems particularly prevalent in Europe.

            1. I don’t know how close to 90% it would be, but don’t forget that the vote on the debate was not on whether a plane hit or not, it was on which of the two sides offered the more effective arguments.

              1. Jens:

                The interesting fact about the debate voting statistics was:

                1) On December 30th, the debater for the large plane impact (me) lost to Barbara Honegger who said a large plane exploded outside the Pentagon by 90%

                2) On January 27th, the debater for a large plane impact (me) lost to the vanishing plane (it was never seen by anybody after it approached the Pentagon and went into the 5th dimension) by 90%

                These voting results – even in light of all the evidence for a momentum based impact into the 1st floor wall of the Pentagon. It will be really interesting when the exploding plane advocate debates the vanishing plane advocate in May (I believe).

                Here is the debate presentation for Jan 27th where I tried to correct some of the misstatements of the December 30th debate opponent – and prepare for the January 27th debate arguments for the vanishing plane advocates.

                -Wayne

                  1. Thanks, Wayne.
                    Is the opposing presentation also available? I think Craig posted a text-version somewhere

                    1. Jens:

                      The audio of the Jan 27th debate can be found at:
                      [audio src="http://www.houston911truth.net/audio/12716.mp3" /]

                      Craig’s presentation was posted by the teleconference organizers, but the link is not visible to the public. Here is a copy of it:
                      http://hopeoutloud.org/pentagon/Pentagon%20slide%20show%20McKee-Ruff%20update.pdf

                      When you get to slides 37-40, check the reference link and read the source material carefully. The A. K. Dewdney and G. W. Longspaugh argument is that (Sorry for using Caps – Bold isn’t available):

                      1) IF the plane impacted the building, and
                      2) ALL THE INTACT COLUMNS ON THE SECOND FLOOR REMAINED INTACT, THEN
                      3) THE WINGS COULD NOT PASS THROUGH THESE INTACT COLUMNS, AND
                      4) THEREFORE IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE WINGS TO PASS THROUGH THE INTACT WALL
                      5) THE WING MUST HAVE BEEN STOPPED BY THE WALL
                      6) THEREFORE THE WING MUST BE DETACHED AND FALLEN ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING!

                      They summarize saying ” …In particular, in the absence of some agency (possibly unknown to physical science) that removed the wings, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001.”

                      With all the great collection of material they compiled, I find it astonishing (no — impossible) that they accidentally confused the 80 foot opening in the first floor with the 20 foot opening (and intact columns) on the second floor.

                      -Wayne

                    2. Craig:

                      In response to: “So you are accusing Dewdney and Longspaugh of being deliberate disinformation peddlers?”

                      I can’t speak to their motives. I will just let their published (and still uncorrected) webpage stand as evidence of their incompetence.

                      Do you want to give their work your “stamp of approval” to their page?
                      http://physics911.net/missingwings/

                      Do you want to say that to the best of your knowledge that there are no significant misstatements in missingwings?

                      I’ve posted my critique previously in this blog – do you want me to restate it again?

                      -Wayne

                    3. “With all the great collection of material they compiled, I find it astonishing (no — impossible) that they accidentally confused the 80 foot opening in the first floor with the 20 foot opening (and intact columns) on the second floor.”

                      Wayne, you state that it’s impossible that they could have confused the two. So you mean they are deceiving us deliberately? If that’s what you mean, why not just say it?

  31. Jens Schmidt proof the plane was North of Citgo, reveals the downed poles was all fabrication and so was the guy in the taxi.

    So all that is left is whether a plane hit the building. No plane like an Airliner hit the building because before the collapse of the outer wall, there isn’t any damage a plane would have made.

    Also, the trajectory of the alleged South side of Citgo, going inside the building, on out through the C Ring was also staged because there isn’t any plane parts…… nothing. Proof it was staged is because the plane came from the North side.

    The witnesses all saw a plane, including the dock workers on the other side and continued on over the building. Because of this, it is assumed there were two planes, one hitting the building and one that flew over. But…. there was only one plane and it flew over the building coming from North of the gas station.

    Also, a woman with her baby was 35-40 feet from the explosion and walked out of the damaged area made by the explosion without any jet fuel anywhere.

    The whole thing was staged and innocent people in the building was killed. Not forgetting the war that ensued with millions of people hurt, killed and displaced because of this fake attack on 9/11.

    As for Dr, Judy Wood, Craig doesn’t consider this Doctor’s investigation credible and has the book she wrote but only looked at it superficially. Anyone who took the time to read it knows she discovered something very interesting, especially on the seven buildings destroyed on the complex. You’re not allowed to bring that stuff up in this “thread” on the Pentagon.

    All the pictures in the book are on facebook. and numbered.

    1. Roger, there are some parts that could be from a plane but nowhere near enough to account for a 757. It would be wrong to say no parts. I believe that the little we do see in photos was planted.

      Jens was asking about whether Judy Wood was allowed on the teleconference not on this blog. I did do a post on her in 2012 and anyone who wishes to comment about her there there is welcome to. This current post is indeed about the Pentagon, so I would prefer that comments not stray too far from that subject.

    1. Travis, I think that the issue of what would be more difficult is irrelevant. The object was not to come up with the easiest plan; the object was to deceive the world and if possible to divide those who were not deceived. In my opinion, it is wrong to arrive at a conclusion based on what is simpler, easier, or seemingly less risky.

      Also, I think Frank Legge is not a credible Pentagon researcher. He simply writes off all the north of Citgo witnesses as being “mistaken” and he thinks there didn’t appear to be enough plane wreckage because it was hidden within the “texture of the lawn.” Obviously there is much more than just these two examples.

      1. I just find it really difficult to consolidate all of the information.

        The taxi cab driver seems like an obvious fraud, but to stage the lightpoles seems like quite an operation. Also, having a flyover would mean that the radar operators would know.

        I heard witnesses reporting a smaller jet; a buisiness jet.

        I just found a page of ~100 or so purported witness accounts here:
        http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

        I will go through this and make note of anomalies.

    2. Well, whose work do you trust? The investigators who went to DC and talked to witnesses on location, or the man who, for his Pentagon work, never left his computer screen in Australia?

      Oh but that’s right, he’s “Dr. Frank Legge, Ph.D.” That means his crappy disinfo paper must has some degree of merit.

      1. The paper seemed like an honest attempt to me, but there are conflicts with the witness testimony.

        Most of the newspaper/FOX/CNN testimony seems contrived. The video testimony seems believable (CIT) except for the disingenuous taxi driver.

        I have only been at this for a few days. I don’t know anything of Dr. Legge. I merely stumbled across that paper and read it.

        I think know that the bent light poles were likely planted., with the taxi driver to call attention to them. The most obviously fake part of the whole story is the taxi.

        1. I agree with everything you said except the first part of the first sentence.😉

          I have 7 years experience dealing with Legge’s claims, and his papers are most certainly disinfo. He’s not an honest Pentagon researcher. He’s tried, and failed (except at 911blogger where dissenting voices against the “plane hit the pentagon” were/are not allowed on this subject) to spin NoC witnesses as official flight path witnesses… and a whole lot more. Finally, his double negative “hypothesis” in that paper – that we don’t have proof a plane didn’t crash – to be one of the most blatant gatekeeping attempts from “within the movement.” (You see, Legge promotes controlled demolition at WTC therefore he MUST be one of us…)

          Too much to get into in this one comment but the responses to his stuff are online. Check out the Pilots for 9/11 Truth response to him.

          1. Legge is one of the co-authors of the Harrit et al (2009) thermite paper – I wonder why, and what his contribution was…

            1. The prime authors of that paper – dare I say ONLY authors – were Harrit and Jones. Other people listed as authors – particularly Legge – offered little more than minor edits, or even just their names in order to bolster the credibility factor of the paper. I feel confident that Legge’s role was to worm his way into the WTC community and gain trust by way of being a “co-author.” Then carry out his assignment of muddying the waters on the Pentagon. You see, he promotes controlled demolition, therefore he must be one of us. And, by extension, his Pentagon must have some degree of merit and we must be polite to him, and squeeze in and make room for his Pentagon position at the table. After all, he’s not Mr. Legge, he’s DR. Legge!

              1. “The prime authors of that paper – dare I say ONLY authors – were Harrit and Jones.”
                No. The prime author was Jones. Harrit was mostly a fig leaf because the BYU physics department did not wish any of their own (neither Farrer nor Jones) to be lead author.

                The main body of analytical work – many electron microscope images and XEDS spectra as well as the DSC work – was done by Jeff Farrer.
                Steven Jones did most, if not all, the rest of the analytical work (the MEK soaking experiments, the electrical resistivity test; I believe the analysis of commercial thermite).
                Daniel Farnsworth, a graduate student at the time, provided some assistance with the lab work that Jones did himself.
                Kevin Ryan did some FTIR analysis – the paper states they would publish it subsequently, but they never did (Ryan is essentially holding back important scientific results). I also believe Ryan provided some of the literature review.
                I do not know what Niels Harrit provided other than his name and email address.
                The role of Frank Legge, Gregg Roberts, James Gourley and Bradley Larsen is entirely unclear.

                In my mind, the entire paper is suspicious. It not only is completely wrong – I also believe that it has been fraudulent all along. I see that you guys find Ryan and Legge suspicious – I think you should add at least Jones to the list of suspects.

  32. Roger,

    I understand that the damage is incompatible with the NoC path that the witnesses describe. What I was after is: If there is no direct evidence of a plane flying over the Pentagon (or otherwise avoiding a crash after approaching the building as low and as close as the witnesses describe), then what do we make of this?
    Hypothetically, if there were evidence that no plane flew over the Pentagon (or otherwise a trajectory that avoided a crash), then this would render the witness testimony wrong. Again: hypothetically – it is difficult, often impossible, to prove a negative.

    So my question: What do we make of the lack of corroboration of this path? How to explain that there are more than a dozend witnesses who saw the plane approach NoC (more than a hundred who saw it approach), but only 1 (?) who saw it leave? Sure, a fireball draws a lot of attention away, but not every potential witness to a plane escaping the Pentagon would have been in a position to see the fireball and smoke cloud in the few seconds that matter.

    You say “The witnesses all saw a plane, including the dock workers on the other side and continued on over the building“. That’s overplaying your hand, isn’t it? It sounds like “the witnesses all” saw a plane “continued on over the building” – you probably mean only “the dock workers on the other side” – but… “workers” – plural?? Really?

    I understand that this “woman with her baby” (April Gallop and her son Elisha) was a party to at least three different court cases (Gallop v. Am. Airlines, Inc.; Vadhan v. Riggs Nat’l Corp.; Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment) where she alleged that AA77 did crash into the Pentagon, being hijacked and commandeered by Al Qaeda terrorists. As a result, Gallop accepted a settlement with American Airlines and was payed a sum of money for her damages, before she turned around and sued Cheney, Rumsfeld ed al, making the exact opposite claim that NO plane crashed into the Pentagon. This latter complaint was dismissed as frivolous, and her lawyer, William Veale, ordered to pay a hefty fine after not being able to explain why he should not be fined for vexatious litigation. While Veale “asserted at oral argument that Gallop’s inconsistent claims could be explained by the emergence of new evidence since her previous submissions, he did not identify any.
    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxsZWdhbHRhaW5tZW50fGd4OjUzZDdkNzU3MGMwYTdhMjg
    Now you might handwave the courts’ decisions as … whatever, part of the Conspiracy, however you cannot assert that Gallop is a witness for no plane AND at the same time assert that she is credible and trustworthy. For if she had first-hand experience of no plane, why did she ever go to court asserting the opposite?
    tl;dr: I would not base any argument on Gallop.

  33. Travis

    There was only one plane. the speculation was, if a plane actually hit the building, then what was this other one going over the Pentagon. The ….. guess….. is there is two planes. that’s what the loading doc worker on the other side of the building thought, he heard the explosion and dust fell. He ran outside to see a plane fly over and away. He had no idea what happened on the other side of the building except there was an explosion, and an Airliner flying over the building. He later concluded if a plane hit the building, then there had to be a second plane…. the one he saw.

    So go back to what Craig and Adam proved, including others, the only plane was North of the gas station.

    But, all the light poles laying on the ground including the damaged cab, indicates the plane was from the South trajectory including the damage inside the building. but everyone at the gas station and others near the Navy Annex say the plane was on the North side so it is impossible for the plane to cause the damage.

    In other words the damage was faked.

    I also was corrected by Craig and Adam about a specific hole everyone was saying was on the ground floor. It is actually on the second floor.

    So now with this small 15-16 foot hole on the second floor and a much larger one on the main is the only thing that can be used to say a plane went in there. Of course before the collapse.

    Anyone trained in these disasters say there is nothing there to prove a plane hit the building especially at ground level and the only hole at the second floor is 15-16 feet wide. Craig is being generous in the post directly above yours in saying it could be airplane “stuff” but nothing recognizable like luggage, seats, bodies or body parts, or, landing gear or the titanium engines or big chunks of the aircraft. Nothing. And if it is supposed to hit above the first floor, all you got is a 15-16 foot hole to try and squeeze a big Airplane through.

    And after they clean out the damaged area.there are no scrapes of any kind in the concrete floor, which you would think would be there if the plane hit at ground level. No jet fuel either.

    You don’t have to be a scientific genius to figure it out, the whole damn thing is all fake. No airplane hit the Pentagon building or any building that day.

    Some bright guy familiar with local politics knows there are satelite photos of the ground where the plane in Shanksville is allegedly hit for local mapping and found the long streak of the supposed wing marks in the dirt was there long before 9/11 in 1994. That leaves a small hole with no airplane parts in the hole or around the hole.

    1. Roger,
      Anyone trained in these disasters say there is nothing there to prove a plane hit the building …
      You cannot in your right mind claim that no one “trained in these disasters” was involved in the official investigation and signed off on the results. The NTSB was involved, the FAA, the Pentagon itself certainly had experts, the ASCE was there, …
      Such global, unsupportable and no doubt false declarations merely make you look silly and not worth listening to.

      You simply cannot and do not know what “anyone trained in these disasters say“, period. So why make up such a sweeping claim.

    2. So Craig have you heard from Wayne in response to my posts about Don Chauncey? Is he talking on the telecom e-mails? He certainly has not responded here on T+S to the things I uncovered about Chauncey. I don’t think he should be let off the hook so easily, he should either show evidence that I am wrong or admit that Chauncey was a bogus witness. Doing neither is not acceptable. Wayne MUST address this and admit his mistake about Chauncey or show that my analysis is wrong. If he doesn’t do one or the other he should be mercilessly drummed out of the truth movement as a dishonest person. This isn’t a game. Wayne presented evidence that I have shown to be bogus so it is now time to either apologize and admit the mistake or show how I am wrong about Chauncey. I think our mistake in the truth movement is that we let people off the hook when we catch them in a mistake like this one. I know for damned sure that if we make a mistake no matter how minor it may be we will be hammered about it forever by a raft of trolls and agent provocateurs.

      It is time Wayne take his medicine or quit pretending to be a truther. We have to hold him accountable and either get the retraction and apology or send him packing as dishonest. This is what we should do with Chandler and Jenkins and Ryan too since they seem unable to admit the truth about the pentagon as well. I am sure that if I spend the time to do the detailed research on the so called “witnesses” used by Jenkins or Chandler to support their impact scenario they will fall apart just like Don Chauncey has. What good will that do though if we in the truth movement do not hold their feet to the fire and force accountability from them? I mean if we let Wayne slink away without admitting anything or correcting the record then we may as well just pack up our bags and leave the truth movement because we are letting charlatans get away with planting false information in our midst.

      1. Wayne continues to jump from one issue to the next on our teleconference listserve. When he is proven wrong, he changes the subject. After Chauncey, he went to an alleged shadow on the Citgo surveillance video that he thinks is the plane on the south path. No one agrees with him there or anywhere else that I’m aware of.

        Then, he jumped to vortices he says would have churned up the smoke cloud at the Pentagon if a plane really had flown over. He says this “proves” the flyover could not have happened.

        Adam, I agree with you that he should have to address what you unearthed. I will prompt him to do this on the listserve but I don’t know if he will. I made a very long comment there about how he keeps muddying the waters by throwing anything he can against the wall to see if it sticks.

        So, Wayne. How about addressing Mr. Ruff about Chauncey?

        1. So he is basically pulling a ChandleRyan maneuver huh? That is what I have dubbed the tactic of refusing to address points made against you while still launching attacks on your opponent. It is extremely disingenuous to do that and I refuse to refer to those who use such tactics as truthers. If you avoid discussing the shortcomings and counter arguments to your positions then you are NOT debating in good faith, you are NOT interested in uncovering the truth, and you are NOT a real truther.

          Let’s call it what it is: The evasion tactics of a disinformationist.

          If Wayne uncovered information on a CIT witness as damning as what I exposed about Chauncey do you think he would ever let it go?

  34. Travis wrote: “That would be very interesting to hear, as I my mind is still open on the subject. I recently have read this interesting little paper which states no witnesses of a flyover.”

    There may be evidence of a flyover.

    Watch this “scope view” beginning at ~ 13:37 (fast forward). See the LOOK tag with corresponding “S” following it.

    https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E097D925456F1330!161&authkey=!AHDcsFovH6Ljvmw&ithint=file%2cexe

    After impact time, you’ll notice that the S and LOOK continue for a number of radar sweeps, until it reaches the P-56 zone, then disappears. The LOOK tag disappears at 13:39:19

    The speed (see underneath the LOOK tag) goes from 35 (350 knots) to CST (COAST).

    This could be an artifact of the crash at the Pentagon or a manipulation of the radar data used to create the animation.

  35. Jens Schmidt

    Now that i know you have a lot of information regarding the Pentagon I can see the scrutiny of little details directed specifically at me. Good.

    You asked…….What I was after is: If there is no direct evidence of a plane flying over the Pentagon (or otherwise avoiding a crash after approaching the building as low and as close as the witnesses describe), then what do we make of this?”

    Since you know what the witnesses said regarding the plane on the North side, you know they didn’t see the plane hit the building, and didn’t see anything past the cloud of smoke from the explosion. As Craig and Adam point out the witnesses say the plane came from the North side of the gas station so the light poles and the damaged cab is a set up which includes the trajectory damage inside the building coming from the South side going in at an angle. That damage is not consistent with a North side plane.

    You said….. “Hypothetically, if there were evidence that no plane flew over the Pentagon (or otherwise a trajectory that avoided a crash), then this would render the witness testimony wrong. Again: hypothetically – it is difficult, often impossible, to prove a negative. ”

    Well there is two things to this. 1. the witnesses from the North side proves it didn’t come from the South side so any damage indicating it came from the South side is fraudulent. 2. At the point of the explosion is where the people stop seeing the plane because of the smoke from the explosion, but the guy working at the loading dock sees the plane a few seconds after the explosion making a continuation of the flight path. Remember, this guy had no idea what caused the explosion yet he sees a large Airliner come over the building.

    You asked…. “So my question: What do we make of the lack of corroboration of this path? How to explain that there are more than a dozend witnesses who saw the plane approach NoC (more than a hundred who saw it approach), but only 1 (?) who saw it leave?

    I can only guess, the side where all the witness were is open to the public, whereas where the loading dock is and on to the airport is not. The guy in the loading dock was in a small enclosed office, heard and felt the explosion and stepped out of this area (about seven steps) and was out on the platform to see the plane right over the building. Also, the witness didn’t stay in the position as if statues, they were ducking for cover because the plane was so low. Add to that the smoke from the explosion, they assumed it struck the building.

    Your right, I shouldn’t have said “workers”.

    You made a point….. “I understand that this “woman with her baby” (April Gallop and her son Elisha) was a party to at least three different court cases…..”

    I didn’t know that. If she got greedy and tried to make money she deserves what she got.

    BUT…… she was right near the explosion (35-40 feet) with other people who also survived the explosion and none saw any airplane parts or jet fuel. Jet fuel is kerosene and really stinks and burns when it is on your skin, very similar to diesel but with less paraffin wax. I know because I hauled and pumped jet fuel, (diesel and gas as well) and splashed it on my body when fueling a Bell 212 helicopter. considering how much fuel is on one of these planes, everything would be soaked in fuel and it would be hard to breath if it had crashed into the building. The fireball seen in the Gov’t clip is to say it was fuel from a jet Airliner. Try and and grasp this, a tandem truck with a tank carries about 3,000 gals. of fuel depending on what the tank is made of. But a jet liner carries in excess of 8,000 gals. like a tandem tractor trailer. Look at the photos of the parts of the building that didn’t collapse and you wont see anything singed in the offices. A cup of gas on the seat of a car will turn it into a flaming inferno but 8,000 gals of jet fuel wont burn an open book on a stool in the office at the edge of the collapse.

    So it doesn’t matter if April Gallop was involved in court cases after 9/11 or robbed a bank or raped a ninety year old man, she was a worker in the most protected building in the world and walked out of the hole with other people in front of the building with a baby on her shoulder and there wasn’t any fuel anywhere.

    After all the government doesn’t hire flakes with bad credentials…. right?

    Nice try in the deflection.

    1. I was questioning the reliability of these witnesses.
      You didn’t address the logical structure: If no plane crashed, and no plane flew over, then there was no plane, period – and all the witnesses who saw a plane were mistaken.
      One of these has to give:
      1.There was a crash – in that case, the NoC are all mistaken because the physical damage proves them wrong
      2. There was np plane – in that case all witnesses who saw a plane, the NoC and all others, are mistaken
      3. There was a flyover – in that case there ought to be some corroboration. All there is is a single witness who was inside the building, unable to see anything, who took several seconds to step outside. At 360 knots / 176 m/s, a plane flies more than half a mile in 5 seconds, more than a mile in 10 seconds. It is difficult to guess where a plane flew several seconds before a witness spotted it, so this is very weak corroboration – that witness did not see the plane head directly away from the Pentagon.

      There is the I-395 bridge over the Potomac on the other side of the Pentagon, with many motorists stuck in rush hour traffic. There are parking lots where no doubt employees were in the process of arriving at work, some having stepped out of their cars already and having a clear view. You’d expect some having seen a plane flying unusually low over the Pentagon in close proximity to the scary fire ball rising. Yet – none.

      1. Jens Schmidt

        From the information that has been given so far, is a SoC direction and knocking down the light poles and a damaged cab, with the cab driver saying the light pole was inside his cab, but no damage to the cab except a smashed in windshield, including the damage inside the building coming from the South side.

        Yet all of the witnesses situated around the Gas Station say the plane was on the North side including those at the Navy Annex. These didn’t see the plane hit the building but instead there was an explosion. Assuming it hit the building because of what already had occurred in New York according to the same media tape on all stations,

        So if the trajectory damage is falsified from the South, because all the witnesses say it was on the North side, then the damage to the building indicating it came from the South is also falsified.

        Then there is the problem of all those electrical reels just outside of the building some six to seven feet high or higher. With the footage given by the Pentagon of “something” belching out smoke at a few feet off of the ground level, it has to go over those reels then down again to hit the first floor. If the first floor was hit, Then the trajectory of this “thing” would have to have been at a steeper level to miss the electrical reels. So what was given by the Pentagon had to have been falsified. But if the trajectory is as we are told, from the South, then it has to be higher off the ground to miss the electrical reels, in which case it had to have hit above the electrical reels into the second and third floors, which is impossible because there isn’t any damage except a fifteen to sixteen foot hole on the second floor.

        Obviously nothing came from the South side.

        So all we have then is the North of the gas station witnesses. There was a plane big and huge flying slowly, not at excessive speed, but it couldn’t have hit the building and go to the C Ring because there is no damage to indicate it did. Remember the damage to the inside of the building is from the South, going on an angle, which if a plane had hit would not have hit in that angle.So the plane from the North side was heading toward the building and made a loud thrust noise (according to some of the witnesses) as if it was powering up, which makes sense since it didn’t hit the building.

        Unless of course you think it hit the building and did an immediate left turn, while in the building, to make the hole in the C ring the angle of the damage.

        So now we have one guy on the other side of the building who heard and felt the explosion, is in a receiving booth, and steps out (about seven steps) outside and sees a plane flying low over the building trajectory.

        You said…. “At 360 knots / 176 m/s, a plane flies more than half a mile in 5 seconds, more than a mile in 10 seconds.”

        That’s wonderful, and you think it was going 360 knots. Why?

        How about 137 knots or 254 km/h or about 160 mph.

        If you go to fast, you have a thing called a “dutch roll” which a novice hijacker wouldn’t know anything about, say like yourself. Only an expert would know you can’t fly a big plane like that at 360 knots as you are suggesting.

        Also, where is the plane debris on the outside of the building at the point of the supposed impact. Where is the jet fuel and the burn marks on the building and concrete floor caused by the splashing 7-8 thousand gallons? When the debris is cleaned up, the concrete main floor doesn’t have any tell tail burn marks from burning fuel.

        You wont accept what the dock worker said and you wont believe what the others on the North side said like the workers at the cemetary saying, “the plane was pivoting up” so you don’t want to believe what is proved but rather are accepting the Media and Government position. I know you are looking at the videos presented in this part of the thread and even though this material says it didn’t happen the way the Government said, you still focus on other things, like not enough witnesses saying it passed over the building.

        What about all the things you were already shown?

        1. Roger,
          I didn’t mean to rehash all of the same old.
          My point is limited, and simple:

          1. Anyone who claims there was a real large plane that approached the Pentagon on a low path, such as CIT’s NoC witness accounts suggest, and who also claims that this plane did not crash, must necessarily claim that this plane flew over the Pentagon, or otherwise flew a path that narrowly avoided a crash.

          2. There exists only one known witness who reported seeing a plane fly away from the Pentagon following the noise of the attack, and one witness relaying hearsay of a fly-away. No images, no radar data, no other direct witnesses, no physical evidence of any kind whatsoever corroborates that a plane flew over without crashing.

          The relevance is:
          a) You cannot separate the “NoC+no crash” claim from the “Flyover” claim.
          b) The NoC/Flyover hypothesis rests solely on eye witness testimony describing the approaching plane, one witness reporting a fly-away, and one witness relaying a fly-away as hearsay. Against these witness stands a mountain of other evidence, all of which has to be declared to be false, most of which must be declared to be faked, in order to uphold the NoC/Flyover hypothesis.

          Is any of this wrong?

  36. To reply to your post Jens Schmidt
    March 25, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    You said…. “You cannot in your right mind claim that no one “trained in these disasters” was involved in the official investigation and signed off on the results. The NTSB was involved, the FAA, the Pentagon itself certainly had experts, the ASCE was there, …
    Such global, unsupportable and no doubt false declarations merely make you look silly and not worth listening to.”

    Just chuckling here. No I’m just an ordinary dumb ass outa my mind, just like you. We all know the heat from the jet fuel caused the pancake effect so why not believe all the Government experts under Cheney regarding the Pentagon.

    All the videos of smart people who enquired from retired Government officials, experts on understanding visual damage, not like dumb asses like me and you, but people who did their jobs for their whole life say there was no planes.

    You said….. “You simply cannot and do not know what “anyone trained in these disasters say“, period. So why make up such a sweeping claim.”

    I might be a dumb ass like you, but I still can see and hear all the the videos of retired generals, officers in the armed forces trained to understand what they see, and all of them say there is no way a plane hit the building.

    So the sweeping claim is reiterating what these experts say…….. in contrast to the ones working for Cheney whom you seem to support.

    Nice try.

    1. Roger,
      you refer to a body of work that supports one story,the “no plane” story, that you lean to yourself, of which you think you know “all”. However, you cannot, in your right mind, claim to know EVERY work, every opinion ever stated by competent investigators. You know what you have come across, and what you have come across is of coursed biased by where you look and what you believe.

      But my point stands: You simply cannot and do not know what “anyone trained in these disasters say“, period.

  37. Also Jens, there was more then the dock worker who said plane flew over the Pentagon. Put your glasses on and watch the video…….

      1. starting from 41:00 on to including the woman who thought it hit the top. Considering it was banking before it allegedly hit, all the damage indicate no such thing.

        Your questioning why no-one came forth from the other side of the Pentagon is because that is the airport and low planes are always seen there. And everyone was looking at the smoke from the explosion.

        It is truly interesting how you want to shove everything else aside as if none of it happened, and then try to divert attention on not enough witnesses came forward to indicate a fly over. Just the fact the plane was banking proves it didn’t hit the building.

        1. Starting from 41:00, no one describes a flyover or a fly-away for 10 minutes. No thanks for wasting my time. I note in passing that some of the approach witnesses believed the plane crashed.

          Then we have Roosevelt Roberts, whom I already accepted as a fly-away witness.
          Then we have hearsay about a bomber jet flying away.
          And then a lady, Maria, who believes the plane crashed.
          And that is the totality of the witness accounts on the matter of fly-over: Only one eye witness who says he saw a plane fly away after the loud noise associated with the damaging event. That person was inside the building at the time the alleged crash occurred.

          Is any of what I just wrote wrong?

          1. Jens Schmidt

            Quick handwaving on your part.

            You said…. “Then we have Roosevelt Roberts, whom I already accepted as a fly-away witness.”

            I’m glad for that.

            You said…. “Then we have hearsay about a bomber jet flying away.”

            How many were there it doesn’t say, but nevertheless these guys are reporting what others said. It continued on over the building. You did ask if there were others who acknowledged a fly over and these guys said this is what other people said so they went out to look.

            You said….. “And then a lady, Maria, who believes the plane crashed.”

            And where did she think the plane crashed. Not in the front of the building but on top as it flew over. Did her eyes go to where the explosion took place and then back to the plane? Regardless, it didn’t hit the front.

            What I find interesting in all of this, all these witnesses said the Airliner was North of the gas station and banking to the right and so far you agree. Your having trouble here because you know a banking Airliner certainly didn’t hit the building because all the damage done to the building was from the supposed Plane coming from the South side and level.

            Even though most of these people couldn’t see the front of the building, but only saw the explosion, they nevertheless reveal by their observation the plane was banking and couldn’t have come from the South side.

            Even you can deduce a banking Airliner would have made much different damage to the building as that told by the Government and Media and the actual damage to the building couldn’t have been made from any Airliner especially from the South side.

            The damage to the building says otherwise.

            But….. Roosevelt Roberts whom you accepted, continues with the direction of the plane and also banking, which corroborates what all those witnesses said on the North side including Marcia who thought it crashed on top and not in the front.

            Can you actually think a plane hit the Pentagon now that you know what all these people said?

            1. Roger,

              “Then we have hearsay about a bomber jet flying away.”
              How many were there it doesn’t say, but nevertheless these guys are reporting what others said.

              Right – there’s hearsay. Not an actual witness.

              You did ask if there were others who acknowledged a fly over and these guys said this is what other people said so they went out to look.
              I didn’t ask if anyone acknowledges anything, I asked if there were more witnesses to a flyover/no crash scenario beyond R. Roberts – and there are none.

              And where did she think the plane crashed. Not in the front of the building but on top as it flew over.
              Irrelevant. This woman is either mistaken in believing the plane crashed – in that case she does not corroborate the hypothesis of “no plane crashed” – , or she is mistaken in believing the crash occurred, but not into the face – in that case she does not corroborate the hypothesis of “no plane crashed”.
              Either way, this witness clearly does not support the flyover/no crash hypothesis. You must cherry-pick that statement to make it work in your favour – discard and handwave part of her testimony, assert possitively that this witness is wrong.

              What I find interesting in all of this, all these witnesses said the Airliner was North of the gas station and banking to the right and so far you agree.
              Wrong.
              I neither “agree” that “all” the witnesses “said” the plane flew NoC – only the dozend or so who CIT claims said this probably said this – there were many more witnesses.
              Nor do I agree that the plane did in fact fly NoC.
              Please do not make unsupported claims about what I agree. Try to read carefully what I claim. I usually do not claim things beyond that which I actually claim.

              Your having trouble here because you know a banking Airliner certainly didn’t hit the building because all the damage done to the building was from the supposed Plane coming from the South side and level.
              Wrong.
              I certainly do not “know” this, nor do I accept your premise that the airliner was actually “banking”, nor am I having “trouble” with any of this. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth!

              Even though most of these people couldn’t see the front of the building, but only saw the explosion, they nevertheless reveal by their observation the plane was banking and couldn’t have come from the South side.
              People have some capacity to extrapolate trajectories. Not having actually seen the plane crash into the wall doesn’t mean they couldn’t be reasonably certain it did crash there, based on the path they witnessed.
              Of course witnesses can be mistaken. It is not unusual to misjudge the distance of an airborne plane – I’d wager that people tend to underestimate here. It is also not trivial to judge the attitude of a plane as it flies by. Lastly, recollections pulled from memory 6 or 7 years later are obviously unreliable – always.
              So I certainly do not accept as fact that the plane actually banked, nor do I accept as fact that these witnesses saw a plane fly NoC. They are only eye witnesses!

              Even you can deduce a banking Airliner would have made much different damage to the building as that told by the Government and Media and the actual damage to the building couldn’t have been made from any Airliner especially from the South side. …
              Huh? You mean from the “North” side, don’t you?
              …The damage to the building says otherwise.
              Since the damage to the building is a matter of objective fact, recorded for posterity and acknoledged, as far as I can tell, by most supporters of the CIT theories, then it follows clearly that the witnesses who believed the plane banked as crashed, and flew NoC, are all mistaken. It is really that simple. That is the most parsimonous explanation to this conflicting evidence.

              Most witnesses to anything are mistaken about many things. That is a simple and basic fact of life. Ask people to estimate time elapsed, velocities, distances, object sizes, colors, and 9 out of 10 get at least 3 things wrong. Ask them six years later, and you are 100% guaranteed to get mistakes. Prime the witnesses, ask leading questions, and cherry-pick the answers (like you cherry-picked Maria), and you can spin any story out of the witness statements.

              But….. Roosevelt Roberts whom you accepted, continues with the direction of the plane and also banking, which corroborates what all those witnesses said on the North side including Marcia who thought it crashed on top and not in the front.
              How can you say such things?? Roberts said the plane flew over the south parking lot – Maria said it crashed into to roof. These statements are contradictory for a plane that had approached from just NoC!
              Also, what does any bank 10 and more seconds after the flyover was over have to do with a bank a few seconds before the flyover began?
              Also, how could any statements of the approach path corroborate any maneuvers after the flyover? That’s a new situation!
              Do you always make up stuff on the spot like that to suit your favourite conclusions?

              Can you actually think a plane hit the Pentagon now that you know what all these people said?
              Yes.

              1. Jens Schmidt

                You said…. ” Roberts said the plane flew over the south parking lot – Maria said it crashed into to roof. These statements are contradictory for a plane that had approached from just NoC!”

                And you said previously…… “Then we have Roosevelt Roberts, whom I already accepted as a fly-away witness.”

                Maria didn’t see the plane crash in the front of the building because it was over the building, and because there was an explosion assumed it was on top because that is where she saw the plane. Regardless the fact she said it crashed, it certainly was not in front. And she saw it on the North side which nullifies all the lamp posts and the cab drivers false statements.

                If you accept Roosevelt Roberts as a witness concerning what he saw then “poo-poo” him as a credible witness because it was over the south Parking area, which wraps around the building towards the loading dock.is ridiculous. Your trying to make it way out there someplace when in fact he saw an Airliner, the only one near the Pentagon banking away which means the explosion on the other side of the building wasn’t the airplane because he saw it.

                Both of these people didn’t see it hit in front like you want us to believe and both say it was on top or flying away.

                You said….. “Irrelevant. This woman is either mistaken in believing the plane crashed – in that case she does not corroborate the hypothesis of “no plane crashed” – , or she is mistaken in believing the crash occurred, but not into the face – in that case she does not corroborate the hypothesis of “no plane crashed”.

                There was an explosion on the front of the building but she is saying it must have been on top because that is where she saw the plane go.What she is corroborating is no plane crashed in front where the holes are.

                You said…. “Since the damage to the building is a matter of objective fact, recorded for posterity and acknoledged, as far as I can tell, by most supporters of the CIT theories, then it follows clearly that the witnesses who believed the plane banked as crashed, and flew NoC, are all mistaken. It is really that simple.”

                Only to those who refuse to see. Are you saying the two Police Officers at the Citco gas station and the video of the cop car backing out as well all the others who drew a diagram of the path the Airliner took, are all mistaken even though they all made the same trajectory path the same? None of them knew what the others did on paper yet they all said the same thing.

                That means the South side path is all fake. Including the cab with a 40 foot pole going into the back seat with the base over the hood and not a scratch. Then the cab driver said he wasn’t there.

                You asked…… “Also, what does any bank 10 and more seconds after the flyover was over have to do with a bank a few seconds before the flyover began? Also, how could any statements of the approach path corroborate any maneuvers after the flyover? That’s a new situation!”

                Only to those who don’t think.

                It proves the Airliner didn’t hit the building, because the damage due to the explosion says it is all horizontal according to the damage on the main floor and the fact it was banking before hand and still was banking after it passed over according to Roberts. He didn’t know the others on the NoC said it was banking yet Roberts corroborates that’s what happened and in the same direction

                Not only that, there is more damage inside the building then there was on the outside and considering the size of this Airliner with two very heavy and big jet engines, with a tall tail end, it just don’t make any kind of sense, especially before the collapse.

                How did it get over the big electrical reels?.
                .

                1. Roger:

                  Roosevelt Robert’s account is not credible as a flyover witness – he insists that the plane flew away from the Pentagon to the Southwest. This would have been above the heads (so to speak) of the witnesses to either the SOC flight path – or even the witness to the so-called NOC flight path. Many of the witnesses talk about being in a heightened state of alert for another airplane. Yet no one reports one flying in the direction Roosevelt says he saw it go (unless you will suggest he actually saw the C-130 several minutes later).

                  Here are the transcripts of his relevant CIT and Library of Congress statements. I’ve read them- I trust you have also.

                  Here is what he said in the CIT interview (see the entire context around: “Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?
                  Roosevelt: Right.”)

                  -=-=-=-=-
                  CIT’s interview with Roosevelt Roberts)

                  Aldo Marquis: Hello, Roosevelt?

                  Roosevelt Roberts: Yeah. Yeah.

                  Aldo: Hi. Than- thanks for taking my call. Um-

                  Roosevelt: Okay.

                  Aldo: -Yeah- yeah, just- uh, uh, we- b- had been listening to the uh. . . the uh recordings that. . . I guess Jennifer Brennan, which is the daughter of one of the other police officers there. . . uh, what-

                  Roosevelt: Right.

                  Aldo: -he- what he had. . . uh, what. . . I guess she had done with you guys. . . Um. . . if I can really quick. . . just, uh- if you can just tell me your story.

                  Roosevelt: Oh! Ho- hold on one second, uh, you caught me driving. Um. . .

                  Aldo: Okay. Well you know what, let me- let me just ask you a couple of quick questions. There’s- there- there is mainly a- a couple specific things. When you- you had mentioned, uh. . . right as you hung up the phone. . . you- you ran outside- what which parking lot- which dock were you at?

                  Roosevelt: I was in south parking, and I was at the east loading dock when I ran outside and saw the low-flying aircraft above the parking lot.

                  Aldo: Okay. . . Was it a- was it a- a jet or was it a- do you remember what kind of plane it was?

                  Roosevelt: Uh, it looked like to me at that time, uh, uh, uh, large, uh, aircraft-liner.

                  Aldo: Like a-

                  Roosevelt: It wasn’t a- it wasn’t a jet; it was a commercial aircraft.

                  Aldo: Okay. Did it have propellers, or did it have jet engines?

                  Roosevelt: It looked like jet engines, at that time.

                  Aldo: Jet engines. Okay. Um, uh- so- uh- y- how close were you to running outside ’cause this seemed to be pretty qui-eh- at least from what your account sounded like; it sounded like literally the explosion happened, and then you ran outside. I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when you heard the explosion and then saw that plane?

                  Roosevelt: From the time the explosion hit, oh. . . I ran outside and saw- it’s a loading dock, and you can run right out to the. . . look out and look off.

                  Aldo: Uh-hum.

                  Roosevelt: And then uh. . . you see the flickering lights. . . uh, and saw the area, and then. . . uh, real quick I realized that it was some sort of attack, and there was going to be a counter-measure with it.

                  Aldo: Right. So, how many seconds-

                  Roosevelt: Uh. . .

                  Aldo: -would you guess?

                  Roosevelt: Maybe, uh. . . ten seconds tops.

                  Aldo: Ten seconds tops?

                  Roosevelt: Ten seconds tops.

                  Aldo: So you- you heard the explosion and ten seconds later you were outside and you were able to see that plane?

                  Roosevelt: Correct. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn’t miss it.

                  Aldo: Wha- what color was it; do you remember?

                  Roosevelt: Uh, it was- to me at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.

                  Aldo: Like silver in color; but you saw it over the south parking lot.

                  Roosevelt: Right; around the lane one area, and it was like banking just above the, uh, light poles like.

                  Aldo: Okay. And ho-

                  Roosevelt: Had to been no more than- had to been no more than fifty feet or less than a hundred feet.

                  Aldo: Wow. And s- ho- do you remember how many engines you saw on it?

                  Roosevelt: Uh, couldn’t tell for the engines.

                  Aldo: And it was- was it moving fast?

                  Roosevelt: Oh, it was moving extremely fast. It was like, uh. . . maybe you saw the aircraft maybe for like, uh-a quick five seconds.

                  Aldo: For a quick five seconds. But you definitely- and you saw it over the south parking lot. . . over lane one?

                  Roosevelt: In the south- in the south parking lot over lane one.

                  Aldo: Okay. Do you- do you remember which direction it was headed?

                  Roosevelt: Uh, coming from the, uh 27 side 27 heading, uh. . . uh, east towards DC; coming from that area, uh, there’s a highway. If you were to come up 395. . . uh, north heading towards the pentagon, and you got off in south parking. . . you were like right there, ’cause 395 went right into 27.

                  Aldo: So from where- from where it had headed away from the pentagon, which direction was it heading?

                  Roosevelt: From the w- uh, can you repeat that one more time, please?

                  Aldo: Yeah, when it was heading away from the pentagon, this- this second plane,-?

                  Roosevelt: Right.

                  Aldo: -wh- do you remember which-

                  Roosevelt: Right.

                  Aldo: -which direction it was heading?

                  Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.

                  Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around?

                  Roosevelt: Correct.

                  Aldo: Okay.

                  Roosevelt: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across.

                  Aldo: Okay, so-

                  Roosevelt: And that was-

                  Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

                  Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you’ve got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the pentagon.

                  Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?

                  Roosevelt: Right.

                  Aldo: Okay. Okay.

                  Roosevelt: ‘Cause it banked out, and it was like U-turning and coming around and coming out. It looked like, uh. . . for those brief seconds it looked like it- it- it, um… uh, how do I want to say this, uh. . . it missed the wrong target, and it was going, like. . . out of the way, like back to the airport, or something like that.

                  Aldo: Oh, like- so it was headed towards the airport, it looked like.

                  Roosevelt: Well, no, not heading towards the airport; it’s almost like if a. . . if a pilot misses good he’ll try to do a banking and come around, because he missed the target: he missed the landing zone.

                  -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                  Roosevelt Roberts Library of Congress interview:
                  [audio src="https://stream-media.loc.gov/afc/911/afc2001015_sr348a01.mp3" /]

                  at 1:29

                  Roosevelt Roberts: As I hang up the phone, the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time – watching the TV it was almost timed. So precise. As I hung up the phone and ran to the center of the dock – and I looked up and I saw another plane flying around the south parking about like 9:11 or 9:12 in the morning. And then there was dust and stuff coming from the ceilings and you could hear people scream. So what I did was turn around and drew out my weapon – I didn’t know what was going on – I thought we were being invaded – I didn’t know what was happening. So I ran back in South Loading and I start forcing people out of the building …

                  1. “Roosevelt Robert’s account is not credibleconvenient as a flyover witness

                    ~Wayne

                    There, I fixed that for you.

                    Distort much, Wayne? Stupid question. You’ve been called out on your distortions and mischaracterizations throughout this thread. As with other topics, you’ve been misrepresenting Roosevelt Roberts’ statements, too.

                    Not “credible”? Where have I heard this line before. Ever since CIT first published their interview with Roosevelt Roberts it’s been “too confusing”, “makes no sense”, “he’s a liar”, “he saw the C-130”; debunkers flailing around desperately to dismiss his testimony. And now “not credible”. Anything to try to dismiss his testimony.

                    First of all Wayne, Roosevelt is not a “flyover” witness. He didn’t see the plane until it was over the light poles at the east end of the south parking lot, on the Metro Station side of the Pentagon in front of the east loading dock. He saw the plane fly away from the Pentagon, not fly over the building.

                    I believe this was one of your little jewels up above –

                    ”I am still waiting for the witnesses to the flyover. I only know of Roosevelt Roberts and he would have seen the tail of the plane a mile away in the 10 seconds he took to get to the east loading dock”.

                    Roosevelt’s statement was that it took him “10 seconds tops” to reach the edge of the loading dock. It’s right there in the transcript you keep posting. The significant part of the statement is that the edge of the dock was only 7 steps away from where he was when he heard the explosion. You left that part out.

                    There are a lot of high school athletes that can cover 100 yards in 10 seconds. Roosevelt is no high school athlete, but we’re not talking about 100 yards either. How long does it take you to run 7 steps? How long does it take anyone? That’s the more realistic time frame for Roosevelt to reach the edge of the dock.

                    So tell me Wayne, what plane do you think it was Roosevelt saw over the south parking lot from his position at the east loading dock, just seconds after the blast on the opposite side of the building?

                    The C-130? Don Chauncey’s commuter jet? Global 33?

                    What aircraft did Roosevelt Roberts describe to both CIT in 2008 and Jennifer Brennen in the November 2001 Library of Congress interview?

                    What other plane was in the area at the moment of the blast?

                    I’m sure you have a clever answer.

                    1. Hadmatter:

                      I am glad that you clarified for me that “Roosevelt is not a ‘flyover’ witness.”

                      Then why is anybody on this blog page talking about him and what he saw?

                      BTW: As far as I know those are the only two public statements by Roosevelt Roberts and they both say the plane went back over to the Southwest (toward the witnesses to the plane going the other way just moments before – and nobody say it).

                      Library of Congress and the CIT interviews – and these are the transcripts of what he said.
                      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41698

                      I didn’t make it up.

                      -Wayne

                  2. BTW: As far as I know those are the only two public statements by Roosevelt Roberts and they both say the plane went back over to the Southwest (toward the witnesses to the plane going the other way just moments before – and nobody saw it). ~ Wayne

                    Wayne, you forgot to answer the question. What plane do you think it was that Roosevelt described to both CIT in 2008 and Jennifer Brennan from the Library of Congress in November 2001?

                    In both interviews he described seeing an east bound, very low flying aircraft over the east end of the south parking lot just seconds after the explosion at the west wall of the Pentagon. What plane was that, Wayne?

                    With regards to your above quote, I thought you said you read the CIT transcript you keep posting. If you did it obviously wasn’t very closely, unless of course you are deliberately trying to misrepresent what he said to confuse people not familiar with his testimony. Oh, wait….

                    You claim Roosevelt Roberts said the plane went back over to the Southwest. Well Wayne, that isn’t exactly accurate, is it. Read the transcript again. What Roosevelt said was –

                    Roosevelt: It was, uh. . . it was heading, um. . . back across 27. . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me- I was in the south, and that plane was heading. . . like, um. . . southwest. . . coming out.

                    Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; because you’ve got. . . the mall there, and then- where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the pentagon.

                    Look at those bolded parts of his statement; “And it looks like…it appeared to me”, “it looked like”

                    Roosevelt didn’t see the plane fly away to the southwest. He estimated it flew away to the southwest. That’s because from his position at the east loading block he would have lost sight of it when it went around the corner of the river entrance side of the Pentagon. Maybe a picture would help.

                    The above is a map of the Pentagon and the south parking lot, with the east loading dock highlighted.

                    According to his testimony the plane he saw executed a U-turn to the north towards the National Mall. The plane couldn’t simply head north because of restricted air space over the Mall, hence the U-turn. He said the plane was facing west after it completed the U-turn, but also describes it at several points as “coming out”. That would be coming out of the hard banking left turn it had just executed. This was where it was when he lost sight of it. It looked like it was going to straighten out heading southwest, which would have had it passing back over highway 27 to the north of the Pentagon on a course somewhat parallel to the Mall entrance side of the Pentagon. But once the plane past his line of sight around the River entrance corner he didn’t know where it went. He estimated it went southwest.

                    But as you have so astutely pointed out, no one on the west side of the Pentagon reported seeing a plane passing back in that direction after the explosion. So where did it go?

                    I believe that was another one of your themes in this thread; how did the plane simply “vanish”.

                    Magic isn’t real, Wayne. Planes can’t simply vanish.

                    The plane had to have gone the only place it could have gone given Roosevelt’s statement as to where it was when he last saw it. The plane didn’t simply straighten out from the left banking turn. It had to have veered off to the right, or north. If the plane went out as far as the Potomac when it executed the turn, and it seems likely it would have, turning north would have put it roughly in the up river departure route for planes flying out of Reagan National airport. The plane would have disappeared in plain sight by blending in with the background air traffic taking off from Reagan. No one would have given it a second thought. The perps just had to get past those first 10 – 15 seconds from the point of the explosion until it turned into the departure route to pull off the slight of hand. And IIRC traffic at Reagan was using the up river departure route on the morning of 9/11.

                    So no, Wayne, Roosevelt didn’t see the plane fly away to the southwest. He estimated it went that way.

                    Now, what plane was it Roosevelt saw over the east end of the south parking lot seconds after the explosion on the opposite side of the Pentagon?

                2. “Are you saying the two Police Officers at the Citco gas station and the video of the cop car backing out as well all the others who drew a diagram of the path the Airliner took, are all mistaken even though they all made the same trajectory path the same?”
                  Yes. Exactly. It really is that simple.

                  You seem to believe something is true because a witness says it.
                  You would be badly mistaken!

                  You equate my accepting R. Roberts as a fly-over witness, and that he reported a plane, and airliner even, flying over the parking lot, with accepting that an airliner flew over the Pentagon and then the south parking lot.
                  You could not be more mistaken.

                  What I accept is that Roberts said the things he said. I.e. that he is a fly-over witness
                  He probably even believed, when he said them, that these things were true.
                  But he is most obviously mistaken!
                  He is most probably very mistaken about the time it took him to get out of the loading bay,
                  He is most certainly mistaken about the plane being an airliner.
                  He is absolutely and obviously totally wrong about the plane flying over the south parking lot at under 100 ft above ground.
                  Small wonder at it all: He is just an eye witness, interviewed years after the event. That’s how witness testimony is: Highly unreliable.
                  Because, you see, there are massive amounts of evidence showing that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. This means that every witness reporting the large airliner that approached the Pentagon to have been on a NoC path, or later flying away from the Pentagon are mistaken.
                  And Roberts is an acknowledged fly-over witness – while at the same time there really was no fly-over im the moments after the fuel deflagration. This witness is mistaken.

                  It really is that simple.

                  Oh, and Maria is, of course, also mistaken.
                  More importantly, in the context of your and my little discussion: Maria is not a fly-over witness, for she did not in fact witness the plane fly over the Pentagon! For if she believed she saw a plane fly OVER the Pentagon, she would not believe at the same time that the same plane would crash INTO the Pentagon, would she?
                  Over – into, Into – over. Those things are different, ain’t they?😉
                  Maria is not a fly-over witness, period. It’s that simple.

                  1. Jens:

                    There is more to the Chadwick Brooks story. Until he changed his story in front of the CIT camera, he was a south of CITGO, light pole hitting, plane impacting witness.

                    I listened to the Library of Congress interview by officer Chad Brooks. In the interview, he notes that the plane flew over him (which is what the physics say should happen absent a very pronounced banking maneuver). He also said he saw the plane impact the light poles – not once, but twice. In his CIT interview years later, he describes a very different recollection from his November 25, 2001 statement.

                    [audio src="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr335a01.mp3" /]

                    at 0:16

                    My name is Chadwick Brooks. I’m a Federal Police Officer for DPS Department protective services at the Pentagon

                    at 1:46

                    What I remember vaguely was I stopped and got some breakfast – and I was doing my paperwork in the car. Where I was located was right across the street from a gas station. Which is adjacent from the Pentagon. How many yards I don’t know. Actually pretty close by. It is right across the street. I happened to be sitting there. At this time it was a little before 9:30 – a little after About 9:30. I just happened to look up to my left, up into the air and seen a plane.

                    A few seconds shortly after that I heard what seemed to be a tractor trailer or something coming behind me. Well, it felt like it was coming behind me.

                    I looked again – but this time I looked, I didn’t see a truck. I looked to my left and low and behold I noticed the plane was going awfully low.

                    Now granted. at this time I hadn’t registered the two events that occurred in New York. I really just thought the plane was flying awful low. A few seconds later – out of nowhere I just literally – hard to explain – saw that the plane was going straight down. At this time I got out of my car. Something was wrong. Again, it still hadn’t registered the two events in New York.

                    A few seconds after that – I literally seen the plane just go nose down into the Pentagon. A very awful sight because at the very end the plane literally went full throttle. And to this day I don’t know if I was able to watch it or not.

                    But to just be frozen in time like that. To see that plane LITERALLY CLIP THAT LAMP POLE.

                    The closest – People asked how close it felt. Almost like if I had a rock I could have hit it. Just an instant – just a moment. That happened really quick – It was just like being in a movie.

                    Unbelievable, unbelievable as soon as the impact, There was a loud thump – a loud boom and chaos …

                    at 6:05:
                    I guess just knowing that there were people on the plane at the time, JUST LITERALLY FLYING OVER ME – what were they thinking. I know they had to see us. and just literally going into the building like that – literally full speed – enough to KNOCK A LIGHT POLE LIKE A TOOTH PICK – just the shear impact. […]

                    Which is the real Chadwick Brooks? Lagasse’s CIT statements raise some real red flags also.

                    -Wayne

                    1. Wow talk about putting a round peg in a square hole Wayne. You have no shame whatsoever about distorting or twisting anything to suit your narrative huh? So Chadwick Brooks told a completely different story to CIT huh?

                      Could it just possibly be that Brooks was asked different questions in each interview? Could it be that CIT are the ones who specifically questioned him about the flight path and the other interviewers didn’t ask any specifics about the flight path? Could it be that you are taking statements out of context and intentionally misleading people into believing Brooks was asked the same questions in each interview?

                      You are being dishonest here Wayne by not posting the completely different sets of questions Brooks was asked by CIT and the other interviewers. You are making misleading statements which reflect very badly on you. Brooks gave specifics on the flight path to CIT and he drew the flight path on an overhead picture of the area. Quote the full context of his statements from both interviews and quote what he was asked prior to each statement. Then we will see very clearly how manipulative and dishonest you are being here in your attempt to force the round peg into the square hole. Brooks is a NOC witness and that is an undeniable fact. It is shameful what you are attempting to do here, but apparently you have no shame.

                    2. He changed his story in front of the camera, Wayne? You mean while in front of the camera he changed his story? Or do you mean he said some different things when being interviewed on camera (as Adam pointed out, he was asked different questions)?

                      You say Brooks was a south of Citgo witness? Could you refer us to the statement where he describes the flight path as being south of the Citgo station? And I don’t mean a statement about the light poles being hit; I mean where he describes the flight path. You called George Aman a south of Citgo witness even though he specifically describes a flight path to the north of the station. Simply thinking the light poles were hit does NOT make someone a south of Citgo witness. I have already made this clear but it seems that you want to continue your merry go round of misleading and bogus evidence.

                      It’s incredible that you can watch Chadwick and Brooks on camera describe with certainty that the plane was on the north side of the gas station (contradicting the government’s account) and you do anything you can to weaken the impact of this – unsuccessfully, of course.

                      At the same time you feign outrage that Adam and I “impugn” the absurd claims of Steve Storti, who says he could see people moving around in the plane from 3/4 of a mile away. You can see his vantage point on slide 14 of your presentation. And you also bank on Mike Walter who has told multiple stories and who is easily the most discredited Pentagon witness. So you attack strong witnesses that show us the official story is false while you rally behind the most suspicious witnesses who seek to support the official story.

                      I wonder why.

  38. https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8695608,-77.0478933,14z

    Looking at the map, you would expect way more people to notice and eastbound towards-Pentagon craft than an away-Pentagon craft. Behind the Pentagon is a river.

    The Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport would have conditioned people to somewhat ignore low flying planes.

    The mass media was pretty quick to let everyone know that an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon. Any immediate conflicting reports were likely met with hostility. Subsequent alternative reports were probably met with silenced pistol or a wad of cash.

    Today the mass media use ridicule as the prime agent of dissuasion.

    1. Travis, I think all these arguments, while not totally wrong, amount to handwaving.

      I accept that there would be fewer people on the other side, so there would be maybe just a handful instead of the dozens or even more than a hundred who saw a plane approach the building. But that handful I would expect.

      There’s route 110 (Jefferson Davis Hwy) behind the Pentagon, there’s the I-395 bridge, there’s the George Washington Memorial Parkway all on the east side of the Pentagon. There are parking lots on all sides that would see some traffic at that time.

      I understand that aircraft aren’t unusual over the Potomac – but a plane appearing over the Pentagon, with a fire ball and smoke cloud rising, is something different.

      The mass media apparently didn’t get to the NoC witnesses, so why should they get to flyover witnesses? The media was actually slow to report that a plane supposedly hit. You know of almost all your witnesses through the media, so you can’t really accuse them of presenting a preconceived story entirely.

      Besides, with the Truth Movement being so mainstream and convincing millions, why did no further witnesses pop up in all those years?

      1. The bogus argument that “there should have been more flyover witnesses” is a logical fallacy. It amounts to saying “if no one saw it it didn’t happen”. Complete tripe.

        1. RuffAdam:

          You said: “The bogus argument that “there should have been more flyover witnesses” is a logical fallacy. It amounts to saying “if no one saw it it didn’t happen”. Complete tripe.”

          The issue isn’t just that nobody saw it – lots of people saw the plane impact the Pentagon and go inside the wall of the first floor. This includes including your north pass witnesses, Lagassee, Brooks and George Aman. For example, here is George Aman describing the impact and the plane hitting the light poles:
          Source: http://www.thepentacon.com/neit419

          George Aman is in his office on the second floor of the Arlington National Cemetary office building. On page 5 of the Center for Military History interview, he says:

          George Aman: “So I was just looking out, look out here and I see this plane coming down here and I thought it was coming, going to hit this building. And I said good God Almighty. So I’m just petrified. I’m looking. The Plane flys right over the parking lot here, I would see the people sitting in the airplane, yes. I’m saying good God. And just, its’d just not registering, you know, its so weird. So then I’m seeing it, its going by here and it sounds like he realy stepped on the gas and just really poured the coals to it. And I go from here over to this one here and I’m looking out and, as you can see, you can see right over there where its at.

          Center For Military History Interviewer: That’s maybe 800 feet?

          George Aman: “And I’m just watching and I’m just amazed that it, it happened pretty quick, too. And it hit the thing, and it was just the most god-awful loudest noise. I mean you could hear it like in 3-D. You know, I could see, you could hear it, bam. And then just you could hear it crumbling, crushing like an accordion and then boom. Just like a smash, crunch, pow when all the fuel blew up.”

          (Page 19 of 21)

          Center For Military History Interviewer: When you first saw it, from here to there, how long did it take.

          George Aman: From here to over there? Matter of seconds. When I seen he was kind of turning and gliding when he come across here, across the parking lot but when he got out right in front of here, it sounded like he poured the coals to it. Yes, and that’s when I looked over here and then when I was looking over here and I seen things fly up in there, not knowing really what the hell they were but come to find out they were streetlights. So the plane was clipping the tops of the streetlights off…

          1. OK Wayne commit to some witnesses that saw the plane impacting the pentagon. Name them and commit to them instead of just claiming there are all these witnesses who saw impact. Name them specifically, don’t evade the issue. Next tell me what kind of “testimony” they offered? Did they make a statement to a reporter who reported what they said second hand? Was their “testimony” recorded or not? Were they asked detailed questions about what they saw? Can you verify in any way that the so called witness actually exists in reality? Have you conducted any interviews with said witnesses? If you have not reached out to any of these so called impact witnesses and questioned them in detail and recorded it, why haven’t you done that? Why haven’t you called anyone to verify if Chauncey could have seen the Pentagon? Why haven’t you verified Chauncey actually exists? Why haven’t you interviewed him Wayne?

            See in my opinion you and Jens are pretenders, you are not real investigators because you refuse to follow any leads or ask any questions that might lead to the truth. Hell Wayne you refuse to admit that Chauncey is a bogus witness even though his view was definitely blocked by the high rises in Crystal City. So you are not honest, you are NOT a legitimate or credible 9/11 investigator. Like I said before CIT conducted a real investigation and posted their findings for all to see. They ran gigantic circles around pretend investigators like you and Jens. Your so called investigation is nothing more than hot air.

            Commit to your “impact” witnesses, interview them on the record, and then we can talk.

            1. By the way Wayne I certainly hope the witnesses you choose are better than the ones you chose in our debate. Chauncey and Storti? My God Wayne can’t you do any better than that with “180+ impact witnesses”? Surely some of them are better than those two? Do a real investigation Wayne and then talk.

              1. RuffAdam:

                So lets pick three witnesses that describe watching the plane impact the Pentagon and describe the impact:

                1. George Aman
                2. William Lagasse
                3. Chadwick Brooks

                ———————————————————————————
                George Aman

                [at 5:37]
                George: Then it went over the parking lot and then whamo!

                NOTE: Because George was cut-off mid sentence, by the CIT editors we didn’t get to hear him describe the impact into the side of the Pentagon. (Who said CIT was gold standard interviewers?). For this we need to go to his Center for Military History Interview:

                (http://www.thepentacon.com/neit419

                George Aman is in his office on the second floor of the Arlington National Cemetary office building. On page 5 of the Center for Military History interview, he says:

                George Aman: “So I was just looking out, look out here and I see this plane coming down here and I thought it was coming, going to hit this building. And I said good God Almighty. So I’m just petrified. I’m looking. The Plane flys right over the parking lot here, I would see the people sitting in the airplane, yes. I’m saying good God. And just, its’d just not registering, you know, its so weird. So then I’m seeing it, its going by here and it sounds like he realy stepped on the gas and just really poured the coals to it. And I go from here over to this one here and I’m looking out and, as you can see, you can see right over there where its at.

                Center For Military History Interviewer: That’s maybe 800 feet?

                George Aman: “And I’m just watching and I’m just amazed that it, it happened pretty quick, too. And it hit the thing, and it was just the most god-awful loudest noise. I mean you could hear it like in 3-D. You know, I could see, you could hear it, bam. And then just you could hear it crumbling, crushing like an accordion and then boom. Just like a smash, crunch, pow when all the fuel blew up.”

                (Page 19 of 21)

                Center For Military History Interviewer: When you first saw it, from here to there, how long did it take.

                George Aman: From here to over there? Matter of seconds. When I seen he was kind of turning and gliding when he come across here, across the parking lot but when he got out right in front of here, it sounded like he poured the coals to it. Yes, and that’s when I looked over here and then when I was looking over here and I seen things fly up in there, not knowing really what the hell they were but come to find out they were streetlights. So the plane was clipping the tops of the streetlights off…

                ———————————————————————————-
                William Lagasse
                “The PentaCon – Smoking Gun Version”

                [at 41:15]
                And it went into the building with a very slight, you know, [inaudible due to background noise] – it didn’t yaw substantially until it hit the building – and it kinda made a[flat hand rotating from side to side gesture] — it “sloothed” into the building. Which I guess is indicative of hitting the building and then smashed into it.

                Craig: Can you explain that again – it did a what into the building?

                Lagasse: A Yaw. It rotated on its yaw axis. The tail- instead of the plane doing this [indicates a straight on impact with his hands] from here it looked like the tail went in – it didn’t hit at a 90 degree angle .It was not flush – it hit offset. It wasn’t that it went in head-on – it went in at an angle – and then it poofed.

                ————————————————————————————
                Chadwick Brooks:
                “The PentaCon – Smoking Gun Version”

                [at 36:15]
                Brooks: What I seen then, was the plane go directly in front of the building. In what seemed to be a quick second we just seen a boom. And everything, boom and a great ball of fire — goes straight up in the air. And right on the impact — great ball of fire.

                Craig: Were you actually able to literally, visually, actually see the plane impact the building?

                Brooks: Correct. From this location where I am standing now, directly turning around and watching that plane literally go into the Pentagon which is currently located over there.

                CIT: Right …

                Brooks: Correct.

                CIT: Did you see it hit any light poles?

                Brooks: No we didn’t see it hit any light poles — But of course the trees and everything else was kinda, everything was kinda blowing back and forth here [e.g. wingtip vortices described by Lagasse in his Library of Congress interview] because of the altitude of the plane and the velocity of the plane. Everything seemed to be falling.

                1. Well Wayne if you still do not get it why none of the NOC witnesses are “impact” witnesses then you are hopelessly lost and I cannot help you. Also Lagasse and Brooks could not see the area that was damaged by the internal explosives inside the pentagon because of terrain features. So for two reasons they are not “impact” witnesses. Aman is not an impact witness either because he is a NOC witness which is irreconcilable with impact.

                  1. Ruffadam:

                    You are so funny when you are cornered and your flyover story is destroyed!

                    You said: “Also Legasse and Brooks could not see the area that was damaged by the internal explosives inside the pentagon because of terrain features”

                    Three things:

                    1) The issue was “witness to impact into the Pentagon” (kills the flyover theory dead)
                    2) The issue was not seeing the internally planted explosives inside the Pentagon
                    3) Watch the CIT Pentacon video and you will see that they have a clear visual.

                    With the logical abilities you demonstrate, I now understand why you adhere to the flyover theory. You said: “Aman is not an impact witness either because he is a NOC witness which is irreconcilable with impact.” How does NOC lead to 100 percent certainty that there was a flyover? How are they irreconcilable?

                    Even Turcio saw the plane approach. While he didn’t claim see the impact, he did not report a flyover and if his testimony is good for anything, it is that there was no flyover. Look at his expression of disbelief when asked if the plane flew over.

                    -Wayne

                    1. Wayne like I said if you do not comprehend why NOC is irreconcilable with impact then I cannot help you.

                      I see now that what I suspected all along is true that you are not a legitimate researcher and you are just playing games to waste our time. By the way I have been to the exact spot where Legasse was standing in the CIT video and there is a raised roadway blocking the view of the hole created by the internal explosives. You should know this of course because it is where Lloyd England was positioned to fake the light pole spearing his window.

                      I don’t believe you are a truther Wayne, you are just another in a long line of disinformationists and I am not interested in dealing with you any more. Lie all you want I have lost interest and you are not convincing anyone. Perhaps you and Steve Storti can talk about how he saw people inside the airliner or maybe you and Mike Walter can come up with a fourth or fifth version of his story together and the three of you can go on a nation wide comedy tour.

                      You have not done any legitimate investigating Wayne, you are not worth my time.

                    2. RuffAdam:

                      I am not surprised that you said: “Wayne like I said if you do not comprehend why NOC is irreconcilable with impact then I cannot help you.”

                      I am an engineer and I have been hoping to get an explanation from you, Syed and/or Craig that isn’t based on — (paraphrase=>) “well, the plane approached and then vanished so nobody saw it.”

                      Would you be willing to make another attempt to explain what you say happened to the plane?

                      Also, you said: “By the way I have been to the exact spot where Legasse was standing in the CIT video and there is a raised roadway blocking the view of the hole created by the internal explosives.”

                      You should really rewatch CITs Pentacon smoking gun version again. In it Turcio and Ranke talk about how the berm between the CITGO station and the road to the east was raised in the years after 9/11. I assume you saw the raised berm – did you know it had been raised?

                      The ground elevation of area around the CITGO station is about 51 ft. The ground elevation at the Pentagon is 33 ft. So there is a 18 ft elevation difference. If you watch the Pentacon video, you will see that Chadwick Brooks had a clear view (he was at elevation 58 ft – and about 6 ft tall on top of that.) Lagasse also had a clear view.

                      Neither may have been able to see the dirt at ground level, but they could see the center of the fuselage at 10-15 feet about the ground when it impacted the Pentagon.

                      Once again, your analysis doesn’t add up.

                      -Wayne

                      -PS Neither Brooks or Lagasse saw a flyover – or saw the plane vanish into thin air. They saw it go into the Pentagon.

                    3. Wayne wrote: “The ground elevation of area around the CITGO station is about 51 ft. The ground elevation at the Pentagon is 33 ft. So there is a 18 ft elevation difference. If you watch the Pentacon video, you will see that Chadwick Brooks had a clear view (he was at elevation 58 ft – and about 6 ft tall on top of that.) Lagasse also had a clear view.”

                      There were trees (since removed) preventing both Brooks and Lagasse from seeing the Pentagon clearly.
                      https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E097D925456F1330!154&authkey=!AGtPAbkRXUoTDmo&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg

                      Wayne, please let us know what the source of the elevations is. Are there accurate topo maps for the area that show other features such as the bridge, base of poles, etc?

                      Here is a photo that I took in 2006 after the trees were removed. Keep in mind that Brooks and Lagasse weren’t right next to the curb like I was.

                      https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E097D925456F1330!646&authkey=!AEuX2XQDA-cZInw&ithint=file%2cppt

                      Lagasse was under the canopy so his field of view was just like in the CIT interview. He knows his left from his right. He says without any hesitation that he could not have seen the south flight path.

                    4. Winston:

                      The elevations were taken from Delorme Topo USA 7.0. They are good enough to document that the elevations drops nearly 20 ft from the CITGO station (18 ft is what I got).

                      I don’t understand your comment about the trees. Here is a photo of the camera crews at teh CITGO station on 9/11.

                      What trees are you talking about that would have been a visual impediment?

                      Remember, they did not need to see the ground (e.g. dirt at ground level), just the Pentagon wall at somewhere between 10 and 20 feet to see the plane impact.

                      -Wayne

                    5. Wayne, The satellite trucks you reference can be seen on the overhead view I linked to. They are on the southeast side of the CITGO, while the trees are on the northeast.

                      Please provide us with a screenshot(s) of the topo map that you are working with. I can’t buy Delorme’s product to check the math.

                      My point is that we must remain factual. The CIT interview was after they cleared the trees. If Lagasse or Brooks said he saw impact, but he couldn’t, then this would be an important consideration.

                    6. Winston:

                      Here is a screenshot from Delorme Topo USA 7. The upper window shows the path from about where Chadwick Brooks was standing to the impact point at the Pentagon. The elevations along this path are:

                      1) 59.6 ft at the start
                      2) 53.7 at the low point where the CITGO station was located.
                      3) The high point next to the CITGO Station is 56.5 ft.
                      4) The next high point at Rte 27 is 48.6 ft
                      5) The ground at the impact point is 37 ft.

                      The elevation values here are slightly different from the ones I mentioned. This follows the south-of-CITGO flight path (where the shadow was captured on the CITGO Security camera).

                      Also, you said, “If Lagasse or Brooks said he saw impact, but he couldn’t, then this would be an important consideration.” From this and the CIT videos you can see that they could have seen the plane at the second floor slab height. They probably couldn’t see low enough to the cable spools – but they could have seen the plane impact.

                      -Wayne

                    7. “I am an engineer and I have been hoping to get an explanation from you, Syed and/or Craig that isn’t based on — (paraphrase=>) “well, the plane approached and then vanished so nobody saw it.””

                      This is a totally dishonest “paraphrase” of what Ruff, Syed or I have said. You know this, because I have responded to the “vanishing” claim before. But you keep bringing things up again that have already been answered. We have never said that the plane vanished or that no one saw it.

                      And I understand why you keep the focus on “flyover” because that plays better than focusing on your impossible claims that a plane crashed without leaving any large pieces of wreckage.

                    8. Craig:

                      There you go again … avoiding answering the question.

                      Please explain the vanishing plane.

                      Large things (e.g. airplane) with everyone looking up just don’t disappear into thin air.

                      On second thought, maybe you did give me all the evidence you have – nothing.

                      I will ask again: Please explain the vanishing plane.

                      -Wayne

                    9. Wayne, have we not been through this multiple times? Ah, but that’s the point, isn’t it? You keep moving from one bogus bit of “evidence” to another and then you start at the beginning again with the same question that has already been answered.

                      You are trying to manipulate people by introducing “the vanishing plane” meme. It won’t work. The evidence provided by the witnesses who describe a virtually identical flight path north of the Citgo station clearly contradicts your impact theory. The absence of significant wreckage either inside or outside contradicts your official story impact theory. You know the evidence, but it seems your task is to try and chip away at it until all that’s left is the official story.

                      Tell me, of all the time you’ve spent on the Pentagon (researching dark blips on video and tree stumps, etc.), what percentage has been on challenging official story claims and how much on supporting them? I actually haven’t heard or read you saying one thing against the official story. But maybe I just missed it.

                    10. We have never said that the plane vanished
                      Can you clarify what you do assert?
                      Craig, do you assert that a large plane flew over the Pentagon shortly after the NoC witnesses saw it approach the Pentagon?

                      If so, then what is your best hypothesis about what happened next with that plane? Do you have a hypothesis that asserts where it actually went, something more specific than “we don’t know at all where it went – it essentially vanished”?

                      your impossible claims that a plane crashed without leaving any large pieces of wreckage
                      Why is it impossible that the plane crash left only small pieces visible outside?

                    11. Jens, I assert that the evidence clearly and strongly contradicts the official story claim that a large airliner crashed into the Pentagon. That’s the point. You and Wayne and other supporters of significant parts of the official story seem to want to claim that if we can’t prove where the plane went then our whole position crumbles. I can see why those attacking our movement would say this, I’m just not sure why truthers would. The plane didn’t hit the building.

                      I find it mind boggling that people who say they are truthers can look at this “crash” scene and believe it is as we’ve been told. The whole plane squeezed into this hole, which wasn’t nearly large enough to accommodate it, and not a single large piece broke off… This is what you and Wayne seem to think is believable. And when I say large, I mean something you couldn’t fit in the back of your minivan. Not one? Multiple columns remaining intact inside but we still get a round “exit” hole?

                      The truth is that we don’t have any large pieces inside or outside. We have a couple of photos of parts that appear to have come from an engine and another piece that we’re told is part of landing gear but for the most part, this 100-ton plane is gone. This is the vanishing plane theory you should be worried about.

                    12. Craig,
                      I have not yet started to address in earnest what the physical evidence on the ground – the hole, the damage inside and outside – does or doesn’t prove. I am investigating the evidence of the eye witness testimonies, especially that which CIT has put on the forefront: The NoC witness testimony, the flyover witness testimony. What is the strength and relevance of those reports what do they prove, what do they not prove?

                      You on the other hand are talking about the crash scene exclusively, claiming it disproves the official story.

                      Let’s assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that you are right and the crash scene really disproves the official story – AA77 did not crash into the first floor along the SoC official flight path. This means that something else created the crash szene.
                      Now that does not mean that the NoC witnesses are correct – that would be a false dichotomy.

                      I asked: “Craig, do you assert that a large plane flew over the Pentagon shortly after the NoC witnesses saw it approach the Pentagon?

                      You reply:
                      The plane didn’t hit the building.
                      Sounds like you imply there actually was a plane.

                      Now can you please clarify:
                      1. Do you assert that there was a large plane that approached the Pentagon?
                      2. Do you assert that this large plane approached the Pentagon rather low along a flight path similar to what the NoC witnesses drew on CIT’s map?

                    13. I’m not talking about the crash scene exclusively. First, I don’t believe it was a crash scene. I also talk about the witnesses.

                      “Now that does not mean that the NoC witnesses are correct – that would be a false dichotomy.”

                      I have never said that the physical evidence at the alleged crash scene means that the NoC witnesses must be correct. I think they are telling what they saw and I think they are very credible.

                      And yes, I do accept that a plane approached the building, and yes I do believe that it did so on a path north of the gas station.

                    14. Craig “And yes, I do accept that a plane approached the building, and yes I do believe that it did so on a path north of the gas station.
                      What stops you from asserting that the plane flew over the Pentagon? Do you see any other possibility?

                    15. Nothing stops me from asserting that. I do assert that. But I reject the attempt by people like Wayne to make the issue only about what happened to the plane. I hope you’ll agree with me when I say that even if no one knows what happened to the plane this doesn’t mean it therefore must have hit the Pentagon.

                      Some non-truthers claim that we can’t challenge the official story of 9/11 if we can’t’ explain what happened to the passengers on the planes or if we can’t say with certainty “who did it.” These are also a fallacies.

                    16. Craig “I do assert that [a large plane flew over the Pentagon]”.
                      Thanks🙂

                      I hope you’ll agree with me when I say that even if no one knows what happened to the plane this doesn’t mean it therefore must have hit the Pentagon.
                      Yes, I agree that such a conclusion would be fallacious.

                      One would reasonable expect that a number of people must have seen the plane fly over the Pentagon, and I actually would expect that some of the NoC would have seen this, if it had happened, so not having any actual witnesses is a problem – there is no positive evidence to verify or corroborate the flyover. Absence of evidence tends to shift the odds, but it’s not conclusive: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

                    17. Jens:

                      The issue is not simply: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

                      The issue is that there is a vast array of witnesses to a plane impact. I will use the CIT “gold standard witnesses” to make the point: Lagasse, Brooks and Aman. There are many others that have been discussed – but these three should be evidence enough to confirm the “evidence of absence (of a flyover).”

                      How much evidence does it take to rule out a flyover?

                      I think we have far more evidence than necessary to rule out a flyover.

                      -Wayne

                    18. Wayne,

                      My “absence of evidence” concerns mainly witnesses who would have been in a position to see a plane actually above the Pentagon and then flying away from the Pentagon.

                      I accept to some degree that some of the approach witnesses did not have a sufficient field of vision, or may plausibly have been distracted by the suddenly rising fireball and smoke, which would obscure the plane from many vantage points IF the plane actually had flown over. I’d have to look into each account – which, frankly, I have no intention to do.

                      What you describe is positive evidence that the plane crashed and did not fly over. This of course IS “evidence of absence” of a flyover – and not absence of evidence.
                      The “absence of evidence” mainly concerns the absence of witnesses on the other side of the Pentagon.

                    19. Wayne,

                      In the absence of a plane visible at the supposed crash site (and I don’t mean a couple of dozen pieces that could easily have been planted) the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU! You have to prove a crash took place and you can’t. I can see why you would want to misdirect people onto the question of whether a flyover can be proved directly because you have no actual evidence of a crash. If I wanted to manipulate people into supporting most of the official story, and I wasn’t concerned about the actual truth, then I’d do what you’re doing. But I do care about the truth.

                      Be honest. Prove your case for a crash and stop trying to move the argument onto what happened to the plane after it didn’t hit the Pentagon.

                    20. Craig “In the absence of a plane visible at the supposed crash site (and I don’t mean a couple of dozen pieces that could easily have been planted) the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU!
                      Wrong.
                      You imply agreement that there are at least a couple of dozen pieces of an airplane. This IS evidence of an airplane. Now you reject this evidence, by claiming in effect that
                      a) the evidence was planted
                      b) AND that a 757 crashing the way the “official” story claims would leave pieces of wreckage larger than could be planted
                      These are your claims, for which you bear the burden of evidence. So please present your evidence that show
                      a) the couple of dozen pieces of wreckage were planted
                      b) A plane must leave large pieces of debris
                      If you have no such evidence, then you have no reason to reject the evidence of plane debris. That would be called “hand waving” and is not an acceptable argument.

                    21. Jens,

                      I have had to read this comment (and others of yours) several times to try and figure out your logic. First of all, you misinterpret what I might be “implying.” In fact, I think my statements are quite clear and direct. No need to read between the lines.

                      There are a couple of dozen pieces that we are told come from a 757 that crashed at the Pentagon. Some of those items appear to be plane parts but we don’t know if they actually came from a plane, and we certainly don’t know if they came from a plane that crashed at that location. Given the absence of 100 tons of wreckage that we should have seen, it is quite reasonable to suggest that the very few pieces that were photographed could have been planted. Why would any reasonable person who claims to be a truther not consider this possibility?

                      You are claiming a plane crashed even though you have no physical proof of this. There is no plane at the site of the alleged crash. You want me to prove that a plane crash would leave large pieces outside? Really? The hole was nowhere near large enough to accommodate a 757 and yet NOT ONE SINGLE LARGE PIECE WAS VISIBLE EITHER INSIDE OR OUTSIDE. And you want me to believe a plane crashed there?

                      In the absence of more than a token amount of “wreckage,” the burden of proof is on you.

                    22. Craig “You are claiming a plane crashed even though you have no physical proof of this. There is no plane at the site of the alleged crash.
                      My logic isn’t really difficult:
                      Step 1: There WAS plane wreckage – mostly inside the Pentagon, some in front of the Pentagon.
                      You dissatisfaction with you not having been given all the photos, and you, the amateur, personally being unable to identify the parts you see on photos, is really your personal problem, and not of any importance to anyone but you. You clearly imply, and that is not something subtle or between the lines, but straightforward, that you have seen alleged plane parts.
                      Step 2: There was a criminal and a NTSB investigation of the scene, and investigator identified the wreckage as belonging to an AA 757. This was accepted by, among others, AA and their insurers as well as the relatives of the victims.
                      In a sane world, this is generally enough to accept the identification. If you are dissatisfied with the identification and make the opposite claim that these parts are not plane parts OR were planted (as the entire scene was staged), you bear the burden of proof for whatever you allege; my burden of proof is already met.
                      I fear you want to intriduce as a further unproven assumption that the investigators were lying, were in on it, were more incompetent than you are, or whatever else you want to assume to explain that they say the wreckage came from AA77. You would have to prove that, too.

                      You want me to prove that a plane crash would leave large pieces outside? Really?
                      Yes, really – it’s a claim, and you have not provide positive support to back it up. I think your “reasoning” would start with the words “I imagine…”.

                    23. Craig:

                      You said, “But I reject the attempt by people like Wayne to make the issue only about what happened to the plane.”

                      Fascinating reply! This is a really fundamental issue. If the plane approached the Pentagon north of the CITGO station, as you allege, based on the North-of-CITGO witnesses:

                      1) The plane had to go somewhere where did it go? “I say that even if no one knows what happened to the plane this doesn’t mean it therefore must have hit the Pentagon.” [source:Craig McKee April 7, 2016 at 3:21 pm]

                      2) Your “CIT gold standard witnesses,” Lagasse, Brooks and Aman describe its impact into the Pentagon and did not report a flyover.

                      3) You claim that the plane did not impact the Pentagon. “I think I’ve been clear about the fact that a plane that flies towards the building, and then does not hit the building, must have flown over. [Source: Craig McKee March 21, 2016 at 12:34 am]”

                      4) How can an evidence-less assertion represent the truth movement’s “most powerful evidence that exists that 9/11 was an inside job.”

                      There is a plethora of evidence for a large plane impact into the Pentagon wall.You just dismiss it for dubious reasons.

                      -Wayne

                    24. There is a plethora of bullshit that you trot out against all reason in a disturbing effort to push us towards the official story. This was a staged crime scene and you simply offer the staging as evidence that the event was exactly the way it looked.

                    25. Craig, “staging” is an activity in progress. Neither Wayne nor you provide evidence of where, when, how, by who this activity went on. You essentially just make a bare claim here, and the reasoning soon gets circular (on both sides of the issue).
                      I think you should face the fact that you don’t have any evidence of “staging”. The only evidence you have is that the crime scene contradicts your conclusion, but you can’t validly offer your conclusion as evidence for itself.

                    26. Jens, as I have stated many times, there is critical evidence that contradicts the claim of a plane crash. So in the absence of an actual plane at the “crash” site, I think the suggestion that evidence may have been planted has to be considered. Assuming you are actually a truther, why would you not want to consider it?

                    27. why would you not want to consider it?
                      Jens, as I have stated many times, there is critical evidence that contradicts the claim of a plane crash.
                      I appreciate that, I have weighed it against the evidence for a crash, and your evidence comes out too light – it essentially rests on a few carefully picked witness statements, most of them years after the fact.

                      So in the absence of an actual plane at the “crash” site
                      Assumption is wrong – you merely deny that the wreckage is sufficient, but don’t actually provide a reasoned argument. You probably just “imagine” how things ought to be.

                      I think the suggestion that evidence may have been planted has to be considered
                      Sure, we can consider that. If you want to assert this, you’d have to present evidence – and arguing with the conclusion that there is no plane would be a logical fallacy. You have no other evidence for the planting. Bare assertion made without evidence – rejected without evidence.

                      Assuming you are actually a truther
                      There goes the “No True Scotsman” fallacy I predicted coming some days ago.

                    28. No fallacy at all. I don’t know if you are a truther. That’s why I asked you directly in another comment. It’s fine if you are an official story supporter but I would just like to know.

                    29. Craig,
                      no, I am not a “9/11 truther” – assuming that this terms refers to a person who believes the facts of 9/11 were substantially different on the macro level than is generally accepted: I am convinced:
                      – There were no explosives, missiles or drones
                      – 9/11 was not intentionally made to happen by the US government (and certainly not by some Jewish/Israeli cabal)
                      – The proximate guilty party was a group of men from Saudi Arabia and a few other middle eastern countries with extremist islamic views
                      – Four commercial airliners were hijacked and intenionally crashed by suicide pilots into the three buildings and a field near Shanksville
                      – The crashes caused structural damage and started devastating fires, leading to the eventual collapses and collateral damages (including the fires that caused the WTC7 collapse)
                      – The operatives at the various security positions active that day (from airport security to NORAD) were caught by surprise and didn’t have a plausible chance to interfere.

                      I do not support every bit of the “official story” – a term that doesn’t describe any real, identifiable piece of work -, and much less do I support the policies and politics enacted in reaction to 9/11. Indeed, I believe that past US policies played a significant role in laying the seeds for this kind of terrorism.

                      I believe it is likely that NIST’s collapse initiation hypothesis for WTC7 is inaccurate – either incomplete, or just wrong – on the level of detail they present it, This in no way negates the bigger picture where fires cause some failure around columns 79-81 and thus started the global collapse.
                      Similarly, it is possible that NIST’s hypotheses for WTC1 and 2 are inaccurate. Again, this doesn’t negate the larger fact that crash-induced structural damage + huge fires + time + gravity are the ultimate cause of both collapses.

                      I can’t assess with any competence what and how much various agencies new in advance about the terrorists, and whether there was a plausible chance to draw conclusions early enough to interfer and prevent the attacks. If this was the case, then I have little doubt these agencies would want to cover up.
                      I am rather certain that we do not know the full story – who supported the terrorists, or allowed them to roam free? I follow the 28-pages issue with interest, although this will probably turn out to be smaller than it appears to many.

                    30. Jens:

                      Very interesting.

                      However, I see the WTC Twin Towers as destroyed by explosives as obvious. The following article shows how absurd the “gravity-only” collapse hypothesis is. 14 fire fighters looked up from the 4th floor stairwell of the North Tower and saw blue sky above them (not the bottom of105 stories of debris that a gravity-only collapse would have created)
                      https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557-news-releases/411-destruction-of-the-twin-towers.html

                      The symmetric descent at freefall acceleration of Building 7 can only be explained by simultaneous explosive removal of all the core columns. This was not a fire induced structural failure.

                      The anthrax attackks were traced back to US Military labs. Bruce Ivans did not have access to the technology that was in the Daschle / Leahy letters:
                      https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557-news-releases/432-the-2001-anthrax-deception-the-case-for-a-domestic-conspiracy-book-summary.html

                      The Pentagon’s attack was allowed and facilitated with all defenses turned off or sent elsewhere.

                      So Jens … I don’t know how you came to your conclusions, but I don’t think you have looked very deeply into the WTC and Anthrax issues.

                      -Wayne

                    31. Wayne,
                      I think the comments section of this blog post about the Pentagon debate (“plane or no plane?”) is the right venue to spread out to all things 9/11. I presented my “confessional” merely as a response to Craig who wanted to know my overall position.

                      I have indeed not looked into the anthrax attacks, which appear to be a separate event.

                      I have looked into the WTC. Elsewhere on this blog, I have presented arguments why the “freefall, therefore CD” argument is invalid – short version: It has a hole, for it doesn’t consider the brief period of 0 > a(roofline) > g, where the northwall descended at less than g. That would be the time interval where the difference between potential energy differential and kinetic energy would have been available to potentially buckle the north wall columns below. This has, to the best of my knowledge, not been evaluated by those truthers who believe freefall must imply severing of columns by simultaneous explosions.
                      If this interests you, I suggest we take the debate elsewhere – either I dig up the other post where this was debated, or perhaps you can suggest another forum.

                      I can explain the “miracle of Ladder 6”, too. It’s really quite straightforward, if you have a basic grasp of the actual collapse mechanisms. I find that easier than to believe the men would have survived explosions huge enough to blast the towers out the way your article suggests.

                    32. Jens:

                      I have talked to a lot of people about Building 7 and I don’t recall anyone using the words that you have used here. I have no idea what you are trying to say and I would like to have you elaborate on this:

                      ” … it doesn’t consider the brief period of 0 > a(roofline) > g, where the northwall descended at less than g. That would be the time interval where the difference between potential energy differential and kinetic energy would have been available to potentially buckle the north wall columns below.”

                      Here is Figure 3-15 from NCSTAR 1A which should be useful in your explanation.

                      I believe that you are describing some mechanism that is occurring in what NIST labeled as “Stage 1” which is after some movement was observed in the building, but before the building began descending at free fall acceleration (“Stage 2”). If you note the regression analysis in the bottom of this figure for “Stage 2,” you will see that for 2.25 seconds the NIST estimate of the acceleration is 32.196 ft/sec per second. In “Stage 3” the building is still accelerating but at a slower-rate – consistent with the upper structure impacting the lower structure and now it has to do work (e.g. expend energy) which means less energy is available for acceleration.

                      What is being observed in “Stage 3” cannot be the curtain wall alone – it has to be the entire intact structure (e.g. curtain wall still attached to the rest of the structure). If it were a detached curtain wall just falling, it could not change its rate of acceleration because it is too “slender.”

                      With this as background, can you elaborate on your previous explanation?

                      -Wayne

                    33. Craig:

                      You said: “But I reject the attempt by people like Wayne to make the issue only about what happened to the plane. ”

                      Then lets talk about the physical evidence. As I recall, there were two issues related to the physical evidence and when I replied, you didn’t answer. So the ball is in your court for thee two items:

                      1) In comment 41737, I asked you whether you will endorse the posted work by “Dewdney and Longspaugh” who, based on their posted and uncorrected analysis are incompetent. (see https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41737)

                      Q1: Do you want to give their work your “stamp of approval” to their page?
                      Q2: Do you want to say that, to the best of your knowledge, that there are no significant misstatements in missingwings?

                      2) In comment 41697 I was hoping to discuss what happened to the tree at column 16. You asked, “Wayne, do you have any evidence that a fully intact tree was in place in that location on Sept. 10?” After I replied with a Sept 7 satellite photo, you stopped discussing he evidence.
                      https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-41697

                      Here i another photo of the Pentagon with the tree at Column16. The date stamp on the photo may- or may not- be accurate.

                      Q3: What is your explanation of what happened to the tree at Column 16?
                      Q4: Could the shattered tree stump be planted?

                      Can you provide any evidence to support your answers?

                      Ball is in your court. If you don’t answer, then I can return to asking “where did the plane go.”

                      -Wayne

                    34. I see now that what I suspected all along is true that you are not a legitimate researcher and you are just playing games to waste our time. – ruffadam

                      Now, ain’t that the truth…

                    35. All that the witnesses need to see is the roofline of the Pentagon: If the plane they saw descending on the building never pulled up above the roofline, then it couldn’t and didn’t escape the crash. If it did clear the roofline, then some of the witnesses that were too low to see the first floor would have seen the fly-over.

                      No one did.

                      Not a single one of the multitude that saw the plane approach.
                      Don’t the CIT supporters find this stunning, amazing? The greatest anomaly of them all?

                      Now both sides point out weaknesses, implausibilities and inconsistencies in several witness accounts. Some explain this by accusing these witnesses of lying, of being part of the murder conspiracy, or at least of being afraid to tell all.
                      There is a much simpler, much more plausible explanation:
                      Their accounts are mistaken. Why, they are only eye witnesses! Eye witness testimony suffers a long chain of error sources:
                      – Errors of perception
                      – Errors of interpretation
                      – Errors of committing experiences to short term memory
                      – Errors while transfering to long term memory
                      – Forgetting things
                      – Adding things to memory retroactively that never happend
                      – Faulty recollection
                      – Imprecise wording
                      – Leading questions by interviewers
                      – Cherry picking by interviewers
                      The list is not complete.
                      After several years, it is a safe bet that every single witness you are going to interview will tell you something that is completely false. You can be practically 100% certain of this, every single time! It is ridiculous to place all your faith in the witness record and pretend this is stronger than the huge mountain of other evidence – especially when not even the witness account actually supports your theory: The CIT theory, which rests almost exclusively on witness testimony, necessarily claims a fly-over – but not a single witness actually ever witnessed a fly-over (not even R. Roberts, who says he saw a plane low over the south parking lot, but doesn’t say with any clarity that it came from above the building). It is utter madness to claim the witness record supports something that no witness saw and described.

                    36. “Craig, no, I am not a “9/11 truther” – assuming that this terms refers to a person who believes………..” – Jens Schmidt

                      Your entire reply to Craig’s question is very enlightening, Jens.

                      I had already become very familiar with your no nonsense technical, factual and evidentiary arguments and analysis… Although accurate and detailed almost without exception, there was always a flavor of bias in them between the lines. Which is now confirmed by your reply that outlines your general conclusions, and dare I say, beliefs.

                      I just have a couple of questions for you:

                      • Do you or do you not ever get the feeling that your sharp points, and hair splitting analysis falls victim to prevailing winds of bias, and therefore tilt the scale even a little bit?

                      and…

                      • Since you seem to accept the official narrative as a whole so faithfully, where would you say this level of trust in government explanation(s) of events comes from for you? Is it a lack of knowledge of real history, or human behavior, or both? I can’t imagine that you could or would argue that governments lie in general. One does not need to have a conspiratorial leniency to know that. So, is your argument “yes, but not about 9/11”? I would genuinely love to know.

                    37. Your entire reply to Craig’s question is very enlightening, Jens.
                      I hope this wasn’t the first or only enlightning comment I wrote on this blog.

                      …your no nonsense technical, factual and evidentiary arguments and analysis… Although accurate and detailed almost without exception…
                      Thank you!🙂

                      there was always a flavor of bias in them between the lines. Which is now confirmed by your reply that outlines your general conclusions, and dare I say, beliefs.
                      All fair.

                      Do you or do you not ever get the feeling that your sharp points, and hair splitting analysis falls victim to prevailing winds of bias, and therefore tilt the scale even a little bit?
                      I am biased, of course, as is everyone else. Take my reading of Dewitt Roseborough’s testimony in my most recent comment here: I am convinced a crashed into the Pentagon along the “official” path, and find that testimony to be agreeably consistent with my belief. Paul Revered reads it as supporting a flyover. Same testimony, different biases. I think if you asked a novice/neutral person to parse that testimony, it would be near impossible to reconstruct from that testimony alone where and how that plane flew whence.

                      Are you biased, David?

                      Since you seem to accept the official narrative as a whole so faithfully…
                      I don’t. Not “as a whole”. Not “faithfully”. And I have a bit of a quarrel with “official”. The “commonly accepted” narrative is a body of facts, conjectures and opinions that emerged not only from “official” sources (offices of government), but also from the work by academic researchers, professional groups, journalists and individual citizens.

                      …this level of trust in government explanation(s)…
                      I don’t have a particularly high level of trust in governments. Each person, each organization must earn trust.

                      Is it a lack of knowledge of real history,
                      Can you briefly explain what I should make of the word “real” here? I think I smell another “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

                      …or human behavior
                      You would not try to poison the well, would you? I am only asking, because I have seen this sort of human behavior before…

                      I can’t imagine that you could or would argue that governments lie in general.
                      Your weak but irrelevant imagination notwithstanding: No. I would not argue this, if you mean “all govs lie always about everything”. Do you argue that all govs lie always about everything?

                      So, is your argument …?
                      Do you know the Rule of So?

                      I would genuinely love to know.
                      Your second question was so heavily loaded with strawmen and passive-aggressiveness, I actually doubt you do.
                      Again, my convictions are the result of a confluence of information from many sources, many of which are not governmemt. As a result, some claims made by “the government” turned out to be accurate, some inaccurate, and some were bollocks.

                      I have tested the commonly accepted story, and it holds a lot of water.
                      I have tested various alternative claims, and the people making them, and found they are wrong on way too much, often contradict each other, never converge so an alternative narrative for the entire day’s events doesn’t even exist.
                      There are some holes in the accepted narrative, some things that may be inaccurate, but it is vastly better than anything the Truth Movement offers.

                    38. The douche-y tone of your reply comes as no surprise… We had established that long ago… I will just ignore your prickly comments. Snappy repartees are way too time consuming, which is very disproportionate to their benefit(s)

                      Can you briefly explain what I should make of the word “real” here? I think I smell another “No True Scotsman” fallacy. -Jens Schmidt

                      As I had told Professor Fetzer once, I think “calling fallacy where there is none” should be categorized as a fallacy in its own right… You’ve got to be kidding me by throwing out the true scotsman bullshit to my simple question. But, if you are sincere about your own question, here are a few classic and well known examples.

                      History: Hitler invaded Poland after Polish soldiers attacked Gleiwitz Radio Station
                      Real History: It was a staged false flag attack to justify the invasion.

                      History: U.S. entered war in the Far East after the North Vietnamese attacked American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin
                      Real History: It did not happen

                      History: Saddam’s army raided hospitals and stole the incubators, leaving babies on the cold floor.
                      Real History: It did not happen.

                      Each one of these examples lead the world to unprecedented carnage, destruction and suffering…

                      Does that explain what real means?

                      Soooooooooooo… (>:-)) Here’s the problem… I see you argue every detail of anyone’s claims, whether it’s about explosives, flyover, collapse initiation etc. Which are all fair enough (unless you happen to be factually wrong). But, at the same time, you don’t seem to have a problem with including “terrorists” in your conclusions even though there is zero evidence of their existence.

                      You also seem to have no problem whatsoever concluding (or being convinced) that:

                      “9/11 was not intentionally made to happen by the US government (and certainly not by some Jewish/Israeli cabal)”

                      even though you have no means of knowing that to be 100% true or 100% untrue (or anywhere in between)!!!!

                      Even though you can’t be convinced of the veracity of NoC witness testimony, you seem to have no problem declaring your “faith” in the knowledge that

                      The proximate guilty party was a group of men from Saudi Arabia and a few other middle eastern countries with extremist islamic views

                      And yes, it is faith… Because, based on your stringent logic and debate standards and evidentiary requirements, you have absolutely no clue whether or not what you “believe” is true now, do you, Jens? So, what the hell is up with all that self-righteous conviction you project in your every comment???? You certainly don’t deserve to have any with that list of “beliefs” you outlined above.

                      You asked me if I am biased. My being fat does not make you skinny, my friend. Therefore, it’s an irrelevant question. I do not have any issues with you being biased. As you say, everyone is to some degree or another. I just take offense at your pretention about being a critical thinker, a scientific analyst, and all that mambo jumbo…

                    39. David,
                      each of your examples of “history” has never been in any history book, except as examples of propaganda news. I think the term “history” is equal to the term “real history” as you use it, making the word “real” superfluous.

                      You asked me if I am more biased than you are? And if I am dumb and unlearned? And those weren’t disingeneous questions? I find them douchbaggy😉

                      you don’t seem to have a problem with including “terrorists” in your conclusions even though there is zero evidence of their existence.
                      That is silly nonsense. What you probably mean is: There is a HUGE amount of evidence of their exustence and involvement, but since it’s the “official” story, I am going to handwave all of it and pretend it doesn’t exist. If you were consistent, you ought to believe that no crime at all exists in America, for all the evidence comes from police, DAs, courts and journalists, which to a man all lie always.

                    40. J.Schmidt – You asked me if I am more biased than you are?

                      I did no such thing.

                      J.Schmidt – And if I am dumb and unlearned?

                      I said no such thing.

                      J.Schmidt – And those weren’t disingeneous questions? I find them douchbaggy

                      No… They were all rhetorical questions, criticizing not your bias, but your unjustifiable conviction!!!

                      And, once again, my douchebaggery does not negate yours. The big difference is that I am conscious of it, but you are not.

                      This unawareness you display is a huge sign of lack of empathy in general. And without that, you have no way of understanding your fellow human beings whether you agree or disagree with them, let alone figuring out what they are and they are not capable of… Which, in turn, drives you to remove the human element from the events you are analyzing. Which makes your conclusions absolutely incomplete.

                      J.Schmidt – What you probably mean is: …

                      No, Jens, that is not what I “probably” mean! That is what you probably mean. And what you say that I mean shows me clearly that you live in a binary, black or white world. And, no true Scottsman should live in a binary world.

            2. ruffadam

              I like debating but with people who make sense. I truly appreciate what Craig and you are doing in this forum and I am learning several new things.

              I truly like the way you replied to Jens and Wayne and especially like…… “Your so called investigation is nothing more than hot air.” I might add to that, ..” like a whiskey fart in an elevator.”

              You kinds want to avoid those kinda “farts” as best you know how.

              There’s always one side who will continue to divert the truth as if they are paid spooks. I just finished watching the following video and Jens and Wayne’s posts are the same as those involved in the cover up in the following video, with the way they post in this forum……

        2. ruffadam: “The bogus argument that “there should have been more flyover witnesses” is a logical fallacy. It amounts to saying “if no one saw it it didn’t happen”. Complete tripe.

          I would agree if I actually asserted this conclusion from that evidence. I didn’t go quite that far.

          What I am after with this train of thought is not making a definite, final determination of Truth an Untruth, but rather a weighing of the evidence.

          Fact: You, Craig, CIT etc undeniably must assert there was a flyover, which implies a fly-away
          Fact: You have only one eye witness who actually testifies to have seen an airliner fly away, and no other evidence of a fly-away, and no evidence of a flyover.
          Fact: There were people on all sides of the Pentagon in positions to witness a flyover if there had been.
          Therefore there is a reasonable expectation, or you may say a significant likelihood that more witnesses should exist if there had in fact been a flyover.

          The fact that there is one witness instead of zero lends the “flyover” hypothesis some probability of being true – in some Bayesian chain of probabilities (which would, by the way, start with a very low a-priori probability that any conspiracy would conceive of such a madly convoluted and complex course of action, when simply crashing a plane would give them all the benefits).
          The fact, on the other hand, that there is no other witness takes away from the probability.
          The fact, finally, that a number of witnesses, including CIT witnesses, testified that the plane crashed, pulls the probability of a fly-over to almost indistinguishable from zero.
          And THEN there is a mountain of physical data on the ground and many electronic records, all pointing to a plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

          On balanace, a few witness statements made years after the event to inexperienced investigators with an agenda, some of which contradict statements made by the same witnesses shortly after the event, count practically nothing against the overwhelming other evidence. You know, ruffadam, don’t you, that eye witness statements made years after cannot be considered reliable by any reasonable investigator – right?

          1. Jens,

            There is more than one flyover witness but that is beside the point I was making which is that your thinking is logically flawed. In your version of this logical fallacy it would go something like this: “Because there are so few flyover witnesses, (in my case I choose to believe there was only one), it is very unlikely that the flyover happened. Essentially that is what you are saying and it IS a logical fallacy.

            Added to this logical fallacy is the fact that a large explosion and fireball would have distracted onlookers who otherwise might have seen the flyover. Most of the surrounding area which LOOKS flat from a satellite view of the area isn’t flat at all and many of the close by areas have their view blocked by terrain features and could not have seen the damaged facade. You also overlook the fact that there may be a number of other flyover witnesses who have not come forward for whatever reason, perhaps they work for the government, perhaps they are afraid to come forward, or perhaps they don’t even realize they saw a “flyover” and mistook what they saw for normal air traffic at the nearby airport.

            By far the biggest issue with your attempt to say the flyover didn’t happen though is that you separate out the testimony of the (North of Citgo) NOC witnesses from the flyover issue. They cannot be separated from it however because the NOC flight path forces the flyover conclusion. So you are actually engaging in a compound logical fallacy here Jens and so is Wayne Coste.

            1. Whatever happened, I would assume that there exists witness that have not entered testimony into the public record.

              In DC where nearly all people either work directly for the government, serve the government, or serve government employees, there would be even more reasons to be afraid to speak against official government dogma.

              Look up “Clinton body count” , JFK witnesses, and Barry Jennings. There is every reason to be afraid to come forward, and getting dismissed from your job or being referred to a psychiatrist might be a concern as well.

              1. and if you assume that the taxi driver was a planted witness with contrived testimony, there exists probable grounds in assuming that there were others.

                I have read two testimonies where people say that they had seen people/faces in the 500+ mph Boeing. Now does that seem even possible to you? So now we have at least 3 false witnesses.

                Seeing faces in the Boeing is reminiscent to the hijacker’s passport found in NYC debris. Things that drum up resentment and strike emotional chords have been worked into the Official Government Story. Remember the impossible cell phone calls from 30,000 feet ASL?

                Look on youtube for the false witnesses in NYC! One of them is obviously an actor.

                1. Yeah that guy is known in the truth movement as the Harley Guy and it is widely believed he was planted to spread the false official narrative of how the towers came down.

            2. There is more than one flyover witness
              Who? Name(s)? Evidence? Roger linked me to the NSA video. There was none, One man relaying hearsay (i.e. not an eye witness), one woman who testifies the plane crashed (!) on the roof rather than the wall.

              Because … few … witnesses …, it is very unlikely … it IS a logical fallacy.
              No, it isn’t🙂

              …perhaps they work for the government, perhaps they are afraid to come forward…
              Paranoid handwaving, void of evidence. Is this necessary?

              …the testimony of the (North of Citgo) NOC witnesses from the flyover issue. They cannot be separated from it however because the NOC flight path forces the flyover conclusion.
              No, THAT is a logical fallacy. It could go either way. The NOC hypothesis predicts that there would be an observable flyover, There is no good observation of a flyover, this simply puts in doubt the NOC hypothesis. If eye witness accounts were all we have, we might end up undecided here – but of course there is that massive amount of physical and electronically recorded evidence – all of this is consistent with no-flyover.

              1. Jens, I might lean towards the Boing-into-Pentagon series of events if it were not for one thing: The taxi driver and his taxi.

                Why would they need such obvious fakery if it really did happen?

                1. Seriously Travis, if I (or anyone) were to convince you that what you believe is “obvious fakery” actually isn’t faked, then you would consider the “Boing-into-Pentagon series of events” to be plausible and not disproven??

                  1. OK Jens, I just saw the photographs of the taxi interior and the scenario seems more plausible than on my initial impression.

                    You have to admit that a light-pole impaling the taxi without denting the hood seems highly unlikely.

                    1. How about the pole being removed by England and a silent stranger who stopped to help? We’re supposed to believe that this happened without anyone seeing it.

                    2. I have found a diagram with the poles, Washington Blvd., and the Boeing on the official flight path.

                      https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwpmniLh98oIejZvNjFTWF83eEE/preview?pli=1

                      I find this important. Consider the angle that pole 1 would have to had travelled into the taxi. Then consider the direction that said pole should be travelling after being hit by a 757 on the alleged plight path.

                      The pole would have to be thrown nearly parallel to Washington Blvd, to impale Lloyd’s car in the manner that it did. The interior damage of the taxi, although convincing, indicated that the pole was parallel to the sides of the taxi. Parallel to traffic.

                      Physics is physics. The only way this could have happened IMO is if pole 1 was not where they said it was, and instead whacked by the port side of the aircraft.

                    3. Travis:

                      Four things to remember about Lloyd’s light pole part.

                      1. In his Center for Military History, CIT witness George Aman is in his office on the second floor of the Arlington National Cemetery office building.

                      http://www.thepentacon.com/neit419 (Page 19 of 21)

                      “… and that’s when I looked over here and then when I was looking over here and I seen things fly up in there, not knowing really what the hell they were but come to find out they were streetlights. So the plane was clipping the tops of the streetlights off…”

                      2. This does not mean that the light poles and light pole parts are traveling 530 mph (As Adam says would happen). Aman says the “tops of the streetlights” are flying up. They would be heading in the direction that Lloyd was traveling.

                      3. The drawing that Lloyd made shows a piece of the light post sticking out of his windshield.

                      His drawing shows a much shorter piece than the CIT supporters insist he means (e.g 40 ft pole sticking 30 ft out in front the car). Not the whole pole, just a part of the pole- possibly just the lamp support.

                      4. In the CIT interview with Lloyd, there are several times in the video where Lloyd is about to describe the event and I was on the edge of my seat waiting for a description of how far the pole was sticking out of the taxi. CIT always cut the video before he answered. It wasn’t until the end – when Lloyd was getting exasperated and uncooperative that the whole 40 ft length was included in the video.

                      -Wayne

                    4. Wayne, we see the pole that was supposedly removed from his windshield lying on the road. Are you saying that this is not the pole that allegedly hit his car? And if so, are you basing this conclusion on England’s drawing?

                    5. Craig:

                      Your associates here criticize my research skills. But my demonstrated skills far exceed what I have seen put forth by the proponents of your vanishing plane hypothesis.

                      For example: Lloyd England and the light pole issue.

                      CIT says in their Lloyd video that the light pole was the 40 foot base pole in the photo that they always show. They never show the wider angle images that show a pole part, that is just in front of the taxi. It is about the right length to have been removed by two people and it would be consistent with “Lloyd’s doodle”

                      Once again, CIT’s investigation is shown to be a “lead standard” instead of a “gold standard.” They didn’t do investigative reporting, they just made up a story from partial facts.

                      The omission of questions to George Aman in their interview about the light poles and the plane impact (they cut his interview off after he said “… Wham-mo.”)

                      -Wayne

                    6. Wayne,

                      You are busted again. England was asked on camera if it was the large end of the pole and he said yes. It took me all of two minutes to find this; I’m surprised your research didn’t turn it up.

                      Aldo Marquis: And just to clarify, it was the large piece of the base of the pole…
                      Lloyde England: Yes, the large piece was sticking up across the hood.

                    7. I do not agree that it was the base of the pole that was impaled in the taxi. I have commented about this elsewhere on this site.

                      1. Lloyd’s drawing doesn’t show a long curved pole.
                      2. The base end of the pole is too heavy for two guys to maneuver.
                      3. The base end was near the driver’s rear wheel before it was dragged pointing south. Even if this was the piece that was extracted they wouldn’t take it to the side of the cab. This beast is unwieldy. They would drop it close to the front, right after extraction.
                      4. If it were the heaviest part of the pole it would have punched through into the trunk.

                      You can see the arm part in the wide photo, passenger side front, right where you’d expect it to get dropped after extraction. This arm is relatively light weight, easily maneuvered by one or two guys.

                    8. Craig:

                      We can delay the decision about who is busted and why for a little bit.

                      Was the source of your quote the CIT, “Eye of the Storm” video shortly after 53:00 — or was it from somewhere else.

                      “Aldo Marquis: And just to clarify, it was the large piece of the base of the pole…
                      Lloyde England: Yes, the large piece was sticking up across the hood.”

                      Thanks in advance for the reference.

                      -Wayne

                    9. Wayne,

                      This appeared in their film The First Accomplice? at about 14:45. I would have to check that it was also in Eye of the Storm. But in the earlier part of Accomplice (5:45) he is even more explicit that it was the long piece with the curved end that he and the silent stranger pulled out of the car.

                      Will you concede that he is not talking about the short piece we see on the road? Will you concede that your suggestion that he meant this short piece is incorrect?

                    10. Well that didn’t work. Will the moderator please remove that insufferably long, failed image address.

                    11. Travis said::

                      “Well that didn’t work. Will the moderator please remove that insufferably long, failed image address”

                      I wouldn’t remove it, Travis…..it makes more sense than any comment by Wayne or Jens.😉

                    12. Removed that as soon as I was online. What the heck was that? As Maxwell Smart used to say, “That’s the second longest image address I’ve ever seen.”

                    13. Essentially it was a map of the four downed light poles, the taxi’s resting point, the estimated location of the taxi when impaled (40mph/~3s), and a 757 superimposed over the highway in outline.

                      It shows the impossible trajectory of light pole #1, only to be trucked by Lloyd back to it’s point of origin. A small piece from pole #2 is not outside the realm of possibility in this regard, but if Lloyd insists that big bent pole #1 did it, then he is lying because that is impossible.

                      I had no idea who Maxwell Smart is so I looked it up. I found this quote.

                      Get Smart: Is this Trip Necessary (1969):

                      Dr. Jarvis Pym: Observe.
                      [opens secret compartment in his ring]
                      Dr. Jarvis Pym: Sodium Calcium Chloride, do you know what that is?
                      Maxwell Smart: An artificial sweetener?
                      Dr. Jarvis Pym: No, it’s the second most deadly poison in the world.
                      Maxwell Smart: What’s the first?
                      Dr. Jarvis Pym: Artificial sweetener.

                      Made me think of Donald Rumsfeld and aspartame.

                  2. Travis Lloyd England’s account is so ludicrous and so impossible that it is beyond obvious that he is lying through his teeth. First consider that according to the official fairy tale the plane that struck that pole was traveling at over 530 MPH and Lloyd was traveling toward the area at 55 MPH. So that means the collision between the cab and the pole would have been at nearly 600 MPH. Lloyd’s car would have been obliterated by such an impact. Just to give you a little perspective on how fast we are talking about here watch this pole on a rocket sled traveling 500MPH slice this car in half and send it flying in two halves nearly 200 feet.

                    Now if you watch that impact and tell me Lloyd’s hood could remain unscratched then I have some ocean front property to sell you in Baker CA. The official story defenders and especially the Lloyd England defenders are an absolute joke, complete buffoons asking you to believe what is clearly impossible. Face it people the truth is hitting you right in the face, Lloyd England is a liar and he participated in staging evidence at the pentagon on 9/11.

                    Here is a plane hitting a light pole at very low speed comparatively. This is just for good measure and so you can get a little more perspective on how utterly ridiculous Lloyd’s story actually is. This plane was traveling no more than 1/4 the speed of the alleged plane that allegedly hit the pole that allegedly struck Lloyd’s cab.

                    Just put it to rest people the official story is a fat stinking lie with giant exclamation points!!!

                    1. There is simply no way that the large pole in the photograph could have impaled Lloyd’s car. Another reason that is never mentioned is torque. The torque with a twenty foot pole weighing in at 200 lbs would have been striking. Assuming that six feet of pole are inside the taxi at a 30 degree angle, we get something like this:

                      T = F(sineX)d = (14/20)(200lbs)sin(30)7ft = 490ft/lb

                      Which is conservative since the pole gets heavier near the end (taper). Now adding a 20 lb base:

                      T = 20lb(sine(30))14ft = 140ft/lbs

                      This is assuming that the pole is straight of course but you get the idea.

                      If the pole were wedged under the back seat, the back seat would be pushed up with a force of 630 pounds. That would probably be enough to dislodge the back seat.

                      Just one reason out of many. The only way that Lloyd’s story could have even partial truth would be if he was impaled by a truss or smaller top-pole segment from pole #2. That is the only physical possibility besides it being staged. IMHO.

                      Even if that were true, The reported story is impossible. There is no way to be removing the pole while the plane was hitting the Pentagon. The plane would have to have been traveling at 10 mph for him to have time to stop and get out.

                      It would seem that the burden of proof is on anyone that thinks it really did happen. Anyone? Jen Schmitdt needs to tell us what happened to Lloyd’s car.

  39. I would like to use one of the key propaganda excuses we were given just hours after the September 11 “attacks”… Failure of imagination!!!!

    I try to follow T&S threads on a daily basis. And the subject of Pentagon never seems to fail to induce a steady stream of comments and arguments. Most of them tend to be at a micro level, and some of them more general. (Adam, I love you for debunking the Chauncey thing just as much as I am certain Chauncey is as real as Chauncey Gardner in that Peter Sellers movie Being There)

    But, all in all, a vast majority of the arguments, as immensely valid as they may be, are essentially trying to prove a negative, while there are two stinking elephants in the room…

    The first one is actually often mentioned, but only in passing. I will also mention it in passing, but mention that this fact needs to frame EVERY argument that people like Wayne make: Eighty plus cameras, fifteen years, three presidents, many heads of intelligence agencies….. And 5 stinking’ frames of doctored “video”…??? (No need to argue about why they might be hiding the videos even though a plane actually did crash into the pentagon.. I believe I have heard it all… And they are all bullcrap!)

    But, here is where the real failure of imagination comes into play…

    In the CIT investigation and interview with our infamous cab driver, he clearly confesses to have knowingly played a part in the deception, by allowing himself to be used as a pawn by the people his wife works for… This man does not seem to be smart enough to have been actively involved in anything beyond that… In fact I don’t believe he is smart enough to have actually done anything but let the “man with the white van who did not say anything at all” take care of it all and smash his windshield.. Judging by his apartment and attire, it does not seem like he has benefited much financially either… Perhaps the country house was the fruit of this transaction, serving as a pay off, as well as a hide out for the most famous cab in DC… And, perhaps a promotion, or early retirement for the wife, waving of some petty criminal charges, or something like that.

    So… Here we have a husband and wife, who don’t seem to be insiders to anything at all, buried deep in the deception (or hoax) that we call Pentagon attack. My question is, in a town where most people work for some govt agency or another, how many of these people were there, who, in varying degrees of involvement and knowledge, helped with the deception???

    It did not seem like this man would have spoken up out of guilt when he finally realized what he got himself involved in if it weren’t for CIT’s persistence, and a hidden camera. And, even that, was due to the fact that he got caught in the conspiracy investigation’s spotlight when his famous light post was used as evidence of a falsified flightpath when researchers started asking the right questions… Otherwise, I don’t remember seeing him on TV, or in Newspapers or anywhere else except for eye candy for what amounts to be a movie set with special effects.

    How many “cab drivers” were placed in that area?? If he is an extra in this movie, how many extras were there??? And if this man (who was 100% aware of the deception at least after the fact) did not come forward and talk on his own, what makes us think that all the others would? No one came forward in Sandy Hook, no one came forward in Boston… Because staged events are 110% controlled… From the victims to the witnesses, to the patsies, to the cameraman shooting it, reporter reporting it, anchorman reading it off the prompter…

    So, can everyone please stop pretending this was some small number of “rogue elements” within the government and some neocons who pulled this off..

      1. Around 5:20 in below video, when he gets asked if government investigated his car, or taken it in as evidence, Lloyd replies

        “No, they did not. Now I’ve been interviewed by the FBI, because my wife works for them. She said that they were saying they had a problem trying to locate me, and she said well, I see him everyday.”

        Which seems to be the script Lloyd was given to use if anyone asked him about why it took FBI so long to find and interview him. Anyone even mildly familiar with body language, facial micro expressions and human behavior would see that he is playing a part.

        Of his entire interview when he is actually aware of being recorded, there is only one small part that I think is truthful. It is when he says a man with a white “sort of a van” who helped him, and that this man was very quiet and did not say a word… He seems to have been genuinely surprised by “how silent he was”.

        1. Interesting. I bet his wife got a promotion.

          So why not just fly a real Boeing 7-series into the Pentagon like the WTC? I think the answer is that it would be too difficult/risky to accurately control such a clumsy plane that close to the ground.

          But I definitely think that a cargo plane was used to disperse the debris. That gives at least two planes leaving the explosion to be caused by a third plane, a missile. or a bomb. I am still somewhat on the fence about the explosion-causing object.

          In regards to the famous photos of the wheel-rim and the turbine hub, these could have been placed in the building well before the event took place. It would be quite simple to pack them in wooden crates and place them in storage closets.

          1. I don’t believe airdropping of debris is necessary at all. Not to mention that it is extremely risky because of high visibility. As you say, they’ve had full control of that wing of the pentagon long enough to plant whatever they wanted. Including synchronized explosions that would disperse debris on the lawn. They had containers, fire trucks, huge cable spools.

            I don’t really have any “theories” on how they pulled off faking a plane crash… I feel a flyover as a decoy, and preinstalled explosives in the building would do the job. Even a missile seems farfetched as it is not silent and needs to travel quite a distance without anyone noticing it whizzing by… And, since they had set the explosives at a particular angle through the C ring, now they are married to the approach path, and that is why the cab driver is important. That said, I am yet to encounter a good explanation for the lack of witnesses seeing a plane fly away from the pentagon.

            I believe everyone on the lawn in the immediate aftermath were agents who were tasked with this operation, including Donald F’n Rumsfeld, who was there checking the scene and supervising under the guise of helping people who were hurt and picking up pieces… There is also a good chance that the bumper to bumper traffic at the time of the explosion was filled and actually caused by people like our Lloyd and the silent man with the van.

            Post explosion photos show the freeway literally packed with vehicles of all sorts. And I am not aware of any forthcoming witnesses from that group of people, which is peculiar. If anyone here knows of any and provides links to interviews with any of these people, I’d be very interested… And thankful :-}]

            1. Correct me if I need it …

              “There is also a good chance that the bumper to bumper traffic at the time of the explosion was filled and actually caused by people like our Lloyd and the silent man with the van.”

              I believe that Lloyd was traveling southbound on Washington Blvd and there was no traffic jam in that direction.

              Washington Blvd northbound was the bumper-to-bumper.

              1. I am not able to check right now, but sounds right. I have a feeling you already know the answer.

                But, just to clarify, when I said “people like Lloyd” I meant people assigned parts, tasks or some type of involvement in the deception operation.

    1. David Hazan (@Lilaleo)

      Unfortunately all those cameras don’t matter because no-one is going to get any evidence from them since it is top secret.

      The cab driver is an obvious plant that flubbed it all up.

      What keeps me interested in this thread is the NOC witnesses who couldn’t be making it up as each person drew a flight path on a picture indicating a North of the gas station approach.

      None of these people saw an actual impact, but all saw the “explosion”.

      None of these people actually saw the Airliner fly over the building but are adamant that it was North of Citco going towards the Pentagon.

      Craig Mckee and ruffadam are the ones who make the most sense here, and as stated, A North of Citco gas station proves it was a fly over,

      Jens and Wayne can’t understand why this proves a “fly over” and continue to focus on things that don’t add or subtract to the conversation but instead try their best to muddy the waters with so much trivia nobody can keep up.

      Yet if anyone is paying attention, the North of Citco actually proves a flyover as ruffadam points out, because all the damage to the building is done with the idea it came from the South of Citco. The airliner is supposed to have come in from the South on an angle into the building through to the C Ring. And as pointed out, the very short video of something at ground level doesn’t make sense because the electrical reels are still on the pavement in front of the facade. If it allegedly came from the South on an angle at ground level into the main floor, all those reels would be inside the building, and they are NOT.

      Also, there isn’t any plane parts anywhere inside the building. Some small pieces on the outside lawn seen later, not burnt by any kerosene/jet fuel. If the alleged plane was still full of fuel, the building still left standing would indicate a fuel explosion, but it does NOT. Nor is there any sign of fuel damage inside the building on the concrete floor, nor on anything that was piled up.

      There is fire, but not from jet fuel. Firemen are walking on the roof along the second ring so the damage in the roof area in one ring deep.

      Soooooo….. the plane obviously didn’t come from the South side and certainly came from the North side and it certainly didn’t hit the building from the North side because the damage to the building proves it didn’t hit the building as seen before the collapse of the outside facade.

      It is impossible to have a Airliner hit the building just on the main floor without leaving gouges in the concrete floor…. or even on the lawn and there is none as indicated after the cleanup of the explosion debris. Like Don Rather said……

      1. “Unfortunately all those cameras don’t matter because no-one is going to get any evidence from them since it is top secret.” – Roger Gloux

        I will certainly not argue against that point. But…

        I may have failed to elaborate further to make my point clear, but what I was trying to say is that, in the absence of reliable data, reliable info, and reliable witnesses, the best way to argue for government involvement in the “attacks” is a unity in the truth movement that is capable of making enough noise to make that same government release some videos, or at least out them on a legal position of having to officially refuse to release. I am certainly not holding my breath. We are still waiting for the release of crucial JFK related documents to be released 53 years later, which, at the same time, are guaranteed to be laundered over the years. By now, forget about the perpetrators dying off every day, even the younger researchers of the assassination are slowly disappearing.

        As you also mention, there are countless characters here and everywhere whose only job seems to be to muddy the waters, create distractions and false paradigms. While we argue about the height of the tree, the doodles of witnesses showing flight paths, and many other relatively trivial evidence, we have people like Wayne playing defense while pretending to be for truth themselves. It’s a very old game.

        And I am pretty certain that, as we argue and argue about all these details, “they” have already planned and refined may 9/11s they will toss our way if and when necessary. Like James Bond, who blows up a building as a distraction to give himself time to escape. We are distracted by a 15 year old fakery.

        We are chasing the truth. The sad part is that, by definition, chasing requires being behind… That is exactly where we are… And catching up requires a greater velocity than the target. While they are speeding up, we are slowing down… So the math does not add up.

        Thanks for that to all the Waynes in the world. You are no less guilty than the fingers that pushed the buttons to carry out the attacks.

        1. …making enough noise to make that same government release some videos, or at least out them on a legal position of having to officially refuse to release
          I am not sure where I read this, but a couple of “debunkers” (?) went after the videos with FOIA requests and some follow-up years ago, and they, or one of them, concluded that the FBI at one point had a number recordings from, Pentagon and/or Navy Annex (?) cameras, and he conjectured that these were essentially misplaced internally in FBI records.
          Erik Larson is one of them and the other – John Farmer? Not the 9/11 Commission John Farmer. I believe I read something that Farmer wrote first-hand, showing some letters that were exchanged between them and the FBI.
          Does that ring a bell?

            1. In general: They were debunking any claims that the attacks and collapses were faked somehow.

              In that specific article, they debunked the debunker claim that all existing videos have been released or are accounted for.

              1. Jens:

                Here is an article I wrote last month about the CITGO security cameras that were obtained by Judicial Watch under an FOIA. It discusses the shadow of a plane that is approaching the Pentagon about three seconds before the reflected fireball of the impact is captured in the video.

                https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557-news-releases/475-pentagon-plane-approach-captured-on-video.html

                This was first discussed in 2007 and only a few times after that.

                -Wayne (the Researcher)

                1. Wayne (the researcher),

                  The headline of your article (“Pentagon plane approach captured on video”) is incredibly irresponsible. You claim something as fact that you don’t know to be true.

                  You state as if it’s a fact that the two dark spots on the video are a shadow of the 757 that you claim hit the Pentagon. You simply have no basis for this conclusion. Like all of your “research,” this is speculation.

                  I would also question whether thousands of gallons of jet fuel exploding would create a flash as brief as the one we saw. There appears to me to be a light reflection in the exact spot where the “flash” reflection occurs, suggesting to me that the source of the flash is something else. I don’t know what that would be, however, and I admit I have not investigated this point. I am more concerned with you misleading people with a headline that isn’t justified by the article below it.

                  1. Craig:

                    From your comment, it is appears that you haven’t read the article – or haven’t read it very carefully.

                    https://www.911truthoutreach.org/557-news-releases/475-pentagon-plane-approach-captured-on-video.html

                    You criticized the title of my article, ” Pentagon Plane Approach Captured on Video;
                    CITGO Security Camera Captures ‘Smoking Shadow”” as being “incredibly irresponsible” because, as you said, “You simply have no basis for this conclusion.”

                    I have a lot more evidence that this is a plane approaching the Pentagon on the south side of the CITGO Station than you do of a flyover of a plane over the Pentagon.

                    You and the “flyover” advocates are the ones who simply have no basis for your flyover conclusion.

                    When asked for a recap of the flyover evidence I get nothing! Because there is nothing.

                    Read the article and weep for your flyover hypothesis.

                    -Wayne

                    1. Wayne, I know you delight in anything that you think helps support the official hypothesis of a plane impact. I imagine you’re building a solid following among the J’Ref community. But it seems you were the one who didn’t read very carefully. I made a statement that your use of the headline was irresponsible because you claim that the “shadow” IS definitely the plane.

                      Your headline was not a comparison between your claims and mine. Your headline stated that is was a FACT that the double dark marks seen in the surveillance video are the shadow of a 757. But you can’t back this up. And as far as I know, no one supports you in this. Therefore it is an irresponsible headline. Your contrived smugness and superiority are not fooling anyone.

    1. Craig,
      I have never heard of El Once. Why would he want to correspond privately as opposed to here on this public board?
      Who is he?