‘Official’ 9/11 propaganda embraced by truthers who say that a plane hit the Pentagon

Anybody see a stray wing lying around? Firefight says it’s around somewhere.

This is a guest article by 9/11 Truth activist and frequent Truth and Shadows contributor Adam Syed. In his piece, Syed looks at how an officially approved whitewash of the 9/11 Pentagon “attack” is given support by some in the movement who are determined to ridicule the view that no large plane hit the building.

By Adam Syed (Special to Truth and Shadows)

You know it supports the official story when you can buy it in the 9/11 Memorial Store.
And yet, Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon, is also embraced by some in the Truth movement. The question is why?
You don’t have to look far to find out. This piece of shameless propaganda has an official endorsement because it supports the minority view within the movement that Flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon.
These truthers don’t seem to have a problem that the book also tells us that one of the wings broke apart outside the building, landing on the grass. And the plane hit the building with a mass that resembled a shaped charge ploughing through the structure “like an energy beam,” leading to the creation of the “punch-out” hole in the Pentagon’s middle C ring.
In a video, 9/11 Truth activist Jon Gold chastises those who believe a plane didn’t hit:
“This [book] talks about witnesses who saw [airplane] chairs with bodies strapped to them inside the Pentagon.  And yet people think that they want to promote the idea that Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon as… one of the most important issues of the 9/11 truth cause, and that’s bull.”
We also learn that the left wing of the plane dipped down to ground level and the left engine grazed the grass and hit a steam vault protruding from the ground, all while the right engine was low enough to plow through the construction fence. It also tells us that debris from the impact flew backwards across Washington Blvd as well as forward as far as the Pentagon’s interior courtyard.
Do we take from this that Gold thinks that large chunks of the wing really landed on the grass? Or does he recommend only the points that suit his claim that the plane hit? And how credible is the claim about bodies strapped to seats?
How credible, for that matter is Firefight as a whole?  Let’s examine some of the book’s claims. We’ll get to the airplane seats in a minute, but let’s begin with a new whopper proffered near the beginning of the book, one I’ve never seen in any other official-story-supporting publication.  This claim deals with what happened in the final millisecond before the plane allegedly slammed into the wall:
As Flight 77 flew nearly to ground level, its right wing sliced into a 750-kilowatt generator in one of the construction areas.  The generator erupted into a fireball.  The plane’s right engine ripped a hole in a fence near the generator and yanked out some of the surrounding fence posts.  The left wingtip dipped almost to ground level, while the left engine grazed the grass and struck a steam vault protruding from the ground.  Both wings began to break apart, hurling metal fragments into the air.  (p. 25)
Multiple problems here.  First, in this photo, do you see wing parts on the grass?  Second, do you see any “grazed grass?”  These are rhetorical questions, of course, because the obvious answers are No and No.  Third, look how “high” (i.e. low) that fence is.  How is it possible that the left wing could “dip” to “almost ground level” so that the left engine grazes the grass, while at the same time, the right engine could rip a hole in the fence?  At the very least, this is an “either-or” scenario, but certainly not both.  In reality, of course, the correct answer is “neither,” since the photographic evidence clearly refutes both of these claims.  And on the next page, we read:
At least one third of the left wing had snapped off when the left engine hit the steam vault. (p. 26)
Once again, this claim is totally unsupported by photographic evidence.  Where is this wing on the grass?
Now let’s tackle the issue of alleged bodies still in airliner seats with the seat belts still fastened.  From pp. 373-4:
For the first time, Regan’s team saw something they had expected to see all along but had been scarce until then: recognizable airplane parts.  They all thought they would find big pieces of the airliner laying everywhere, the way car parts end up strewn across a highway after a crash.  But the physics of an airplane crash were obviously different: Mostly there was just tons of shredded metal and melted plastic.
Finally, they found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage.  A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them, which had already been found and marked for the FBI… They were the first objects the non-aviation experts had seen that unmistakably belonged to an airplane.
An NTSB official was nearby, and Regan asked him… “I don’t understand why we’re not seeing more airplane parts,” he declared.
The NTSB “expert’s” answer:

“Imagine if you took a banana and pushed it through a grinder.  Everything goes through the part that’s in front of it.  That’s what happened here.  The only reason those seats survived is because they were from the rear or the plane.”

Remember, this book was written in 2008, well into the truth movement’s life.  It appears that this account serves to not only corroborate the official version, but specifically, Ted Olson’s claim that his wife had told him via cellphone/airfone/cellphone/airfone (he changed his story 3 times) that the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane.  If they’d been herded to the back of the plane, they wouldn’t be in their seats, would they?  Perhaps except for the passengers who were already seated in the back and hence had no need to get out of their seats.
But wait a minute.  Look at this seating chart, used in the Moussaoui trial, courtesy of the website of Jim Hoffman (someone who supports the official crash view).  There were no passengers originally seated in the very back of the plane.  Is it really believable that a few of the passengers, once herded to the back of the plane, then sat down in the back row and fastened their seat belts?
The book’s absurdities don’t stop here.  As with other aspects of 9/11, purveyors of the official story can’t keep their lies straight.  Just as we’ve had multiple (unconvincing) explanations for what caused the demise of WTC7, Firefight offers the world a third explanation for what caused the exit hole in the Pentagon’s C Ring.
The first explanation, from both Rumsfeld and Pentagon renovation manager Lee Evey, was that the nose of the plane caused this hole:
“This area right here is what we call A-E Drive. And unlike other rings in the building, it’s actually a driveway that circles the building inside, between the B and the C ring. The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that’s the extent of penetration of the aircraft.”
However, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Building Performance Report itself refuted this, saying “The front of the aircraft disintegrated essentially upon impact.”  The second explanation, circa 2005, from Popular Mechanics, refers back to the ASCE, captioning a photo with the words “Hole Truth: Flight 77’s landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon’s Ring C.” (It appears we have to pay $43 to see the original source.)
Perhaps official story disseminates grew uncomfortable with this explanation, too.  After all, how could the landing gear punch such a neatly shaped, circular hole into the wall of the C-Ring?  So, the 2008 book Firefight proffers a third explanation.  On pp. 29-30, it says:
As the mass traveled through the building, it began to resemble a shaped charge, a form of explosive that funnels its force into a small, directed area — like a beam of energy — in order to punch holes through armor or other strong material.
And in a photo caption in the pictures section mid-book, we read:
“The hole was created by explosive energy; the plane’s soft aluminum nose and fuselage crumpled the instant it struck the building.”
So, official sources have now listed the nose, the landing gear, and explosive beam-like energy as the causes of the exit hole.  Kind of like how diesel fuel fires, no wait, structural damage, brought down WTC7.
Speaking of official lies not jiving with one another, most readers at Truth and Shadows are familiar with the story of cab driver Lloyde England, who, according to the official story (and his own account) was a victim of the Pentagon attack in that a light pole toppled by the plane fell onto his cab, spearing the windshield but strangely not damaging the hood. (This is pseudo-physics on a par with the JFK magic bullet.)  According to Lloyde, he got out of the car and, with the help of a “silent stranger,” lifted the pole from the windshield and placed it onto the road.  (See CIT’s presentation “The First Known Accomplice?” for more.)  Mr. England’s story is highly implausible, and besides, numerous genuine witnesses place the location of the plane to be far away from the light pole that allegedly hit his cab.
But Firefight gives us another account (bolding mine):
As it crossed the expressway, the plane’s wings knocked over several light poles that lined the road, like a ten-year-old toppling Tinkertoys with a slash of his hand.  One light pole fell onto a taxicab, smashing the windshield, injuring the driver, and bringing the sedan to a skidding halt.  (p. 24)
This is news to me; I had no idea Lloyde England was injured.  If he was, it was quite a feat to get out of that car and move the pole, even with the help of another person.  Once again, proponents of the official account can’t seem to keep their lies straight.
Yet another whopper is when the book claims that not only did the plane disintegrate with much debris flying backwards (some allegedly landing on the other side of the highway immediately west of the building), but that other plane debris hurled forwards and came to rest in the center courtyard.

When the airplane had burst on impact, the blast threw many pieces backward onto the lawn by the helipad, some with such force that they landed on the other side of Washington Boulevard, nearly 1,000 feet away.  But thousands of pieces also carried forward and up, even over the roof of the building.  In the Pentagon’s inner courtyard, tiny pieces of aluminum drifted down like confetti.  Other pieces landed on the roof, along with body parts from at least one of the victims.
(p. 29)
I challenge anyone to find aerial pictures showing “thousands” of pieces of airplane debris in the courtyard or on the roof.
Here is another glaring error in Firefight, from page 13:

Word was spreading throughout the FAA that AA77 had probably been hijacked.  Still there were hundreds of planes in the sky along the East Coast.  Without the transponder data, searching for a single runaway jet among all those radar dots was like looking at mites under a microscope.

This mirrors the Popular Mechanics talking point about the transponders being turned off.  However, David Griffin addressed this soundly in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: The four planes that had been hijacked would NOT have looked identical to the other blips, because only the hijacked jets would have been void of transponder data (a 4-digit code number and the plane’s altitude). So they would have stuck out like a sore thumb. Finally, as Griffin asks rhetorically, “Was the US military’s defense of the homeland during the Cold War based on the assumption that Soviet pilots would have the courtesy to leave their transponders on?”
At this stage, it should be clear that the book’s credibility is in serious doubt.  That being said, most of the 450+ pages of this book probably contain more truth than lies, but as we know, the best disinformation is 95% truth and 5% poison.  Most of the book deals with the efforts to fight the fire during the course of the several days following 9/11: the collaboration and communication between various engine ladders of the Arlington fire department, the collaboration between the Arlington FD and the Fairfax FD.  A book this thick could be written about ANY large fire, and the efforts to extinguish it, and most of the details of this book are immemorial with regards to 9/11 truth seeking.  Three times throughout, the firefighters are radioed that another unidentified aircraft is heading their way, and that they need to evacuate in case a second plane hits the Pentagon.
Of course, in all three instances, they eventually get the “all clear, it was a friendly plane” and the firefighters continue their job of hosing the fires.  A significant portion of the firefight involves the stubbornly smoldering roof and the difficulties in putting that part of the fire out.  Many passages in the book are of emotional nature, i.e. firefighters using donated cell phones from the Cingular phone company to call their loved ones and tell them they’re OK.
Also, while this book is clearly meant to bolster the official story, there are “nuggets of truth” (to borrow a phrase from T/S contributor Senior El Once) throughout.  For example, even though official story apologists get their nug on page 373 (evening of 9/12) about bodies strapped into airplane seats, there are many passages prior to that which point to the real scenario.

They found the same perplexing thing as Spector — lots of demolished offices, but no victims.  Smith was shocked.  God damn it, he thought, where is everybody?  They lifted debris and looked underneath.  Nothing.
(p. 74)

They encountered the first office on the left and went inside to do a quick search, shining hand lights through the smoke, lifting rubble to see if they could find any victims, and breaking through walls with axes and other tools they carried.  There was nobody.
  (p. 82)
Gibbs suited up for his own look into the building, joining up with a Fort Myer unit that was about to enter through a doorway to the left of the impact hole.  They crawled toward the crash site looking for victims, just as Spector and Smith had… After stumbling around for a few minutes and finding nobody, Gibbs decided they needed another plan.  (p. 86)
Firefight was jointly written by Patrick Creed, an “amateur historian and volunteer firefighter,” (according to the back inside sleeve) and Rick Newman, a “staff writer for U.S. News and World Report.”  It was published in 2008.  While this book is not an “official” source in the sense of being an official release by a government agency, it is at least a “semi-official” report in the sense of the Popular Mechanics anti-9/11truth article and book, which incidentally has been cited by government officials as the last word against the 9/11 “conspiracy theorists.”  As Gold’s video shows, Firefight is sold at the 9/11 Memorial Store, as is the 9/11 Commission Report.  As Gold says, “[The store] can sell the 9/11 Commission Report, but they can’t sell anything to do with the women responsible for the creation of it.”  Jon is, of course, referring to the documentary 9/11 Press for Truth, which documents the journey of the Jersey Girls (9/11 widows) and their fight to get the original Commission created in the first place, when the Bush administration was staunchly opposed to any commission at all.  The fact that Firefight is being sold at such a store is testament to its endorsement by the establishment.
Within the 9/11 truth movement, this book has been promoted by 911blogger moderator Erik “loose nuke” Larson.  He says: “Firefighters at the Pentagon, public records, 150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses… anyone reading this?”  And on that same entry, Gold says: “Does anyone have any indication that those who wrote this book are lying, have a history of lying, etc? If not, then why is this ignored by the “Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon” advocates? Edit: Still ignoring this, eh?”  And so-called truther jimd3100 states that truthers won’t read the book because it contradicts their pet theory (that an airliner didn’t hit).
Well, now I can say I’ve read the whole book, and the proof is in the pudding.  Firefight is a piece of sloppy propaganda.  Shame on any so-called 9/11 truth activist who would recommend this “work” over the REAL work carried out by Enver Masud, Citizen Investigation Team, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth.


  1. Since the main episode of the official 9/11 narrative, the twin towers’ destruction, is an outrageous and glaring lie, it takes a great amount of faith to believe the story of Al Qaeda hijackers piloting F77 into the Pentagon, even if it matched the available evidence satisfactorily.
    What actually happened at the Pentagon is important. Fortunately, it is not essential, as the televised terrorist controlled demolition of the twin towers is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy by principal anti-neocon leaders of all persuasions to censor 9/11 and instead send their gullible followers (liberals, greens, Muslims, socialists, pacifists, union activists, etc.) on wild goose chases after the neocon juggernaut.
    Once 9/11-cognizant individuals realize that the real 9/11 conspiracy is the censorship, they will stop their competition for the best analysis of the false flag and focus on neutralizing the 9/11 censors, who are the most dangerous 9/11 agents. When they do this, they will usher humanity into a highly favorable paradigm shift that will literally change the course of history.

    1. Actually, in this instance, Daniel has it wrong. There are multiple options for who arranged for the destruction of the World Trade Center, but the attack on the Pentagon, like the “stand down” of the US Air Force on 9/11, has to have been arranged by the Pentagon. It not only reveals US military complicity at the highest level, which encompasses the neo-cons who were in control, but was the basis for George W. Bush to claim, “We are at war!” No formal declaration was ever made, of course, where Congress has long since abandoned its Constitutional responsibilities related to war and peace. So exposing the fraudulence of the Pentagon attack strikes at the heart of the pseudo-justification for the “War on Terror”. Here are some studies of the Pentagon for those who want more:
      “What Didn’t Happen at the Pentagon”
      “Pandora’s Black Box, Chapter 2”
      “Seven Questions about 9/11”
      Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to
      American77 http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html
      “Inside Job: Seven Questions about 9/11”
      “The official account of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy” (with Dennis Cimino)

      1. Fetzer claims:
        > “There are multiple options for who arranged for the destruction of the World Trade Center…”
        … … … … … …
        Wait a minute…are you saying that the events of 9/11 were not coordinated by a single systemic core?
        I would like some sort of explanation of what you are trying to say here McKnight Professor Emeritus…???

    2. Daniel Noel
      You are one of my very favorite podcast interviewees. The three you made with Andrew Steele, Kevin Barrett and Jim Fetzer were great. I have listened to all of them on my mp3 player many times; you are a great antidote for the Main Stream Shite peddled by Main Stream Gob Shite journalists on government main stream broadcasting networks.
      I regard the cover up job that the MSM has engaged in as completely obscene and immoral. Listening to what you have said on this unbelievable present day reality that we find ourselves in I am as outraged and disappointed as you are. I too understand very well the seriousness of “All Our Watchdogs Not Barking”
      All those soldiers who lost their lives fighting in previous wars of the last century did not fight and sacrifice their lives to permit insane war mongers in the 21st century to invalidate their memory and return our world to the status of deception, violence, hate and perpetual war.
      Does it take a special kind of person to enjoy the pod-casts that you have been part of? I hope not because the masses would find more wisdom and sincerity in your observations than they will listening to the MSM.

      1. Socrates laments:
        “All those soldiers who lost their lives fighting in previous wars of the last century did not fight and sacrifice their lives to permit insane war mongers in the 21st century..”
        Wow, are you stuck in the saccharin goo of Lollipop History Socrates. Stunning.
        War used to be good aye?
        All those soldiers lost their lives fighting for the profits of the banking cartel, and had ZERO to do with fighting for liberty and justice.
        We must not only wake up from the myth of 9/11, but the myth and paradigm that proceeds it and will naturally follow it.
        What is War?
        Murder, Rape, and Pillage – Sanctioned by the State.
        When has this NOT been so?

      2. hybridrogue1
        Last century’s war was mainly fought by conscripts and volunteers; they really did believe they were fighting for liberty and justice and the rest, it’s obvious now that they were not but I think they thought they were. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
        Good to hear from ya hybridrogue1.

      3. Good to hear from you as well Socrates,
        I can accept your caveat. But this is the prime problem humanity faces. Is it not?
        That so few have come beyond the jingo jango processing of patriotic mythology.
        What is a “Just War”?
        A euphemism, there is only war in all it’s psychopathic reality.
        It is interesting that the concept of “Just War” came from a Christian theologian.
        It seems that “turn the other cheek” simply became rolling over in your sleep.
        But don’t get me wrong. I am a conscientious objector – not a pacifist. I have been a martial artist all my life, I believe in self defense. I have been in fights. People have been hurt.
        But war is nothing but big business. Or as Smedly Butler put it, “war is a racket”.
        Take care in that which you speak.

      4. Socrates: thank you for the sweet compliment. I’ll respectfully add a correction: 9/11 is less a curse than a blessing, precisely because the watchdogs who do not bark can in no way invoke the traditional excuses of incompetence, negligence, budget cuts, fear of the voters, etc. Here resides the superiority of activism on the twin towers (and Building 7 as a stepping stone) over activism on the Pentagon, on other 9/11 sub-conspiracies, on non-9/11 conspiracies, and on wedge issues: since the 9/11 conspirators made the strategic decision to televise live the twin towers’ terrorist controlled demolition, activists can reach out to people endowed with an average intelligence, a modest education, and a minimal interest, teach them how their most trusted sources of information failed them on the twin towers, and get them to spread this message.
        The overwhelming evidence of the twin towers’ terrorist controlled demolition also allows ridiculing the 9/11 faithkeepers more so than the keepers of any other faith. Behold this piece in progress: http://www.global-platonic-theater.com/censors,%20Handling/nullifying%20faithkeeping/skeptical%20inquirer/thomas%202011.htm.
        It is unfortunate that otherwise well-meaning 9/11 leaders have adopted a dogmatic attitude on the Pentagon instead of politely observing that it is easier to save the world by educating it on the twin towers and of respectfully challenging Pentagon activists to leverage the watchdogs’ failure to bark into the teaching in layman’s terms of the 9/11 censorship. As they become aware of the existence, paramount importance and danger of the 9/11 censorship, they may change their position.

  2. Let me say that I greatly appreciate Adam’s blog here, which goes a long way in the right direction. There is much more to say about it, including that he has not accented the actual “hit point” on the first floor and that the photo he shows appears to include one or more lampposts that, according to the official account, were taken out by the plane. I am posting the text of my first article about the Pentagon, where I have many more. It’s a found at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-didnt-happen-at-pentagon.html
    The photographs are so important, perhaps Craig could import them. Thanks, Adam!
    What Didn’t Happen at the Pentagon
    Since Thiery Meyssan first posted his web-site study, “Hunt the Boeing!”, the absence of evidence that a 757 crashed there has become a source of almost endless speculation. Even Jamie McIntyre, the CNN correspondent, reported that, based upon his own personal inspection, there were no indications that a large plane had crashed anywhere near the Pentagon! If you listen very carefully, you will see that, during the first part of the interview, he talks about small pieces from a plane. But starting around 2:44, he denies that there is any evidence that a large plane hit the building. That–like his odd description of a piece that was silver with red and green markings–would seem to be consistent with a small plane having hit the Pentagon.
    A paper of mine by the same title recently appeared on rense.com, but it included several introductory paragraphs about those who appear intent upon misleading or confounding the 9/11 movement about what happened there. So I deleted those paragraphs, where anyone who wants to read them, too, can find them there. Meyssan’s two books, PENTAGATE (2003) and 9/11: THE BIG LIE (2003), were among my earliest encounters with serious research on 9/11, which left the indelible impression upon me that serious research could expose falsehoods and reveal truths about the events of 9/11, for which I shall always be indebted to him. I therefore dedicate this bog to Thierry Meyssan for his courage and integrity in speaking the truth when others remained silent.
    The Pentacon
    Questions about what happened at the Pentagon, of course, fall into the area of uncertainty as a complex and complicated issue many in the community dislike. There is a body of evidence, much of which is photographic, however, to which scientific reasoning can be applied to resolve that uncertainty. As I have elsewhere explained, the basic measure of the strength with which evidence e supports hypothesis h is provided by the likelihood, L, of h, if e were true. That, in turn, is equal to the probability, P, of e if h were true, where L(h/e) = P(e/h). Approximately speaking, this involves treating the evidence as an “effect” of the “cause” described by various hypotheses, where an hypothesis hi with higher likelihood on evidence e is better supported and is therefore “preferable” to an hypothesis hj with lower likelihood.
    As a simple example, we find likelihoods employed in everyday life and in criminal investigations. The discovery of a body with bruising around the neck but no bullet holes or knife wounds makes it more likely that the deceased was killed by strangulation than by shooting or stabbing. After all, the probability of no bullet holes (knife wounds, and so on) if the victim was shot (stabbed, and so forth) is zero, while the probability of bruising about the neck as the result of strangulation is very high. Since the evidence (no bullet holes or knife wounds but bruising around the neck) is more probable if the death was caused by strangulation than by shooting or stabbing, that hypothesis has a higher likelihood and is therefore better supported by the evidence.
    When the evidence has “settled down” and tends to point in the same direction, then that hypothesis is also acceptable in the tentative and fallible fashion of science. The introduction of new alternatives and the acquisition of new evidence, including the discovery that evidence that has been taken to be authentic in the past has been fabricated, can lead to the rejection of hypotheses previously accepted and the acceptance of hypotheses previously rejected-or to the suspension of belief in cases previously thought to be resolved. There appear to be more than a half-dozen arguments against the official account that a 757 hit the Pentagon, which appears to be a fantasy. To begin with, consider the alleged “hit point” at the Pentagon on the ground floor:
    Figure 1. The Ground Floor “Hit Point”
    This “hit point” was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125′ wingspan and a tail that stands 44′ above the ground. The debris is wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines, which are made of titanium and steel, were recovered. The probability that a real Boeing 757 would leave no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage and no tail at the point of impact approximates zero. The probability that an absent plane would leave no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies and such at the point of impact approximates one-although, of course, planted evidence is not ruled out. As long as one is greater than zero, the hypothesis there was no real Boeing 757 has the higher likelihood.
    Indeed, this conclusion is further reinforced by the discovery of unbroken windows in the immediate vicinity of the purported “hit point”. Jack White, a legendary student of the photos and films in the assassination of JFK, has created a web site devoted to 9/11 and a pdf, which includes many important observations, such as this one. I have greatly benefited in my own research from exchanges with Jack, just as I have from exchanges with Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. It is a pity that more students of 9/11 are not devoting attention to Judy’s web site and Morgan’s web site as well as to Jack’s. If we really want to discover the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about 9/11, we cannot allow ourselves to be bound by the confines of our own imagination and experiences.
    Figure 2. Before and After the Upper-Floors Collapsed
    The Pentagon’s own videotapes do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’Reilly admitted when one was shown on “The O’Reilly Factor”. At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and easily visible; it was not, which means that the video evidence also contradicts the official account. The tail of what appears to be a far smaller plane, however, is visible just above the guard mechanism. In this graphic, Jack White has sized the image of a Boeing 757 to that of the tail, which vividly displays the inconsistency of supposing that it might be the tail of a Boeing 757. If a plane of its dimensions were present, it should have been visible, but is not. Yet it is consistent with a smaller–and slower–plane having hit the building.
    Figure 3. Sizing a Boeing 757 to the Pentagon Frame.
    The aerodynamics of flight, including “ground effect”, would have made the official trajectory-flying at high speed barely above ground level-physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than about 60 feet to the ground, which means that the official account is not even aerodynamically possible. Russ Wittenburg in the DVD “Zero”, an experienced pilot who flew the planes alleged to have been used on 9/11, states that the Boeing 757 can’t go 500 mph hour at sea level because the air is too dense. Robin Hordon, an air traffic controller, in the same film, explains that the Boeing 757 cannot do the maneuvers attributed to it. The official story thus appears to entail violations of laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics, insofar as the damage to the building, the absence of debris, the clear, smooth, unblemished lawn and now its alleged performance are incompatible with a Boeing 757.
    Figure 4. The Unblemished Lawn Post-Impact
    Moreover, if a Boeing 757 could have traveled at 500 mph at ground level, it would have caused enormous damage to the grass and the ground, including producing substantial furrows from the low hanging engines, yet photos taken immediately after the alleged impact show the grass surface as smooth and unblemished as a putting green, where I expect Tiger Woods to show up and practice his game. The purported debris began showing up later, including especially a piece of fuselage torn from a commercial carrier, which was photographed in several locations. James Hanson, a lawyer from Columbus, OH, has traced this piece to a crash that occurred on 20 December 1995 in Cali, Columbia, where a vine common there ripped it off the plane. I am going to include Jim’s paper in THE 9/11 CONTROVERSIES (forthcoming), which will be the second book from Scholars that I publish.
    This is far from the only case of the fabrication of evidence at the Pentagon. Jamie McIntyre, the CNN reporter at the scene, reported that there were no indications that a plane had crashed: “From my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of any plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. . . . There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage-nothing like that-anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane had crashed into the side of the Pentagon”. He would subsequently contradict his report, no doubt under intense pressure from his employer to take back anything that might be considered to undermine the official account. He now states that, “For anyone with any common sense . . . there is not going to be any doubt that a plane hit the building”. But that is just what we would expect (with high probability) if no Boeing 757 actually hit the building.
    Even more stunning, therefore, is that, even though the lime-green civilian fire trucks that arrived first at the scene had extinguished the fires at the Pentagon in around fifteen minutes, vast volumes of black smoke would later appear that were easily visible across the Potomac from the steps of the Capitol, where members of the House and the Senate had congregated as a safety precaution due to threats that the Capitol Building itself might be the next target. What we have here is a demonstration of the use of “special effects” of the kind that Hollywood has patented. The smoke is coming, not from the Pentagon itself, but from a series of enormous dumpsters in front of the building. It is hard to imagine any more damning proof of fakery:
    Figure 5. Smoke and Flames Emanating from Dumpsters
    At this point, it appears to be “pilling on” to observe that data from a flight recorder provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth by the National Transportation Safety Board corresponds to a plane with a different approach and higher altitude, which would have precluded its hitting lampposts or even the building itself, which means that, if the NTSB’s own data corresponds to the Boeing 757 that is alleged to have been flown toward the building, it would have flow over the Pentagon rather than hit it. Those who remain unconvinced by the evidence that has been presented here, therefore, are encouraged to view the 9/11 DVD’s “Pandora’s Black Box” and “Pentacon”, which offer additional substantiation. The evidence thus appears to have “settled down”.
    Pandora’s Black Box – Chapter Two – Flight Of American 77
    The probability that a real Boeing 757 could have hit the Pentagon and not left debris from its wings and tail or even its engines-not to mention bodies, seats, and luggage-is zero. The probability that the alleged trajectory could have been flown in violation of the laws of aerodynamics is even less than zero-since violations of these laws is not physically possible. The probability that the trajectory, if it were possible, could have left a smooth, green, unblemished lawn is zero. The probability that debris would have been planted or that smoke would have been simulated, had this event involved the crash of a real Boeing 757, is likewise extremely low. That all of these things would have occurred if the alleged impact were contrived, however, is very high. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any reasonable alternative.
    The PentaCon
    When no alternative explanation is reasonable, then an explanation has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The conclusion that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon appears to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The problems being generated within the 9/11 community over the quality of research, as this case illustrates, appear to be rooted in the lack of commitment to logic and evidence by individuals like Dick Eastman, who has demonstrated that he is not competent to evaluate research on 9/11. Ironically, our conclusions about the Pentagon apparently converge, which means that he ought to be regarding me as an ally rather than as an enemy. Fortunately, progress can be made as long as others of greater ability are allowed to pursue the search for truth, which confronts enormous obstacles from without and would certainly benefit by greater tolerance from within the research community itself.
    Jim Fetzer, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, and the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. He maintains its web site at 911scholars.org.

    1. Fetzer complains:
      “… appear to be rooted in the lack of commitment to logic and evidence by individuals like Dick Eastman, who has demonstrated that he is not competent to evaluate research on 9/11. Ironically, our conclusions about the Pentagon apparently converge, which means that he ought to be regarding me as an ally rather than as an enemy.”
      .. … … … … … ..
      Perhaps Eastman sees as I do, that all of “professor” Fetzer’s efforts are geared to distraction from the real core issues, one of them being the Treasure of the Golden Lily. In which case the interlinked hits on the specific targets of the ONI at the Pentagon, and the particular floors of the WTC holding the offices of vital financial records, prove a single concerted effort by the very same perpetrators.
      That the “professor” intimates above that: “There are multiple options for who arranged for the destruction of the World Trade Center…”
      It would seem this is another subtle attempt to lead the truth community out into the weeds of disinformation. The core “economic” nature of the prime motive is hidden by these very weeds.

    2. I would submit that it is that we are getting too close to home for Fetzer, by getting into issues involving his known and unknown comrades, such as Ollie North, John Lear; CIA pilot during the Nugan-Hand fiasco – all connected to Adnan Kashoggi, Sheik Kamal and Edgar Bronfmann, Secord, Armitage, Rodriguez and Shackley – all in coordinated league with George “Poppy” Bush Sr, the Vulcans and William Casey.

  3. Something that I’ve never seen mentioned in the myth that a plane hit the pentagon is the effect of the angle of impact. Where is the effect of deflection? Massive amounts of wreckage should have been spread to the LEFT of impact with the newly reinforced wall. All the best, Glenn Bolder, Rosseau Ont.

    1. Glenn,
      You make a terrific point. This is something I’ve thought about, too. The idea that this plane could hit this building and leave no major wreckage outside is laughable. And Mike Walter’s contention that the wings “folded in” is beyond bizarre.

  4. Excellent work, Mr. Syed. On a side note, I am also grateful for your participation on Truth & Shadows. I enjoy your posts. That you don’t always respond to my comments to you, I understand and don’t fault you in the least, given my dupe useful idiot championing sometimes of the bat-shit crazy, which isn’t everyone’s 9/11 hobby-horse. Glad that the Pentagon is your hobby-horse.

  5. Adam Syed has added another nail in the coffin of an aircraft strike at the Pentagon.
    All points well made and standing on the shoulders of the excellent work by Citizen Investigation Team and Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
    Bravo Adam!

  6. Adam,
    You did an excellent job with this article. I commend you on going through the entire book and providing us with a well-argued analysis of its shortcomings. I think that it’s irresponsible for any truther to point to a book like this as a credible source. It clearly has the official stamp of approval and should not be endorsed loosely. The fact that the book claims that large pieces of the plane (the wing in particular) were flying around and landing outside the building can’t be reconciled with any other information we have. This crew that insists that a plane hit this building is truly puzzling to me. Why are they so determined that we should believe this? Why are they so happy to believe the absurd official version that has the plane disappearing into the building and somehow creating the round “punch-out” hole. Even without getting into Citizen Investigation Team’s critical evidence, you have a ridiculously thin case for impact. (P.S. Adam Syed is away from his computer today but I’m sure he’ll be happy to respond to any comments about this article when he can.)

  7. That which seems to have given the official Pentagon story it’s strongest legs is the twaddle delivered by Frank Legge in his articles posted at Journal.
    As most know here, I spent a couple of months in an email exchange with this “Professor”, wherein it became more than obvious that he was either deranged or is an active shill.
    As in a few other cases, I became convinced Legge is indeed a deep cover mole.
    It is a long and complex argument, but eventually it rests upon “scientific” investigation into totally unreliable “evidence”, such as the purported “black box” found at least ‘twice’ inside the Pentagon, as well as totally misconstruing the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. Profoundly ludicrous arguments, that even a child should be able to see through.
    This need not be played into this commentary beyond what I have already said here, as it has been gone over countless times throughout the history of Truth&Shadows.

    1. Yes, I posted a thread at 911oz pointing out several problems in Legge & Stutt’s paper over at 911oz (before the TrueFaction gang had infiltrated that ‘forum’ completely):
      I did this hoping that Frank Legge might respond as he is and was a member of the 911oz forum at the time and who is fully capable of reading and understanding my posts at that forum:
      Actually, it appears that Legge is a member of the 911oz forum under 2 usernames:
      Curiously enough, there was never ANY response from Legge (or the TrueFaction trolls) to my entire thread outlining the problems in Legge’s paper. Any thoughts on why exactly that might be?

      1. It could be Mr Boz, that after our email exchange Legge came to realize that any informed and lucid mind can see through his jabberwacky in an instant. In such cases, for the state agent “silence is golden”, as it allows things to die premature deaths. If he would have engaged in argument, he would have no choice but to be highlighted as promoting utter nonsense.
        “Best to let sleeping dogs lay.” Aye?
        His weakest point is the Hemphill testimony, and if the argument is made with visual aids – maps and photo’s of the position Hemphill was at on 9/11, there is NO DOUBT that the plane flew over the left side of the building he was in, and continued to the Left – that is North of the Citco station.
        As the North Approach is IMPOSSIBLE as per the Angle Of Damage to the Pentagon, and as the North Approach is PROVEN: The plane witnessed by Hemphill and the other witnesses simply could not have crashed into the Pentagon. Period.

      2. Hey MrBoz,
        How’s it going?
        I clicked on the links but forgot that I was banned (I can’t see the forum now) and a message comes up from Lanyard Hereward claiming that he never knew that I wasn’t not banned. I had been banging on his door for weeks in his podcast section about the truefaction dudes and his selective blindness. He must have missed me…
        Excellent write up mate.
        Sorry for the following randomness…
        Tell me, is that the same book that mentions the 3 “fake firefighters” arrested and the “mystery PenRen go-between” who disappeared after being rumbled by firefighters moving/directing people to move corpses the day after the attack?
        If it is, is there any way of uploading the photocopied pages in question? In fact, I think it would be useful to upload what you can?
        I also remember a book which claimed that the aircraft “fully penetrated” in “8/10ths of a second”.
        And that one of the alleged firefighters who was said to have found an “aircraft seat” also found the alleged FDR – “a two foot long orange box with a handle” – but the latter was later denied. Must have been a new-fangled piece of office equipment that looked like….
        The nosecone allegedly made it through not only the steel meshed, kevlar woven, fortified facade, but the second floor slab, columns and C Ring wall. And is in fact part and parcel of the Pentagon OCT when it was claimed to be the case at the Massaoui trial by Maguire (of 85 withheld video fame) of the FBI.
        As for the alleged lettered aircraft skin, if the aircraft had penetrated the steel meshed..etc, etc…within a fraction of a second, it should have been shredded and crumpled. Any explosion wouldn’t have occurred until the fuel tanks along the length of the wings and section of fuselage between them, had made contact with the structure.
        How then did this lettered section of the aircraft, which is before the wings, make it on to the lawn? How did they avoid scorching when the facade and trees were blackened? How did this very lightweight material get blown north of the lawn against the south to east wind that day (look at direction of smoke)?
        They can bullshit all they want about the wings “breaking off” but the massive AA logoed(?) vertical stabilizer? There are no markings on the facade and no bigass AA stabilizer sections to be seen anywhere.
        My new pet name for Jon Gold is Jack Dunphy.

      3. OSS,
        Tell me, is that the same book that mentions the 3 “fake firefighters” arrested and the “mystery PenRen go-between” who disappeared after being rumbled by firefighters moving/directing people to move corpses the day after the attack?
        If it is, is there any way of uploading the photocopied pages in question? In fact, I think it would be useful to upload what you can?
        I’ll have to go back and double check. The 3 fake firefighters doesn’t ring a bell, but the latter part of your question sounds familiar. I do remember a bunch of passages about various parties telling others off for tampering with evidence. As I said, I speed-read most of the book, mainly eyes hitting breaks and slowing down from 85 pmh to 45 mph upon seeing certain things talked about, or certain key words or phrases.

        I also remember a book which claimed that the aircraft “fully penetrated” in “8/10ths of a second”.

        Yes, this is that book.

      4. Hey OSS, I left you a short message on the “Ignorance Trumps Ideas” page back around 19 Sept.:
        Try these to see if you can view over/under/around Hereward’s apparent IP block on your ISP:
        Here was the thread where Hereward threatened banning all his imagined “Pentagon disruptors”:
        Here are my responses (essentially paralleling your position regarding Hereward’s banning threats):
        [Incidentally, a Google “English-to-English” translation of Hereward’s forum should also work to get around his IP block of your ISP from what I’ve read] It’s sad really- you and I really had “BS” Sarnsy and a couple of Icky Vicky’s other minions by the short hairs on a couple of those threads at 911oz. That is until all their ‘masks’ fell off anyway…
        The fucking coward Hereward Fenton never did have the ‘stones’ to ban me from his forum outright (likely because discussing Pentagon research analytically based on EVIDENCE rather than ‘toeing’ Gregg & Vicky’s ‘party line’ was my ‘major offense.’) I will freely admit to heaping a fair amount of [well deserved IMHO] abuse on the Oz forum trolls though (like vertster, Brian Good, Jeffy & his ‘head cheerleader’ Eugenia, etc.)
        If abusing those trolls was a banning offense, then I suppose I deserved to be banned from Hereward’s “911 blogger-lite.” Fuck it and fuck them- I personally undertook voluntary ‘post-bans’ (like I INvoluntarily received at the troll-infested shithole ATS forum) from both 911blogger and Hereward’s 911oz forum anyway, in solidarity with/support of and protesting those unjustly banned at those places (as described in the Rock Creek Free Press article long ago).

        1. My Ellen Mariani article was accepted by Global Research, and their version was picked up by 911blogger. This caught my eye because I was banned by them back in 2010. I thought, “Gee, I wonder if they noticed who wrote the article.” Well, I guess somebody noticed because it disappeared and can’t be found anywhere on the site. So, they thought the article was important for people to read but then when they realized my name was on it, it became worth keeping from their readers. That’s how it seems, anyway. I suppose there could be another explanation but I’m not sure what that would be.

      5. @MrBoz,
        Thanks for those links mate! That’s a useful tool to sneak in under the radar. Mainly to copy some research and images left festering there.
        Of course they removed your work man. I and others here have no problem linking to valid information even if the authors view us “disruptors” as scum.
        That’s the difference. That for me is the litmus test for truthseekers.

    2. HR,
      I also have come to the firm conclusion that Frank Legge is a deep state mole, despite his being in Australia. Obviously, intel agencies between the two countries collaborate like brothers. I became firmly convinced that Legge was a mole upon seeing the long, convoluted email he sent in 2010 to Barrie Zwicker in a failed attempt to convince Barrie he had erred by endorsing National Security Alert. Upon seeing that email, I had no doubt that neutralizing Pentagon evidence is Legge’s assignment, under the guise of academia and “responsible 9/11 activism.” And yes, the Albert Hemphill stuff is pretty flagrant.
      Of course, Barrie would have none of it, and replied that all information trying to prove the OCT at the Pentagon was “tinkling cymbals at best.” It gave me hope that not everyone’s mind can be cognitively infiltrated the way Gage’s was (and to a lesser extent Griffin, his consensus approach seemingly resting on the idea that the disagreements intra-movement are just that: honest differences of opinion, rather than infiltration by disinfo specialists). I also remember 911blogger moderator LeftWright admitting he hadn’t watched the CIT or Pilots videos, yet he told me that I should “read (or re-read) the excellent paper of Frank Legge, reflect on it, and reconsider the merits [of CIT/P4T’s work] with that paper in mind.” What arrogance. To imply that if I had read Frank’s paper once, that its incredible merit must not have sank in to my thick brain, and that perhaps I needed to read it again, and go to a lake in the park, sit on a rock, look at the peaceful swans, and “reflect” until I did get it. What a condescending dickhead.

      1. Well Adam,
        I have to say that when I left off, Legge was fuming. It started out cordial enough, but my “insubordination” seems to have gotten the best of him…like totally how dare I, measly peon that I am…{grin}.
        I seem to have pissed off Dr Jones as well…my forte? Very likely so…{large Lol}
        There is a certain cliquishness among the ‘academiacs’__those who have found the bright delightful key of hubris in their given “honors”. Even those who disagree with one another consider the meddling of plebes unbearable, and will stand together in that dreadful “professional ethics” – much like cops, and doctors, politicians and gangsters. Ever read a book on “Medical Ethics”…it is stated upfront without apology that {paraphrased}: ‘Squealing on one another is verboten’.
        Quite shocking compared to “First do no harm” – aye?

      2. Mr. Syed wrote:

        I also remember 911blogger moderator LeftWright admitting he hadn’t watched the CIT or Pilots videos, yet he told me that I should “read (or re-read) the excellent paper of Frank Legge, reflect on it, and reconsider the merits [of CIT/P4T’s work] with that paper in mind.” What arrogance.

        Funny you should mention LeftWright. In another internet lifetime, he and I were active on AlterNet as 9/11 Truthers before they had several months of grossly limited functionality under the guise of a “service upgrade” that shook off the regulars and ultimately crippled the database of very informative past postings. [The 9/11 govt trolls were being defeated so badly, they had to flagrantly violate the rules of the forum. When undeniably caught red-handed, they were given inexplicably “re-animation” passes and lived on until the purposely painful “service upgrade”.]
        Be that as it may, almost two years ago to this day, I engaged Mr. LeftWright off-list in a discussion on 9/11 milli-nukes. He was keen on communicating with me (to either convince me of no-nukes or to allow me to convince him of nukes), but when it came to details, the ball kept getting dropped in his court despite his claims of running my theories by his co-workers: “a Carnegie Mellon trained engineer and a MIT trained physicist/chemist who worked at Lawrence Livermore Labs for years.” Most of the nuclear evidence I was pointing them to was neatly collected on Dr. Wood’s website (if you look at her pictures and not her analysis).
        In 2011, I acquired Dr. Wood’s textbook, and was very much disheartened that nobody in the 9/11 Truth Movement was seriously reviewing it. The 9/11 Truth Movement was biased by the propaganda against it to the point where even idle curiousity wasn’t going to open up wallets to get this added to their 9/11 libraries.
        So I came up with a lame-ass game plan on how to achieve a review by leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement. With their permission, I would purchase a copy of the book for them, but with conditions like these:

        (a) You will give it a fair and objective reading. Mine it for nuggets of truth.
        (b) If you notice a book review from a 9/11 Truth Leader from the lofty position of not having, borrowing, or reading the book (other than “for shame, for shame”), you will either loan/give them your copy or help them purchase one (which could mean putting them in contact with me. )
        (c) I want to know “the good, the bad, and the ugly”. I don’t want to be the duped useful idiot.

        To cut to the chase, Mr. LeftWright and his significant other in June 2011 decided to accept my offer.
        [High school physics teacher Mr. David Chandler in May 2011 also received a copy, as did our very own Mr. Rogue in June 2012.]
        To this date, I have not received that which I commissioned. Silence is what I heard from most of them, except dubious and stilted arguments from Mr. Rogue.
        I’ve gone around in circles a bit, because I went from milli-nukes to cold-fusion DEW to now “nookiedoo” (nuclear directed energy weapons [DEW]) thanks to the Anonymous Physicist, Dr. Wood, and Mr. Prager, but “oh what a lovely trip it’s been.”.
        Here’s a something else that happened. In November of 2010, you published an article on 9/11 News Central (no longer available) “What will be the “Next” Official Story”. I posted one of my long-winded responses (see below) that had nukes backloaded. As such, about half-way through, the moderators cut my posting short with the comment:

        [The remainder of the post was deleted because it discusses a restricted subject (nuclear explosives). – Moderation Team]

        Nuclear explosives was a restricted subject? Get a load of that.
        ++++++++ Here is the posting from 2010-11-08
        Dear Mr. Syed,
        Your article talks about what changes we can expect when the OGCT progresses from v.1.0 to v.2.0.

        A corporate newscaster looks into the camera and says with a straight face: “Now that hard science has proven that ‘secondary devices’ were in fact used to aid in the collapse of the World Trade Center, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton formally reopened the 9/11 investigation today, in an attempt to probe how it was that the to-be hijackers were able to sneak past WTC security in the weeks leading up to the attacks…” Will this be Official Story V. 2.0 ? Will they go that far to try and defend the “al Qaeda acted alone” narrative?

        It seems to me that if the govt could have scape-goated the 19 patsy hijackers with having wired the entire WTC complex for demolition before they boarded the planes, they would have already. This is, of course, not without glaring problems.
        – The twin towers weren’t the only buildings demolished. When you get a chance, look at the aerial pictures of the WTC complex and observe the neat cylindrical and spherical holes in WTC-5 and WTC-6 that clearly were not caused by falling debris. The demolish of the WTC complex was a massive job. The would-be patsies whereabouts were being tracked by Able Danger and the FBI, so they didn’t appear to have the prolonged access to all of the buildings in the WTC complex necessary to do this. Therefore, the sticky question raised is who helped the patsies with the legwork of wiring the buildings for conventional demolition?
        – (Wild-ass speculation here) The WTC-7 was or should have been a very secure building, because it held offices of the FBI, CIA, and SEC among others. Although the 19 patsy Arabs might be able pass themselves off as Mexican cleaning crews, one would think that even those personnel have minimal screening.
        – The explosive types become the final prick to balloon v.2.0 regarding who wired the buildings. Because on one end of the spectrum (e.g., conventional chemical explosives), the issue becomes a math problem with respect to the quantities of such that would be needed to cause the totality of the destruction; it isn’t a trivial number and becomes a logistics problem. Towards the other end of the spectrum (e.g., nano-thermite), a similar math problem regarding quantities exists and is compounded by a very limited number of suppliers: US or Israeli govt.

        [The remainder of the post was deleted because it discusses a restricted subject (nuclear explosives). – Moderation Team]

        {elOnce: Here is the bullet item unedited by the 9/11 News Central moderators, followed by the passage they deleted.}
        – The explosive types become the final prick to balloon v.2.0 regarding who wired the buildings. Because on one end of the spectrum (e.g., conventional chemical explosives), the issue becomes a math problem with respect to the quantities of such that would be needed to cause the totality of the destruction; it isn’t a trivial number and becomes a logistics problem. Towards the other end of the spectrum (e.g., nano-thermite), a similar math problem regarding quantities exists and is compounded by a very limited number of suppliers: US or Israeli govt. At the complete other end of the spectrum (e.g., milli-nukes), the math problem goes away but the same limited number of suppliers is compounded exponentially by the fall-out, not so much to our national security, but to the (job) security of national institutions in terms of their very existence.
        All revisions 1.x have avoided 9/11 being a nuclear event. And it was.
        Three to six milli-nukes per tower greatly simplifies bomb placement in tackling those very robust core columns. Fizzled and fracticided nukes explains the foundry-level hot fires that burned under the rubble for weeks. It explains the disappearance, vaporization, and pulverization of building content and mass, a massive energy sink. It explains the unique and anomalous damage to vehicles not in the path of falling or burning debris. (Look up electrical magnetic pulse [EMP] and what it could do if it slipped out through window slits in the towers high up.)
        In fact, milli-nukes can explain not only the initial cover-up with the help of the media, but also why new conspirators (e.g., cheer-leaders) in leadership and media joined the OGCT after the fact to keep the cover-up in place. Public revelation of 9/11 being a nuclear event could, would, and should inspire some Thomas Jefferson rebellion towards the goal of establishing our govt anew.
        Proof of my contention.
        If Dr. Judy Woods website is good for nothing else (and few DEW conclusions), it has plenty of pictures of damage of vehicles to prove EMP.

        A reported 1400 vehicles were damaged on 9/11. These vehicles had peculiar patterns of damage and some were as far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River). Vehicles had missing door handles for example, windows blown out, window frames deformed, melted engine blocks, steel-belted tires with only the steel belts left, and vehicle front ends destroyed with little or no effect on the back end of the vehicles.

        In particular on the first link, look at the sequence starting with Figure toast2a to toast4. It shows a parking lot at some distance from the collapsing towers and the cloud of dust rolling in. Then it shows fires starting to burn in various vehicles, but not all vehicles and not paper or other non-metallic debris.
        By all means, give Dr. Judy Wood’s website a through exploring to observe the many pictures she amasses. Ignore her conclusions and the titles of pages of where the pictures are found; look for the nuggets of truth that are the pictorial evidence.
        Occam Razor. 9/11 milli-nukes explains what we observed, including the disinfo ploys and how Dr. Woods website tries to sweep all evidence of nuclear bombs under the carpet of DEW for easy debunking and to get those uncomfortable truths off of the table.

      3. I formed the same opinion in my review of Legge’s paper attempt to discredit CIT and their work as Adam did of Legge and his lil’ buddy Bursill. There was a little too much “mission” in their madness. If you see people who are otherwise of sound mind claiming to be servants of truth while bending themselves into pretzel-shaped contortions to support a view of the evidence that only academic posturing can smuggle past the laugh test, chances are there are other motives driving their actions. Legge also seemed to have orders to just keep the dialog going while tossing everything into the pot to cast even the smallest doubt on the evidence pointing toward an alternative view of the official case. He was careful to maintain outward civility toward his opponents, such as Rob Balsamo of Pilots, or others in the conversation as a tactic to keep them engaged in the dialog. The outline of the main allegations of the official story must be preserved, lest the doubt be removed and the Pentagon stand revealed for what it is – a fraud perpetrated on the people of the U. S. and the world by the military establishment of the U. S. There are others who work equally hard in the same vineyard propping up the official line. As Adam points out in firefight, fudging the information so that Lloyde is injured by the light pole (he was not) or that bodies strapped into seats were seen (but not photographed) in a volume like this provides a basis for others to footnote in other such volumes.

      4. Response to Senor’s comment of 10/2, 5:48 p.m.
        Yes, Senor, I remember that 911newscentral incident with your mini-nukes post well. Indeed, that moment marked the first time I began to have doubts about Jeff J. and his integrity. I didn’t and still don’t think he’s an op, just a klutz. I got a creepy feeling over his deleting part of your comment and keeping the rest up. That’s exactly what the mods at 911blogger did often, something I was hoping to try and counter.
        I also agree with you that the Wood textbook certainly must be useful, if nothing else, as a visual library. We had an analogous book much earlier (2003) in the truth movement: Eric Hufschmid’s “Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11 Attack.” It was the very first book to be published on the subject of WTC controlled demolition. Of course, later on, Eric went on to become an over-the-top Jew baiter and promoter of some of the most idiotic claims (namely, that everyone else under the sun except himself was a Zionist agent, among others). But the high quality full page, high res color photographs in his book of the WTC destruction were certainly worth the price of the book alone.

      5. Adam,
        You comment:
        >”I also agree with you that the Wood textbook certainly must be useful, if nothing else, as a visual library.”
        I agree too, and “if nothing else” is the operative term. The text is useless as bores on a tit.
        That is MY opinion. Other’s opinions may vary…{grin}

      6. Within the stilted 9/11 Blogger discussion on nukes, Dr. Jones writes:

        I also get questions about Judy Wood’s beam-from-space theory, and I point people to published papers which go through and consider the evidence. Several relevant papers are published in the Journalof911Studies including one by Wood and a response to that. The Journal is known for evidence-based and peer-reviewed papers on the subject of 9/11.

        Don’t you just love how he frames Dr. Wood’s work as “beam-from-space?” He side-steps the real point:    directed   energy   weapon   that does not have to be space based. It could also be land based, spire-based, or the size of a grapefruit. A nuclear shaped charge is another way of saying “nuclear DEW” (or “nookiedoo”). Why does he refuse to dive in deeper than that?
        Also notable is how Dr. Jones side-steps the pictorial evidence collected by Dr. Wood.
        In the discussion, Dr. Jones goes on and misframes EMP:

        In tests with nuclear bombs, both the US and Russia established that a strong Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) accompanies nukes, and that this EMP is VERY disruptive to electronics. Indeed, this is the basis of EMP weapons that I’ve warned about (and that the US is doing so LITTLE to prepare against).

        What Dr. Jones doesn’t say is that everything above applies to above ground and open-air tests. EMP doesn’t apply when its below ground… OR within a steel structure that by its very nature would help contain any EMP [except for what might slip out through window slits]. EMP is also a side-effect that could, by design, be potentially minimized in other ways.
        He also doesn’t talk about neutron devices and how their design goals & aims are much different than “blast and burn” nuclear devices.
        Be that as it may, the anomalous car damage so well depicted on Dr. Wood’s website and textbook could be more readily explained by nuclear hijinx, if not by mis-aligned “nookiedoo” neutron devices then by escaping EMP.

        Yes, proponents of the mini-nukes idea need to address the EMP issue — were all radios and cell-phones and video cameras in the vicinity knocked out (useless) AFTER the first Tower came down? No! (There were problems with firemen’s radios, but that was even before the destruction of the Towers.)

        Scientific slight of hand. What radios and cell-phones and video cameras were even in the vicinity and exposed [e.g., not shielded by other buildings]? People were pushed back a couple of blocks away from the WTC. The magnitude of EMP originating at the WTC would decrease by something like the inverse of the distance squared. The farther away you were, the less the EMP would bee an effect. Moreover as already hinted to, the “nookiedoo” devices were small and ignited inside of a steel structure, both of which would have significantly dampened any EMP, if the design of such already didn’t try to minimize this.

        IMO, you are right Ynda and the lack of pronounced EMP effects following the Towers’ fall may be the last nail in the coffin for the theory that mini-nukes brought down the Towers.

        Mini-nukes, but not necessarily “nookiedoo”. Nice try at a PR hypnotic suggestion.
        Dearest Lord Ser “No-Nookie” Rogue,
        Kindly send via email to your good Dr. Steven Jones the link to this more public forum, where his 9/11 Blogger rebuttal to Prager is rebutted by his humbleness, moi.
        Alas, the joust should take place here, because 9/11 Blogger has been proven to be less than publc. They never let me even register, claiming that my hobby-horses were too divisive, yet that is the very theme of his latest article. All proponents of “nookiedoo” on 9/11 Blogger have either been banned, or never allowed to register. Sort of makes for a one-sided and stilted discussion.
        Dear Mr. McKee,
        It appears that you might have the opportunity to host a “nookiedoo” joist here with the famed Dr. Jones and maybe Mr. Prager, if we can entice them. Although not quite ideal, a quick-and-dirty article similar to what you did for Dr. Wood might be in order… so that these worthy discussions don’t get my “shit slipped in sideways,” as Lord “No-Nookie” accuses me of doing.

      7. “Nice try”…
        Can’t say the same for our useful idiot, I suggest he save this flatulent dialog for his morning sit on the “throne”.

  8. Jim Fetzer says: “…the photo he shows appears to include one or more lampposts that, according to the official account, were taken out by the plane. ”
    Jim, have you considered that the photo used is either heavily photo-shopped, or worse, a complete fabrication? [I,of course, lean towards total fabrication].
    It might be useful to know the claimed author of it and check other claimed “real” photos by them, I believe.
    Regards, onebornfree.
    P.S. I sent you an email the other day[09/29/12] with a link to a 5 part blogpost I just published that contains many links/photos and gifs and other material relevant to our 09/05/12 discussion [podcast]. Here’s that link again:

    1. Don’t you two dipshits have each other’s email addresses Unbornfreak?
      Why do you have to make these obscene gestures in public?
      Your note to Fetzer is an unpaid commercial, not a sincere comment.

  9. Craig McKee says: “..Mike Walter’s contention that the wings “folded in” is beyond bizarre.”
    Walters, err, “testimony”, is still useful however, as he claims that the wings were not strong enough as built to withstand the impact with the Pentagon’s exterior walls and therefor “had” to “fold” back [still somehow attached, mind you 🙂 ] and slide through the impact hole made by the fuselage itself.
    This claim, of course, is in direct opposition to what supposedly happened at WTC 1 and 2, where 2 planes , their wings still fully extended and fully attached, magically, simultaneously penetrate the towers multiple steel girders “cookie cutter” style!
    So which is it Mike,: wings are not strong enough to cut through building exteriors, or wings _are_ strong enough?
    The Walters “weak wing theory” can be heard starting at about 1:45 in this clip:
    Regards, onebornfree.

    1. I think the inconsistency is worth noting. Of course, the thing I’m most certain of is that no large plane ever hit the Pentagon, so I don’t believe a word that Walter is saying.

    2. Re: Mike Walter
      On the morning of 9/11 Mike Walter was interviewed at the Pentagon

      “GUMBEL: Did you see it hit the Pentagon? Was the plane coming in horizontally or did it, in fact, go on its wing as–as it impacted the building?
      Mr. WALTER: You know, the–the–the–there were trees there that kind of obstructed it, so I kind of–I saw it go in. I’m not sure if it turned at an angle. I’ve heard some people say that’s what it did. All I know is it–it created a huge explosion and massive fireball and…
      GUMBEL: Tell me, if you could, about the manner in which the–the plane struck the building. I ask that because, in the pictures we have seen, it appears to be a gash in the side of the Pentagon as if the plane went in vertically as opposed to horizontally. Can you tell me anything about that?
      Mr. WALTER: Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went–and then the–then the trees, and then I saw the–the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually sent on its side and in that way. But I can’t tell you, Bryant. I just know that what I saw was this massive fireball, a huge explosion and–and a–the thick column of smoke and then an absolute bedlam on those roads as people were trying to get away.”

      Walter is a liar on the “wings folded back” trouser gas (lol Willy).
      The only thing useful to takeaway from that video is to show how the media can look straight down the lens and lie through their teeth.

      1. Absolutely. It was actually my piece on Mike Walter that was directly responsible for me being banned from 911blogger. Apparently, Snowcrash was offended that I would be so nasty to Walter after all Walter had been through. I guess it’s pretty traumatic not seeing the impact and then later having a vision of “wings folding in.”

      2. OSS,
        Yes…like all the witnesses who allegedly “saw the plane strike the building”, Walter makes the ASSUMPTION that it MUST HAVE, even though he admits HE DIDN’T ACTUALLY SEE IT.
        Same thing with Hemphill, the officers at Citgo, and many so-called witnesses on the byways. Bray as he may Hemphill could not have seen the “plane hit the light poles” from his distance, vantage point – due to obstruction – nor the fact that he saw the ‘North Approach’…as clearly he did.
        Thus, all we are left with is a pile of planted garbage and twisted spin testimony by these hacks.

      3. Watch this anniversary special with Mike Walter where he claimed that he was on his way to a “baseball game” that morning.
        And what he said in response to the fact that the road on front of the Pentagon was full of USAToday reporters

        Mike Walter: I was on my way to work which at the time was about 5 minutes away from the Pentagon. I would drive on the freeway to highway 27 that took me right by the Pentagon. I would end up on the road to the Pentagon North Parking lot which would swing around and put me on 110. So this wasn’t some random thing that I was there as some have suggested. I was running late that morning and stuck in traffic.

        The guy is a proven liar.

        1. What a revolting interview. He claims that because he was going to a baseball he didn’t have a cell phone with him. A journalist for USA Today (or the TV version) driving around without a cell phone? I don’t believe anything that comes out of this man’s mouth. You pointed out how he admitted not being able to see an impact one day, but later he could explain how the wings folded in. Absolute bullshit.

      4. Mike Walter is definitely a proven liar overall, with regard to changing his story about seeing vs. not seeing the impact. Once again, as with the Firefight book and as with Ted Olson, he can’t keep his story straight with official requirements for the lie: According to the official story and the physical damage, the plane did not “bank” and “dive” into the Pentagon: It leveled off and flew the last portion straight, enough to hit five light poles. However, once again, with the claim about the plane banking, we get a nugget of truth, since at the time of this interview, Walter was surely aware of the many genuine witnesses who reported the plane banking to the right. There is another interview with Walter where he not only describes the bank, but is standing at the Citgo station indicating with his body/hands that the plane flew NoC!
        You know, I bet the perps regret staging the light poles and wish they’d confined the staged damage to just the building.

      5. Wow – Walters recall is just preposterous…he ends with he was “just totally unprepared for the day” Lol, he is totally unprepared in perpetuity.
        There’s no business like bullshit, and bullshit is the motto of MSM.

      6. I was somewhat surprised to see our ol’ ‘buddy’ Erik “loose nuke” Larson “hgartz444” of 911blogger ‘moderation’ fame posting comments on that French TV interviews Walters page. (from about 2 years ago).
        Did ol’ ‘loose nookie’ ever actually interview Mike Walters then? If so, that one should really be a ‘doozy…’

      7. @MrBoz
        Did ol’ ‘loose nookie’ ever actually interview Mike Walters then? If so, that one should really be a ‘doozy…’
        Yeah, if it ever did happen I can just imagine the off camera conversation. Two lying sacks of sh*t Pinocchio nose fencing.
        Just like Erik’s Dawn Vignola old testament sized “piece” on how CIT “twisted her words”. It was posted at JREF and I asked one question.
        “What words exactly did CIT twist and where’s the interview in question?”
        No answer. Laugh. Ask again. Nowt. Exit stage left.
        I was actually embarrassed for him (not).

  10. Adam continues to contribute common sense and sound logic in his analysis of the deficiencies in the stage set and media propaganda that the official conspiracy theorists hoped would convince all of us that a Boeing really did crash into the building. Thierry Masson spotted it right away, and it took a little longer for the rest of the community to catch up to what becomes obvious to anyone after they have looked at National Security Alert and reviewed the public statements of Lloyde England. In the last couple of years, a group of alleged “truthers” mounted a campaign under the banner of academia to attempt to make the case that CIT’s 12 solid and highly credible witnesses were just mistaken and that an explosion and planted light poles means plane crash in spite of the fact that the aircraft could not possibly have maneuvered from its observed position to create the damage path.
    I can’t comment on Adam’s review of “Firefight” except to say that from my experience, Adam is a straight-shooter who has saved me the trouble of reading yet another hack author’s propaganda reinforcing the official view of 9/11. The folk who evidently are on retainer by the forces of evil can be counted on to produce these pieces that prop up the official party line on a regular basis. The JFK research community has been infested with the same type of effort for almost 50 years. The same institutional reinforcement of the cover story reinforcement takes place in that community as is apparently being used in 911, since the practice of excluding well-researched works that question the official account are systematically excluded from the Dallas “6th Floor Museum”. The curator of that fraudulent “museum”, Gary Macke, who initially did research leading to credible and damning evidence that the lone gunman cover story was false was hired for his sinecure position on the condition that he switch sides and support the Warren Commission view of the crime. Amazingly enough, he admitted to Jesse Ventura that he has to support the official view when he is “on duty” but has a different take on it when he goes home. That would have to be a textbook definition of “sell-out”. It appears that the 9/11 Memorial Store in New York has adopted the same M. O. and those authors who have alternative views will have to endure the harrassment of New York cops should they try to hawk their wares near the memorial, as several die-hard truth-tellers in Dealy Plaza have encountered there.
    It appears that the past is prologue.

  11. Thanks for the comments so far, everyone. Keep them coming. Incidentally, one of the beauties of Amazon is that you can find used copies of books for as little as one cent, and that’s what I got here. Original retail price $27. Not a bad deal, eh? I figured one penny wouldn’t be lining the authors’ pockets too terribly much.
    Most of the book was a speed read, especially as I was going through it in a search for specific things, namely the claim about bodies strapped in seats, since that’s the talking point Jon Gold touted. I was beginning to think the book wouldn’t mention such a thing at all, and that Jon was either deliberately lying or had taken the word of someone else. Because as I said, it doesn’t come for 373 pages. But inadvertently, their explanation about the “back of the plane” doesn’t hold up even to official documents (seating chart).
    I BCC’d this article to a bunch of people in the truefaction clique, as well as the mods at 911blogger along with Frank Legge and Chris Sarns. Deafening silence from that crowd so far. But I know they know it’s up.

    1. I think that if none of them deal with the broken-off wing issue that will be very telling. I also think it’s irresponsible for any alleged truther to recommend a book because he likes one point in it even though most of the book reinforces the official story. I find it hard to take anyone completely seriously as a truther when they maintain that the official story is right when it says a large plane hit the building.

      1. One thing totally overlooked is the OCT admission via the ASCE Pentagon damage report that they can’t explain the lack of damage to the facade that should have been caused by the vertical stabilizer:

        “The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade.”
        ASCE Report

        There’s a very good breakdown debunking a lot of claims about the damage released ca 2003.
        The only fault I could see was the OCT angle of “impact”. And this was done before the NOC testimony came to light. Still a good job though:

      2. Hey OSS,
        This is juicy…great rock-down shake-down:
        The overall conclusion is that the Report’s description of the impact of the plane and of the damage caused manifestly contradicts photographic evidence from the scene. The description includes impossible, contradictory and unexplained phenomena:
        *the allegation of the aircraft’s fuselage sliding into the first floor has no physical credibility; >>
        *the facade damage on the right side of the opening in the outer wall does not correspond to the shape, size and reported position of the alleged B-757; >>
        *the facade damage on the left side of the opening are not suggestive of the proposed impact of a B-757; >>
        *the tail of the aircraft left no visible marks on the facade while the Report in no way explains this; and, >>
        *the Report fails to provide any kind of explanation for the hole in the wall of Ring C. >>
        The uncertainties related to the alleged point of impact as well as the approach angle, vertical position and inclination of the aircraft do not weaken the conclusion presented herein that the Pentagon could not have been hit by a Boeing 757 in the manner described in the report. This is because changing one of these factors to allow the better explanation of a particular damage (or the lack of it) renders the other damage even less comprehensible.
        “The volume of information concerning the aircraft crash into the Pentagon on September 11 is rather limited.” (p. 12)
        . . . . .
        Thanks for the lead.

  12. @Craig McKee:
    Craig, do you have a named source/credit for the photo used for this particular article?[I’m guessing military].
    [ And how about one for the photo at top right of your page as well?]
    Regards, onebornfree.

      1. We have identified the photographer of the tipping tower shot before, several threads back:
        AP photographer Amy Sancetta, who happened to be in NY for a shoot of a fashion show.

  13. @Adam Syed
    Reading your article there am I correct in saying that you think that people who were moved to the back of the plane would not be sitting in seats at the back of the plane but would be standing in the aisle or in the catering area?

    1. If I may jump in: I’m with you A. Wright, I believe the passengers and crew would have been forced to the rear of the plane by the men with boxcutters, and then they would have been forced to sit down and buckle up before being served a complimentary beverage.

      1. A. Wright,
        As I know you to generally be an official story defender, I think Craig was right on the money with his humorous answer (nice one, Craig). But for the record, yes it seems likely they would be standing, even if within the passengers seats portion. At the very most, they might have sat down without fastening the seat belts. But yes, especially given the light passenger number, they would probably most be standing in the aisle or catering area.
        Of course, I’m only showing how absurd the official story is, when official claims are pitted against one another. As I do not believe actual Al Qaeda terrorists with boxcutters hijacked ANY planes as per the official story, I am inclined neither to believe the Ted Olson story about his wife’s alleged phone call (“herded to the back of the plane”), nor the books claim about bodies “belted” into airplane seats.

    2. Mr Wright,
      You always seem to slip back into the forum after sneaking out without answering questions put to you…that is considered ‘sniping’, it is the sin and sign of a troll and a baiter with no agenda but to disrupt proceedings.
      If you actually had a handle on any of this you would realize that the hijacker story is a legend, a myth, just like the bogeyman bin Laden/al Qaeda nonsense: That I have previously given you plenty of leads to check on.
      So I agree with Craig, that you deserve flippant retorts to your pansy bullshit. But I can be a bit more mean spirited with jackasses like you, as everyone here is fully aware of. A vat of boiling oil comes to mind.

    3. Well, one of Ted Olsen’s claims was that Barbara told him that the “pilot” was at the back of the plane with her. Pentagon “historians” rejected this notion and claimed that “in all likelihood” the “hijackers” must have murdered the pilots at the outset. Who do you believe? Hmm?
      Here’s another choice.
      One alleged witness who was said to have been helping inside the building, Noel Sepulveda, claimed that he saw an almost “intact” cockpit (the nosecone had made it through to C Ring (“the little nosecone who could”).
      Get this. In a recorded interview he also said that two pilots and two hijackers were in this “cockpit”. Get this. He claimed that he differentiated between the pilots and hijackers because the pilots were wearing uniforms and were lying behind the cockpit seats.
      One firefighter claimed to see a cockpit seat with the floor still attached. That makes three cockpit seats. Maybe this third cockpit seat was at the back of the plane where Barbara allegedly claimed the pilot was? Getting this?
      On a serious note (you can go now Wright..if you’ve read this far), I have a serious problem with the “seatbelt” claim. Seatbelts are sturdy, yes, but they are normally woven polyester or nylon.
      Not very fire resistant. Nor the seat itself.
      The ASCE report claimed that 1000 degree temps were reached inside the building. So where was this “strapped in cadaver” and recognizable aircraft seat located? The OCT impact aircraft alleged debris trail was only around 300ft. Just twice the length of a 757.
      The penetration scenario through the first floor entailed the entire length of the aisle running through the second floor slab and being “pushed down”.
      Nah. Not buying it.

      1. Dear Mr. OneSliceShort, you wrote:

        Well, one of Ted Olsen’s claims was that Barbara told him that the “pilot” was at the back of the plane with her.

        Back my early 9/11 “duped useful idiot” days, I was enamoured with “pods-on-planes.” [That, and the resulting “flash” on building face, might be worthy of renewed study for maybe “DEW-in-pods-on-planes” that softened the exterior wall to allow the Fetzer-decried physics-defying-entrance of the fuselage. But this is going into the weeds even further from the weeds I was already going to drive in, aka “I digress.”]
        A connecting thread in the “pods-on-planes” digression was that the alledged aircraft could not have had this, therefore if the alledged aircraft took off as alledged, then it must have been somehow switched in route. To be sure, turning off the transponder signal early in the flight would have assisted with this. [The plane would have remained on radar as long as it was in flight above a certain altitude, but it would not have been broadcasting its flight number, its altitude, its heading, etc.] Two aircraft could fly the same course and heading but at different altitudes, resulting in a singular radar blip. Of course, if memory serves me, the alledged planes had periods of time when they were not on radar.
        A second thread is that the Columbus, Ohio airport had some strange happenings that day including the processing of a flight in an isolated hangar that had a flight number matching one of the alledged flights.
        So the patch of weeds that I am driving us through suggests that if the real alledged plane was already on the ground, then certain claims about cellphone calls not working [at high altitude and high speeds] would no longer be true [on the ground and parked]. In fact, all cellphone/seatback calls could conveniently be staged through a landline. And once on the ground, the pilots being herded to certain parts of the plane with passengers? Why not? One of many possibilities. [Maybe Barbara Olson really did call, but from a media studio.]
        Now to drive into the weeds on the other side of the road. If I believed that a real commercial plane hit the Pentagon [which I don’t], all passengers held at bay by hijackers would have been required at the point of those dangerous box-cutters to wear seatbelts [and put their heads on their knees with hands visible on back of head or seat in front.] This way, should any heroic passengers decide to “let’s roll”, the unclicking of their seatbelts would provide an audible early warning while also delaying their springing into action… just enough time for a well-thrown box-cutter to find a vital organ.
        I guess the alledged Pentagon plane is noteworthy for not having enough passengers… let alone strapped into their seats with seatbacks and tray tables locked in their upright position. Shoot, it didn’t have enough seats. One would think in the excavation, rows and rows of seats would be something that would have been taken out and placed in a staging area [e.g., on the prestine Pentagon lawn] for a photo-op with the 1st responders.

    4. For Mr Wright’s enlightenment:
      Mohammed Atta, reportedly responsible for coordinating the attacks, trained his men and himself at the Huffman Aviation -Flight Training school. That school was funded by Wally Hilliard, with Oryx Corporation. Oryx was founded by Adnan Khashoggi and Sheik Kamal Adham, director of Saudi intelligence (1963-79). Khashoggi was the individual that brokered the meeting between terrorists and the Yeltsin Family. 215 Khashoggi was also extensively involved in the following Bush operations: October Surprise, Iran-Contra, Azerbaijan, Barrick Gold, Marcos Gold.
      Mohammed Atta during his time in the U.S. remained a close friend of Wolfgang Bohringer, an apparent CIA agent.
      Hilliard, nominal owner of the training facility which acted as cover for the terrorists, is a significant investor in a small California defense/electronics company (Spatialight, Inc.) with Farhad Azima, another of the Iran-Contra/Azerbaijan group. Azima’s role had been to coordinate air transportation for covert US intelligence operations for Iran-Contra and Azerbaijan.
      Hilliard is reported as a close friend of CIA agent Mark Schubin, whose father was a KGB colonel.217
      Hilliard is also strongly linked to the Jeb Bush political machine in Florida, and has had his commercial transport operations endorsed by that group.
      Mohammad Atta, as can best be determined, received funding from three foreign intelligence agencies aligned with the US: Pakistan, Syria and Germany. His father contended he actually worked for a fourth –the Mossad!
      . . . . . . . . . .
      215 Adnan Khashoggi Linked to 911 Terrorists, Part I, Alex Constantine,
      http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/constantine/part1.htm; Welcome to Terrorland: Mohammed Atta and the 9-11
      Cover-Up in Florida, Daniel Hopsicker, 2004, pp 262-264.
      215 “Storm in Moscow”: A Plan of the Yeltsin “Family” to Destabilize Russia , John B. Dunlop The HooverInstitution , October 8, 2004
      216 Bohringer’s past and arrest is best summarized in: FBI Terror Alert in South Pacific for Wolfgang Bohringer/Terror Alert suspect fingered by Mohamed Atta’s American girlfriend, Daniel Hopsicker, MadCowMorningNews ,, November 16, 2006, http://www.madcowprod.com/11162006.html; Mohamed Atta’s Best Friend Caught in South Pacific: “You can’t arrest me, I’m working for the CIA,” Sander Hicks, New York Megaphone, December 19, 2006, http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20061219213258655. Bohringer’s status as pilot for Viktor Kozeny reinforces the contention he is CIA, as Kozeny has multiple indications he was an agent for Western Intelligence…

  14. Things are to the point in my 9/11 research that the source of the material I am looking at tends to tell me more about its merits than the material itself. Not in every case mind you but in many cases it is true. Perhaps that is my own confirmation bias showing itself; in fact I know it is. I tend to immediately dismiss material from MSM sources or from sources that are embraced by the MSM/Government/Corporate cartel. I find that in almost every case where something is put out by or endorsed by the above mentioned cartel that it is disinformation through and through.
    Within the truth movement itself I also find the source of the information to be of great importance. For example, here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people’s mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. Nowadays I skip right over posts from them. I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile. People like Jon Gold for example do not debate anything at all really. Jon preaches his gospel as he knows it, but he does not debate it. He is totally inflexible and cannot self reflect at all. He knows everything you see so what could any of us lesser beings possibly have to teach him? Any suggestion that there may be another way to look at something or God forbid that there may be an error in his logic or factual backup is met with immediate resistance by people like Jon Gold. I don’t know what it is about this particular personality type but people who have it seem singularly unable to work with others, unable to consider other approaches to promoting 9/11 truth, and unable to consider any way but their own way. Unfortunately I have seen this same character flaw played out again and again among both friends and foes. I wish I knew a way to reach people who have this type of character flaw but it seems to have its own built in defense mechanism.
    I suggested another approach to promoting 9/11 truth to a friend of mine (I thought of him as a friend) who is a prominent truther himself and found that this defense mechanism is very strong indeed. It is really just a form of cognitive dissonance in action when you get right down to the nuts and bolts of it. How could he, this paragon of trutherism, possibly accept that other people might be better at some aspects of this struggle then he is? How could he have missed ANYTHING and how prey tells could he learn ANYTHING from the likes of me or anyone else since he knows everything already? Of course he is human and doesn’t know everything but this particular character flaw he shares with Jon Gold and others disallows him from the self examination he so desperately needs. The irony is that he is correct about the information he promotes but his approach to presenting it is all wrong, yet because he is right on the one hand his flaw disallows him from facing up to his weaknesses on the other hand. The flaw of which I speak is mostly ego driven and really makes debate and discussion impossible because how can you teach anything to a person who already knows everything? It is a closed, self protecting loop. Jon Gold has this problem in spades, my former friend has it, many truth “leaders” have it and I suppose I have it too.
    I hope we can all work on it because it may be the single biggest contributing factor to the stalled progress of the truth movement and heck the peace movement too and the occupy movement and really any movement. The ego is NOT our friend and our adversaries know that very well and use it to their advantage to keep us separated as individuals instead of unstoppable as a group.

    1. I agree with you, Adam. I know it will delight the “debunkers” to hear me say this, but over the past couple years, I’ve come to the observation that quite a few genuine and dedicated truthers do indeed fit the negative stereotypes of “conspiracy theorists” in that they are not very adept socially, and in particular, cannot divorce their egos from what they’re doing. Jon Gold is a typical example; he has admitted himself that if it weren’t for 9/11, he’d be just an ordinary Joe Schmoe sitting on the couch, drinking beer and watching sports. It’s as if, without a wife and kids, his life was empty, and then boom, he found a cause to achieve greatness. He’s arrogantly said that if everyone took his exact approach to 9/11 truth, we would have won a long time ago. It’s as if he’s on a quest for streets to be named after him the way they are with MLK. I too have allowed my ego to get in the way at times, although I think that over the past few years I’ve become much more skilled at keeping it in check. For example, when I finally got to page 373 of this book, my heart sank because Jon Gold was right, there is indeed a passage in the book that mentions bodies strapped in airliner seats. For awhile, I was hoping to really stick one to Jon by quoting his words in the Memorial store, and triumphantly responding, “However, not once in the entire book do we see such a phrase.” In fact, for a minute after that, I even wondered whether it was worth continuing with this project/article. But then I told my ego to get the hell out of the way: there’s plenty wrong with this book that needs to be critiqued, and that this is about exposing propaganda, not sticking it to Jon Gold.

      1. “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.” -Nietzsche

    2. Dear Mr. RuffAdam, you wrote:

      Things are to the point in my 9/11 research that the source of the material I am looking at tends to tell me more about its merits than the material itself.

      It isn’t that I dispute this. I just urge caution and to recognize the distinction between the 9/11 realm and our daily lives.
      The analogy I use is that of a movie critic. I was lucky enough in the 1980’s to have media exposure to two such critics who sensibilities so aligned with mine, all it took was a “two thumbs up!” from them for me to not just put the movie on my “to watch” list, but to actively seek out where it was playing at funky art cinemas. Similarly, my professional and personal activities put me in contact with “nice” people whose tastes and styles so differed from mine, I could hardly ever take their (movie) advice at face value. But due to their consistency and sincerity, I could actually come to rely on their opinions in a negative critic sort of a way. That is, in the areas where their judgment was proven questionable, I learned to filter their words into different meaning for my subsequent actions, and also to run their words against those of others while establishing trend-lines.
      The important distinction to be made here is that all of those who became to me positive or negative critics [on some subject] were sincere. There was no disingenous bent to lie about their opinions to achieve some nefarious goal [e.g., to get me to chunk down money for a ticket and “enjoy” some movie.]
      With regards to 9/11, sometimes the opinions (or analysis) are not sincere, sometimes purposely.
      And this is where our tactics for evaluating their works must change.
      Specifically, ticks to them and their agenda might become exposed in an ah-ha moment, sometimes purposely, so that it tocks into a boom to decimates all of their works, the good as well as the purposely bad and a large guilt-by-association fallout area.
      Good cannot and should not so easily be dispensed with. It must be preserved. Paraphrasing myself:

      Sometimes disinformation is the best source for valid tidbits of information (nuggets of truth). Disinformation by design contains large swaths of truth, otherwise it will not be effective. We must mine, re-fine, and re-purpose those nuggets of truth even after the ticks have tocked to a boom regarding the overall merits of that source, lest we inadvertently play into the hands of (nuggets of) truth suppression.

      The ticks of the source of the material should be used to gauge the number of bullshit-filters you apply to the material and how much second-source validation you apply to any extracted nuggets of truth.

      Here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people’s mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. Nowadays I skip right over posts from them. I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.

      This may or may not be leveled at me. For the sake of discussion, allow me to hijack it by making the ass-umption that I fall into that category. I hope to have (honest) instances where I operated dishonestly pointed out, and I will apologize profusely for my actions in those instances. [If my ass-umption was wrong, then allow me to humbly give my imitation of the Emily Latella (the late Gilde Radner of SNL): “Oooh… Nevermind.]
      Skipping over my postings can be the right thing for many participants to consider… [particularly if certain individuals don’t want “nookiedoo” getting squished into the waffle treads of their govt-issued black paratrooper boots.]
      I would hope that I don’t have that “certain personality type” with whom engaging in debate is “futile”, because I try to cultivate an open-mind and objectivity in considering that which I haven’t before. [In my younger days, I listened to both Punk and Classical. Nowadays it is World Music; if I don’t understand the words, I’m more likely to enjoy listening.]
      Evidence and science properly applied on 9/11 can get this duped useful idiot to change his opinions.

      The ego is NOT our friend and our adversaries know that very well and use it to their advantage to keep us separated as individuals instead of unstoppable as a group.

      Agreed. This is why it is best to circle our wagons around what we perceive to be nuggets of truth that we’ve separated from its original publishing source (e.g., ego) albeit while giving credit where credit is due (for the sake of their ego).

      1. Senior you do NOT fall into the category of “dishonest operators” as far as I am concerned. I have disagreed with you in the past but I have not seen you use dishonest tactics or avoidance tactics. The few people I put into the ignore bin have shown a pattern of using the above mentioned tactics.

  15. is there any evidence that can be conclusively linked to the plane said to have hit the pentagon that proves the case beyond all reasonable doubt?
    NO !
    in the internet vernacular…. ’nuff said.

  16. “Official’ 9/11 propaganda embraced by truthers who say that a plane hit the Pentagon”
    This is a great title for this particular subject and now that we can accept that this has occurred we must ask ourselves why.
    Why is the official’ 9/11 propaganda embraced by truthers who say that a plane did hit the Pentagon?
    I can’t answer that question but I can tell you it certainly hasn’t got anything to do with the facts at the Pentagon.
    Adam I congratulate you for reading the book and bringing the untruths in it to the fore.
    Barbara Honegger hasn’t received a mention in the article or in the comments. I would like to thank her also for her great work on this subject.

    1. Socrates,
      Regardless of any “poopoos” there may be from others here__there is ONE point of essential info in her presentation, and that is the original audio-visual team that was first to enter and film the Pentagon. Their verdict – “No airplane – no sign of airplane parts, just mangled and blown out offices.”
      This means anything found later is planted. Case closed.

  17. Our “daily lives” are in fact lived WITHIN the “9/11 realm” – this was the very purpose of the paradigm changing event.
    In which “realm” are we to put on a mask?
    In our daily lives while ‘going along to get along’?
    In our ‘blog-time-lives’ wherein we join together in modular cliques, parsing out evidences and switching alliances in Machiavellian games?
    Is it not better to develop one consistent epistemic structure? As dense and multifaceted as necessary to view a panorama from the pinnacle as a whole, down to close up microscopic perspectives.
    In the final analysis I urge; “To thine own self be true.”

  18. So now, rather than every single thread here being sprayed with “NPT”, “Holograms” & “V-Fakery” – we are now treated to the Rhapsody in DEW, and it’s attendant nuclear rantings.
    Enough whizz biz, drop the fizz. That is of course unless we are now to believe that the Pentagon was nuked and dewed and screwed by the same jolly green dildo.

  19. As to the anguish of our spurned book donor, in that there have been no replies about the material within Judy’s BOOK:
    I am hardly surprised at the disengagement of any of the recipients.
    At least I have made some remarks to this, as disappointed as the “duped and useful idiot” may be.
    I have attended to four chapters in the BOOK, if we include Wood’s Introduction as a chapter. I have found NOTHING new, or different from the same splather that was on her website all along. The ONLY thing missing is reference to “Space Beams” – which in my opinion is only left unsaid for political reasons; much in the way Fetzer starts his “No-Planes” rhap with the caveat that it means “no commercial planes”…but later it is revealed that is exactly what he means: FETZER MEANS NO-PLANES, when he says no planes, all of his modifiers are put as lies.
    Again, I assert with increasing confidence that this whole “New Wave 9/11” of “NPT” “Video Fakery” “Holograms” “Nukes” and “DEWS” is PSYOPS THEATER. A Sunsteinian ‘reverse psychology operation’.
    Again from Nietzsche:
    “The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

    1. A caveat:
      Do I think my opponent is: “defending it deliberately with faulty arguments”? [Nietzsche]
      No, I believe it is indeed that he is a “duped and useful idiot”.
      His “sense of adventure” has gotten the best of him, so that in his excitement he breezes through the real empirical data and rational conclusions based on those.
      Anyone who actually takes the needed time and effort to read the papers at the given URLs, should be able to see this clearly. Study them, look up the cross referencing. Become informed on this issue from both pro and con. Otherwise there is no reason for forming an opinion one way or the other.

    1. Yes Adam, no one has popped in for a single peep.
      All we seem to have now is this nuke biz flitting about – and I made a subtle allusion before, but will ask now up-front: WTF do nukes have to do with the Pentagon hit?
      Is Useful Idiot proposing that nukes were used there as well?
      If not what is all this nuke splidge dribbling on this commentary? It already smudged the last three threads. Am I supposed to just let this crap go past without comment in the hope that it will end? That is obviously not the way it works in Beancounter Land.
      If Useful_IS_proposing that nukes were used at the Pentagon, then let him make that declaration. Otherwise I suggest the nuke issue has been too stressed on this page already.

  20. RuffAdam wrote on October 2, 2012 at 11:37 PM

    Within the truth movement itself I also find the source of the information to be of great importance. For example, here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people’s mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. … I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.

    Gee, in this very thread, maybe we should evaluate one particular source of information.
    Until I posted this, he capped this thread with three four in a row:
    October 4, 2012 – 10:06 am
    October 4, 2012 – 3:25 pm
    October 4, 2012 – 3:42 pm
    October 4, 2012 – 4:02 pm
    Allow me to repost the second one in its entirety, because it is such a great example of a PR hypnotic suggestion sprinkled with vulgarity:

    So now, rather than every single thread here being sprayed with “NPT”, “Holograms” & “V-Fakery” – we are now treated to the Rhapsody in DEW, and it’s attendant nuclear rantings.
    Enough whizz biz, drop the fizz. That is of course unless we are now to believe that the Pentagon was nuked and dewed and screwed by the same jolly green dildo.

    Here’s another great re-inforcing PR hypnotic suggestion from Lord No-Nookie’s third one:

    Again, I assert with increasing confidence that this whole “New Wave 9/11? of “NPT” “Video Fakery” “Holograms” “Nukes” and “DEWS” is PSYOPS THEATER. A Sunsteinian ‘reverse psychology operation’.

    This is in addition to Lord No-Nookie’s attempts at steering the nuclear discussion in another thread and covering for Dr. Jones.
    September 28, 2012 – 10:04 am
    October 4, 2012 – 10:53 am
    October 4, 2012 – 2:16 pm
    October 4, 2012 – 2:21 pm
    Why is Lord No-Nookie so invested in propping up the work of Dr. Jones?
    The work either stands or falls on its own.
    Here’s the quote from Nietzsche right back at you (and Dr. Jones):

    The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.

    Gotta love his accusations that I:

    … [breeze] through the real empirical data and rational conclusions based on those.

    Lord No-Nookie can’t seem to handle that my “breezy” review of Dr. Jones’ “empirical data and rational conclusions” has Nietzsche nailed how Dr. Jones and his swornsword, Lord No-Nookie, are “defending [no-nookiedoo] deliberately with faulty arguments.”
    The phrase neutron bomb as being applicable to 9/11 has been dropped before, yet do you think Lord No-Nookie would google it and Wiki it (as I have done in this very paragraph) to find out how it relates to 9/11?
    Lord No-Nookie’s posting frequency combined with the tenor of his unobjective words might just resemble the “Sunsteinian ‘reverse psychology operation’ and PSYOPS THEATER” that he would peg on others. Of the 70 postings to this thread, Lord No-Nookie has 31.4% (while I have only 8.6%). On the other thread at 69 postings as well, Lord No-Nookie has 27.9% (while I’m at 19%).

    The [Lord No-Nookie] doth protest too much, methinks.


    1. Falling back on your beancounter ways again aye Mr Useful?
      To assume I haven’t read up on the neutron bomb is ludicrous. That I do not think it has relevance to the issue is what is at stake here. And particularly so as Idioso is mixing dews and pineapples again. Bombs or fricking ‘reactors’? Which one is under the shell for this game?
      Stick to the subject, this wank about posting counts, and ‘agent tactics’ is so much, “bla bla bla”. A perpetual “bla bla bla” seeming more like “wah wah wah” with each proceeding post.
      Crisis on a Cracker…

    1. >”I’ve come to a conclusion about Aidan Monaghan. He is mentally ill. I actually pity him.”
      ~Jon Gold – at truthaction.org just today
      In my experience from what I have read of him, Aidan Monaghan is brilliant.
      Hahahahaha….It seems in Gold’s world EVERYBODY is “mentally ill” but him.
      Now wasn’t he the guy that couldn’t even imagine how they could have faked the Light Poles being knocked down? The lucidity of a cataract.
      Thanks for this update downskate….pure gold.

      1. Jon Gold thinks controlled demolition hasn’t been proven. It used to be that he privately thought CD was true, but simply wished people wouldn’t lead with it, since in his estimation it sounds “batshit insane” to the average Joe. He insisted that we should lead with Press for Truth first, and THEN go into CD evidence. He is actually correct when he says that CD isn’t the ONLY issue within 9/11 truth.
        But in more recent times, I’ve seen him (on facebook, when at a friend’s house who’s friends with him) actually disbelieve controlled demolition, and declaring that maybe the “debunkers” of CD, like Dave Thomas, Bazant, etc. may be correct.
        I remember several years ago when Adam Ruff called him out on his stubborn refusal to acknowledge CD, at 911blogger. http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2525
        But then you have “truthers” like Victoria Ashley and Frank Legge, who promote controlled demolition as if that’s not far fetched at all, but simultaneously insist that it’s beyond feasibility that light poles were staged. Or that there would have been lots of flyover witnesses who would have courageously come forward and told everything they saw to Tim Russert on Meet the Press the following Sunday.

      2. “911Blogger and truthers in general need to take a long hard look at the big picture and understand there is a reason JREFers and Judy Wood and Fetzer and the government and the MSM all relentlessly attack CD. Do you know why they all focus on trying to discredit CD? Well think about it for a minute and maybe the answer will come to you.”~AtomicBomb
        I take it that AtomicBomb is Adam Ruff, and that Keenan is Keenan Roberts..{?}

    2. Mr McKee since there is some chance they are reading this, perhaps you could advise Mr Gold that his ban is temporarily lifted if he would like to comment on this thread…??

  21. N. M. Ahmed says:
    “I’ve been revolted by the conspiracy theory industry itself that has grown up around the 9/11 question…”
    . . . . . . .. . . .
    As we look at Ahmed’s further remarks it becomes clear that what he is “revolted” by is COMPLEXITY. Also coming into focus is that Ahmed hasn’t the mental chops to deal with complexity, and therefore reaches out to the simplistic doodlings of simpleton “Truthers” such as Jon Gold – a goldleafed turd if ever there was one.
    Anyone seeking some straight forward simple plot line for an event the complexity of 9/11 is looking for the preposterous, and Ahmed has certainly found that in Jon Gold’s ‘9/11 Truther’
    A Simple Little Review of a simpleton’s little review.
    * Copyright © 2012 Willy Whitten – All Rights Deserved

    1. Oh shit…I just realized the useful idiot is tallying my posts again…eek eeeek.!
      ….and now….
      [Forgive me Father for I have sinned…]

  22. This speaks to my commentary on N. M. Ahmed, quite well:
    “Knowledge in modern societies has expanded to the point whereby specialisms and sub-specialisms are the norm. It is just not possible for one person to have in-depth knowledge of every discipline. We must rely on others to convey such knowledge, usually in relatively simplistic terms. Most of us have to take at face value many of the ideas and concepts that we are bombarded with in this age of instant, mass communications and information overload.
    People tend to like simplicity. In many instances, not possessing sufficient expertise on matters, they require it. They require easily manageable packages of knowledge, and these packages become taken for granted stocks of ‘common sense’ knowledge that enable them to cope, however faulty or misrepresented that ‘knowledge’ may be.”~ Colin Todhunter

  23. And this just in from the holy-farging-IRONY department:
    ” Obviously, the question of what happened at the Pentagon is a divisive issue. The point is that it shouldn’t be, and those who try to make it divisive are working counter to the interests of the movement. “— [the mysterious]”Arabesque” Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:55 pm

    1. An issue only becomes divisive when lies, disinfo, censorship and mass banning are used to repress discussion. And when the same group invent OCT subplots (Stutt’s data and acceptance of undocumented “evidence” as legit) because they can’t counter valid evidence, it’s pretty obvious who’s causing division.
      The most absurd aspect is that when the NOC witnesses were first discovered, they were labelled as an anomaly but “interesting”. How many “bloggers” and fake truthers came out of the woodwork in 2006-7?
      When more NOC witnesses kept turning up, open season was called on CIT. The witnesses themselves became targets. “Liars”. “Cointel”.
      The muddying became even more crass with the “NOC impact” crap (good old days eh MrBoz!)
      What was the big crime that CIT actually committed? The “disruptors”?
      They brought back solid evidence that the OCT was bogus. They committed the sin of daring to draw the only logical conclusion from their findings. The “alternative”? The conclusions that we all should accept to avoid this “division”?
      Hoffman’s conclusion:
      There was a surface to air missile/explosives in the cargo area that destroyed the fuselage as the aircraft struck the facade. This was coupled by his joint claim that the aircraft could physically fly over the 2m tall spools without disturbing them. What about the explosives Jim?
      Erik Larson/Arabesque
      The lie that there are “104 witnesses to an impact”. Scores of media sourced ambiguous, unsourced, proven embellished, second hand snippets. The same media that enabled both the ops of 9/11, the cover up afterwards and the cheerleaders for ensuing wars and fearmongering that eased the way for the fascist laws implemented.
      Adam Larson aka “Caustic Logic”
      The NOC witnesses are Cointel and liars.
      Sarns and Good (terrible twins) conclusion:
      The NOC evidence is valid. But so is the (mysterious) “SOC” evidence. Whether the aircraft flew NOC or SOC, it still impacted. The minimum proof of staging and tampering of crime scene? Brian Good quote : “even if it were true, people wouldn’t believe it”
      Frank Legge
      The serial number void FDR, the contradictions of which the NTSB refuses to comment on and still points to anything but an alleged impact.
      Frank accepts this with open arms even though the source is from the same government that he’s accusing of dropping 2 million tons of debris on its own citizens.
      “We’re all on the same page”
      Yeah CIT. What gives?
      [soundcloud url=”http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/53483768″ iframe=”true” /]

      1. Onesliceshort mentions:
        >”Frank Legge — The serial number void FDR, the contradictions of which the NTSB refuses to comment on and still points to anything but an alleged impact.”
        . . . . . . . . .
        This is a point I made over and over to Legge in our email exchange; the fact that there was no established chain of possession for any of the material that he was using in his so-called “scientific research” on the Pentagon issue.
        Of course the whole issue of the lack of FAA investigation documents was handwaved, as if the excuse that the FBI had ‘taken over the case’ had left the FAA flaccid, and they were no longer accountable – after 20 or more years of protocol to the contrary.
        Did not these simple facts cause some clue for suspicion? Not so according to Legge, at least for several weeks. And THEN after pushing this point and twisting it in for so long, suddenly his tune changes and he writes that {paraphrasing} ‘actually he is not relying on the FDR data, nor even the photo evidence of airplane debris inside the Pentagon’ — [Another strange assertion and argument back and forth to] — No, now he was telling me that his whole case hinged upon the Witness Testimony… ???
        Of course I was like, “WTF???” This was when our final exchanges took place in less than friendly fashion. It was especially his insistence that Hemphill’s testimony alone should be sufficient proof that Flt 77 hit the Pentagon.
        Of course anyone familiar with the several interviews of Hemphill knows how self contradictory and impossible his testimony is as per a Southern Approach verification.
        I had at one point thought to write up a detailed review of these email exchanges…but now it just seems like so much water under the bridge anyway. It is too clear and undeniable at this point that there was no plane impact at the Pentagon. The redundancy of more proofs as to Legge’s lack of credibility seems useless now.

      2. Willy

        Of course the whole issue of the lack of FAA investigation documents was handwaved, as if the excuse that the FBI had ‘taken over the case’ had left the FAA flaccid, and they were no longer accountable – after 20 or more years of protocol to the contrary.

        Look at it from this angle. The reason I’m convinced Legge is a shill.
        Imagine a fellow “truther” backed by various influential “truth leaders” inventing his own little distractive subplot and junk science approach to “explain” away the 2.5 second freefall of WTC7 that Chandler forced NIST to admit.

        Contrary to the August 2008 NIST report on WTC7, the acceleration of Building 7 has been measured and is found to be indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity over a period of about 2.5 seconds during the fall. Freefall indicates zero resistance. It also indicates that the energy of the falling mass is not available to do work on the lower structure (i.e. such things as breaking, bending, crushing, etc.) A video detailing the measurement process and commenting on the results is posted on the AE911Truth YouTube channel, accessible through http://www.ae911truth.org/freefall. The video responds to the recently released NIST WTC7 document.

        Why the ridiculous sideshow? Why did Frank Legge feel the need to work 24/7 on what, 10 equally flawed papers on what is basically garbage, instead of pressing the source for answers?
        When government loyalists “debate” this alleged data they don’t even stick to the OCT. They use Warren Stutt’s “data”. (Stutt also appeared “out of the blue” in 2006-7). Legge’s job was as a stop gap between the perps and the “truth movement” with a few already highly placed infiltrators acting as cheerleaders. And a few egomaniacs and easily lead, looking for “quiet time” individuals thrown into the mix.
        Imagine the raised eyebrows if Chandler’s queries had gotten the same treatment?
        First they had to poison the well, muddy the waters and vilify anybody who had evidence that anything other than an aircraft struck the Pentagon. They were happy enough to allow the A3SkyWarrior and missile theories. So why the surge in attacks on the NOC evidence? Because it’s simple.
        The “FDR” was a vehicle for introducing the same confusion and “number crunching” that GLs thrive on when discussing Manhattan. Complicate the shit out of things when the obvious is staring you in the face.

      3. Oneslice,
        Legge is obviously part of the “Australian contingent” {COINTELPRO} – and the same can be said for Stutt, also in Australia. I inquired as to Stutt during the email exchange with Legge. He only said that Stutt was not an academic, that he was just “a smart guy”….{grin}.
        I admit I had problems with Dennis Cimino’s bonafides as well, and felt the whole crosstalk between them was perhaps a dialectical reverse psychology op. Nevertheless Dennis did obviously have some aeronautical background whereas Stutt is a simple ‘unknown’, like you say “out of the blue”.
        Still the bottom line to the whole thing is the FDR/black box fiasco is based on a completely unverifiable package that should have been dropped as having any merit whatsoever. And it was Legge’s refusal to acknowledge such that finally drove the stake into his own Renfieldian heart…he attempted to open the coffin lid one more time with his disingenuous appeal to ‘witness testimony’ as his strong-suit, but that was futile, he had already tagged himself as El Topo.

  24. I’ll finish reading this article some day, it’s depressing! Not because of the facts within it, but because in addition to ripping that book apart line by pinocchio line here, the writer should have gotten the liars on camera questioning them about this crap. Eleven years later and we’re still ‘talking’…just talking, blogging, speaking and talking. The other half of this ‘movement’ that has the money and cameras to catch these liars on camera won’t do it, and the others who investigate this lie will not do it either. Wow. Eleven years, thousands, if not millions of ‘in the know’ and only CIT and Ventura have gone to ‘get’ any part of this story. The rest of us are just content resigned to the yeah I knew that, blogging, pasting etc. Doesn’t anyone in this movement…effort per LG, with the means have vacation time coming up that they can commit to doing what clearly the others will not do? Another great article sure, hats off to the writer, now what?! Where are the serious committed investigators in this effort to work this information? Their absence is the depressing part.

    1. Well Vance,
      I am very anxious to see the photo’s and hear the interviews with those you surely got on tape. Could you perhaps give a URL to the web site where you have such posted. Did you ever get anything out of Cheney? I am sure he would have been one of your prime targets for an interview…maybe at least pics of the bodyguards throwing you to the ground and such…{???}
      C’mon, don’t be shy, show us your stuff.

    2. Vance,
      I can only speak for myself when I say that because I’m in Europe, for me the main contribution that I can make is through online debate, research and gathering whatever scraps of evidence I can find whether through images, video, testimony or scouring through reams of usually irrelevant documentation on the off chance that something slipped through.
      A few blogs back I suggested gathering phone numbers and e mail addresses of one of the central planks of not only 9/11 but the entire foundation of this whole stinking global mess. The media.
      1. They are the most accessible.
      2. Some of them can be publically confronted.
      3. All of them can be exposed.
      My idea was to get a large number of like minded folks to pick one journalist or media figure and throughout the day take turns at contacting this person preferably by both phone and e-mail and hound them on one specific false claim they or their network/newspaper has made.
      Calls can be recorded. Responses to e mails documented.
      They could be selected on the basis of prior or current claims.
      This could also apply to politicians or their party offices. To anybody.
      Not nasty, angry rants but specific hard facts. Repeated throughout the day by 10, 20, 30, 100 people.
      If anything, maybe it would make them think twice or make it at least more uncomfortable to look down the lens of a camera or begin typing and blatantly lie through their teeth.
      I’ll give you an example of how this could work.
      A phone company has virtually no competition and is charging exorbitant rates and treating its customers like shit. One guy sets up an online forum protesting against this company.
      By word of mouth the members of this forum grows to thousands of disgruntled members.
      One day the owner of this forum phones the phone company and asks them if they are going to reduce bills and be more attentive to breakdowns and complaints. He tells them to be very careful how they respond as he is speaking for thousands of customers.
      He gives them a week to reply.
      After the week is up, he phones again and is given the runaround. That night back at his forum he tells others to switch services to a smaller rival company and they tell the smaller company to check out the forum in case they have any plans to treat them like shit as well.
      They switch to the smaller company en bloq. Thousands of customers lost overnight.
      That’s the form of protest that works. Unfortunately, you can only attract thousands when it’s about money. And not an issue about a rotten system of government that murdered its own citizens (go figure, huh?)
      But it’s a really effective form of protest if it can be applied to 9/11 (or whatever). I’d love to see it happen.

      History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
      Martin Luther King

      My frustrated 2cents

  25. As I think about the three different explanations of the C ring exit hole, and comparing that to the explanations of WTC7, I’m reminded (thanks to Vance Green’s comment about getting the perps on camera) of when WeAreChange infiltrated a speech Larry Silverstein was giving, and questioned him about WTC7. He said that the antenna from the north tower sliced through WTC7, causing a huge gash in the building. Easily refuted by video evidence of course.

  26. Well thanks for all the comments everyone. Craig informed me right before he published this, that I hold the record for longest T/S article. At any rate, there were some other passages from the book that were not necessary to the meat of the article, but are interesting and worth noting. Some BS, some stuff that raises the eyebrow.
    On Columbia Pike… less than a mile west of the Pentagon… paramedics and firefighters were responding to a medical emergency…. A plane roared overhead. It was low and loud – and not where it should have been.

    Something wasn’t right. The airport wasn’t far away, but the plane was already at treetop level, well below the glide path it should be on for National Airport. Conde watched the plane for another second as it followed Columbia Pike to the northeast. Then it dipped out of sight.

    Just south of the Pentagon, the crew of Arlington’s Engine 101 was in their fire truck, traveling north on I-395 toward a training session near the Pentagon.

    Lewis, sitting right behind Kaiser, saw the jet first.
    “Hey, look at that plane!” he shouted. “What’s it doing?”
    McCoy rapidly scanned the horizon and saw the plane off to his left. It was banking to the right and descending well short of where it should have been for a landing at the airport. His heart sank.
    (pp. 22-3)
    In an instant the impact reduced Flight 77 to a million super-heated fragments. (p. 25)
    Two-thirds of the right wing had been severed by the impact with the construction equipment, and what was left of it carved a gash in the building’s second-story floor slab, before the concrete sheared it off the fuselage. (pp. 25-26)
    Good example of how the flyover psyop would deceive people:
    Though Alan Wallace had had a front-row seat as Flight 77 approached the Pentagon, he hadn’t seen the plane strike the building; instead, he had turned and run the opposite direction. (p. 35)
    Moving on…
    There was fire in the sky, too. Small burning objects kept drifting down. Wallace looked up and realized that a magnolia tree had caught fire and the plush leaves were burning and dropping to the ground. Everywhere he looked there was searing, unquenchable fire. (p. 37)
    An old training session flashed through [firefighter Derek Spector’s] mind. After a DC-10 crash-landed in Sioux City, Iowa, in 1989, tearing the fuselage apart, some of the 110 victims who died were found still strapped into their seats. Spector quickly scanned the debris field looking for airplane seats. He didn’t find any. (p. 42)
    Here’s an interesting one:
    His guess was that a small plane had hit the Pentagon, because the impact hole was along the approach route smaller planes typically used when landing at National Airport. (p. 90)
    They pulled on their masks and… entered the building. …he noticed the odor of jet fuel right away. Then he noticed something peculiar – shoes, everywhere. From the luggage, he guessed. (p. 93)
    That’s kind of strange, isn’t it? Anyway, moving on.
    The officer explained that a plane had hit the Pentagon. [Pentagon officer Phil] McNair had thought it was a bomb somebody planted in the building. – p. 104
    Now we start getting into Honnegerville in the A&E drive (where the exit hole was located).
    Above them the windows were blown out, with fire spilling out. In the wall on their left they saw the three big holes, also flaming. They walked closer. At the mouth of the third hole they saw a piece of a wheel and countless shards of wreckage. Some of them looked like pieces of seats. The hole itself was almost perfectly round… To Anderson, it was exactly the kind of hole he expected an airplane to make. Just outside the hole he saw a pair of feet. They were dark-skinned, without shoes, [???] and weren’t even burned. (pp. 148-9)
    There was one exit hole, the other two are rectangular doors. Anyway.
    Some [firefighters] pocketed bits of wreckage that looked like they might be pieces of the airplane, as morbid souvenirs of the occasion. For the FBI, the shabby treatment of the debris was an alarming problem. (p. 177)
    Speaking of evidence, we later read that Tom O’Connor, special FBI agent in charge of an evidence recovery team, said the following:
    By then O’Connor and his superiors had sent around word that there was no need to document every piece of the airplane – the smaller fragments didn’t prove anything, except that there was an airplane there, which was obvious enough from other evidence. (p. 182)
    To that, I would respond: But what about TWA Flight 800? How about a reconstruction attempt? Anyway, colleague McKenzie a paragraph later does provide a nug of truth:
    McKenzie gathered a dozen photographers on the lawn for a briefing. “We don’t need to photograph all the plane parts,” he told them, “only unique airplane parts or something specific. Like the pilot’s yoke, or anything with part of a serial number on it. If we have to prove what kind of plane this was, the serial numbers will be what we need.” (pp. 182-3)
    Later from that same page:
    The punch-out hole was becoming the focal point of the catastrophe, a single place where a gruesome display of airplane wreckage, building contents, and body parts provided all the visual clues needed to tell what had happened.
    Going back to the moment of impact, another example of how the deception was supposed to work:
    …he looked up and saw the plane heading straight toward him. Instinctively, he dove to the ground to avoid getting hit… Sullivan hadn’t seen the impact, since his head was down, but watched the fireball that immediately followed, and felt its heat on his face. Thinking like an engineer, Tills considered this further confirmation that the plane had fully penetrated the building. (p. 203)
    Of course it fully penetrated! At the same time, thousands of the plane flew backward into the lawn and forward onto the interior courtyard according to this same book! But, later the same page, another nug of truth:
    As they looked out the windows of the bus, most of them expected to see a big field of airplane debris, like you might see on TV after a crash. But there were no big airplane parts. (pp. 203-4)
    Now, into the 300’s, find this regarding evidence preservation:
    One supervisor argued that every airplane part was significant and ought to be treated as valuable evidence. “That can’t be,” [special FBI agent] Adams countered. “We know what happened here. Do we really need to collect every piece of the airplane?”
    The NTSB had set up its own operation nearby – they were the crash experts who would determine exactly what had happened to Flight 77.
    …”Do you you guys want pieces of the plane?” Adams asked.
    “No, it’s clear what happened here,” one of the NTSB officials answered. “We don’t need pieces of the wings and stuff like that.

    From the same page:
    A&E Drive happened to be the one other area where it was safe for recovery crews to work. The force of the vaporized jet had blown a hole in one side of the wall, but the wall itself remained stable.
    Gee, so now the plane “vaporized.” I thought it was only conspiracy tards like Dylan Avery and Loose Change that made such claims about the plane being vaporized! 😛 And to think that the plane instantly vaporized (0.8 seconds) even before the fire would supposedly have time to burn it to vapor!
    The plane vaporized, yet 21 pages later they find their coveted airline seats with bodies strapped in. The plane vaporized, yet littered the lawn and courtyard and roof with “thousands” of fragments.
    I think I shall take a break for now. If I find more gems I’ll continue to pass them along.

    1. Wow, I should have found this and included it in the article near the top. Surprised I missed this.

      Jon Gold
      “A good theory explains most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted.” – Dr. David Ray Griffin
      There are many theories concerning what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. The reason these theories exist is because those who should be able to answer our questions, REFUSE TO DO SO. That being said, some of the theories promoted are contradicted by information, and a common practice in the movement is to proclaim those contradictions as “fake” or “planted.” In my opinion, it is irresponsible to proclaim something “fake” or “planted” simply because it doesn’t coincide with what you THINK happened. Especially if there is no information to suggest that something is “fake” or “planted.”
      The most common theory is that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. There IS information that exists that contradicts this theory. To my knowledge, here are those contradictions.

      …4. A book entitled, “Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11” was released that mentions that they “found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them, which had already been found and marked for the FBI.” According to a review of the book by John Maclean, “the bodies of the five hijackers were found about 100 feet from the point of impact.”

  27. What I don’t get about this whole thing is that there are photographs of the Pentalawn just after the so-called strike…and besides the scorched area just beyond the hole, the lawn is pristine.
    WHAT? Are these ‘pieces of airplane’ the size of glitter? I mean, WHERE THE HELL IS IT IN THE PHOTOS?
    I read things like “yea yea yea there were parts everywhere ya stepped” – and then I look at the photo’s and I cannot help but conclude that these people are just flat out lying…
    It might not even be the ones attributed who actually said this shit. Like the “witness testimonies” where quite a few when re-questioned say “I didn’t actually say that”. I think we have {gee maybe} some creative writers that should be writing fiction that is clearly marked as such.
    Whatta world.

    1. Like the “witness testimonies” where quite a few when re-questioned say “I didn’t actually say that”. I think we have {gee maybe} some creative writers that should be writing fiction that is clearly marked as such.

      Exactly Willy.
      This book is allegedly made up of author Patrick Creed’s alleged interviews with firefighters involved that day. And on alleged transcripts, memos, etc from the Arlington Fire Department. Get this…
      From “Acknowledgements” pp460 of that book.

      “The ‘Arlington County After-Action Report’ for instance, provides a thorough overview of the incident at the Pentagon. But it was based on a trove of officer reports, internal memos, interview transcripts, and other documents from the Arlington County Fire Department that were either destroyed or misplaced afterward, and were unavailable to us.”

      Guess what else?

      # Hardcover: 512 pages
      # Publisher: Presidio Press; 1 edition (May 27, 2008)
      # Language: English
      # ISBN-10: 0891419055
      # ISBN-13: 978-0891419051
      What else does Presidio Press publish, I wonder?
      Does anyone else see a theme there- (13 Cent Killer, 15 Months in SOG, Acceptable Loss, Armed Conflict, etc.)
      Let’s see- military books and “Presidio”- any connections to:
      OK- to review, we’ve got Presidio, military-oriented books, US Army, Special Operations Command [could psy-ops possibly be involved here?], Pentagon/DoD…
      Not to “guilt by association” here, but I immediately think of one name:
      Lt. Col. Michael Aquino and his paper “MindWar” (it’s just my opinion here)
      [CAUTION: Aquino’s paper is linked at the Temple of Set]
      From p.1 of above:
      “Headquarters, 7th Psychological Operations Group
      United States Army Reserve
      Presidio of San Francisco, California
      It’s probably just coincidence though…

      And the co-author?

      From 1995 through 2001, Newman was U.S. News’s chief Pentagon correspondent, covering wars in Bosnia and Kosovo and reporting from military bases, ships, airplanes, and submarines around the world. He also helped anchor the magazine’s 9/11 coverage and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition to his work for U.S. News, Newman has penned satire for the Washington Post and the New York Times. Newman received a bachelor’s in English and economics from Boston College in 1988 and started at U.S. News as a fact checker shortly thereafter.
      Honors: Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on National Defense | Society of Professional Journalists Award for Public Service | National Press Club Consumer Journalism Award | Finalist, National Magazine Award | Finalist, Livingston Award for Young Journalists
      Publications: Co-authored with Don Shepperd Bury Us Upside Down: The Misty Pilots and the Secret Battle for the Ho Chi Minh Trail (Presidio Press, 2006) | Co-authored with Patrick Creed Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9-11 (Ballantine, expected publication date: 2008)
      Media appearances: Newman’s national television appearances include CBS’s The Early Show and Up to the Minute, CNN’s Headline News, Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends, and FOX Business Network. In addition, he has been interviewed on numerous national and major market radio programs.

      PsyOp brass and a media (gangbang proportion) whore with undocumented second hand accounts. I’m sold!

      1. Lt. Col. Michael Aquino, ah yes…well acquainted with this ‘action figure’ a real “Mattel” super-spook right out of ‘Majick in Theory and Practice’ – something Crowley summoned from Hell, a golem so to speak. Deep involvement with the “spiritual” aspect of MK, child predator rings and such, likely a mentor of Jim Jones.
        Part of the John Parsons-L. Ron Hubbard school of the black arts.
        So FIREFIGHT from Presidio can be considered a christened grimoir directly sanctioned by central casting.
        Great info you dug up there Cap’n Slice.

      2. “Unlike PSYOPS, MindWar has nothing to do with deception or even with “selected” – and therefore misleading-truth. Rather it states a WHOLE truth that, if it does not now exist, will be forced into existence by the will of the United States.”~Aquino
        [Pg 8 MindWar]
        … … … … … … …
        Think about this paragraph. It is obviously delusional, presenting an assumed future as an actual present, and calling it “truth”. Not only is this deception, but this is self deception – the very psychosis that Orwell describes for the Party of Big Brother.
        And it is such psychotic hubris that will bring an organization to develop a strategy of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’. The extremist’s take on ‘The Little Train That Could’…
        And this comes after touching upon the words of Jacques Ellul, whom the military mind is simply incapable of grasping in full context.
        “What is at issue here is evaluating the danger of what might happen to our humanity in the present half-century, and distinguishing between what we want to keep and what we are ready to lose, between what we can welcome as legitimate human development and what we should reject with our last ounce of strength as dehumanization. I cannot think that choices of this kind are unimportant.
        Not even the moral conversion of the technicians could make a difference. At best, they would cease to be good technicians. *In the end, technique has only one principle, efficient ordering.*
        It was necessary to use the so-called obsessional technique, to subject the citizen to propaganda without letup, never allowing him to be alone with himself. In the street he is confronted with posters, loud-speakers, ceremonies, and meetings; at work with handbills and “industrial mobilization”; in his amusements, with motion-picture and theatrical propaganda; at home, with newspaper and radio propaganda. All these means converge on the same point. All exert the same kind of action on the individual and are of such overpowering magnitude that he ceases to be consciously aware of them.
        Thus, through constant and unrelenting exposure to directing forces present in mass media, propagandists, advertisers, and other creators of culture are able to successfully coerce their audience into complicity. ”~Jacques Ellul

      3. Willy

        “Unlike PSYOPS, MindWar has nothing to do with deception or even with “selected” – and therefore misleading-truth. Rather it states a WHOLE truth that, if it does not now exist, will be forced into existence by the will of the United States.”~Aquino
        [Pg 8 MindWar]

        That sums up 9/11 (JFK, OKC and Iraq too). Invent a bogey man. Carry out the operation. Damage control. Stick to one of several scripts. Play it by ear. Drop layer upon layer of half truths and disinfo.
        Once the dust has settled, the fawning, gutless media puppets relay the main points over and over. “Osama”, “19 hijackers”, “lone gunman”, “McVeigh acted alone”.
        Blatantly retract any contrary media reports. “Israel”, “van bomb”, “John Doe 2”, “bombs in the (Murrah) building”.
        Tie up loose ends. Kill loose ends. Kill witnesses. Deny all witnesses (TWA800, OKC, JFK, NOC)
        The media is an integral part of this. None of this could function without the media.
        Jacques Ellul was spot on.
        Additional info on co-author Newman and his “Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on National Defense”

        Judging will be based upon the journalist’s ability to foster better public understanding of either the United States presidency or national defense. The prizes recognize reportorial excellence as reflected by resourcefulness, insight, quality of writing and brevity, rather than the quality of editorial comment. Candidates for either prize should have compiled a year-long record of consistent, judicious, sensitive and noteworthy coverage. The prizes recognize the quality of a journalist’s work during the year, rather than any single article.
        Work may have appeared in print at a local, regional, national or international level (for example, daily newspapers, news magazines or trade publications with a broad readership). Free-lance as well as staff journalists may be candidates.
        For the Presidency Prize, reporting should address ways in which the President sets policy and makes decisions, how The President initiates programs and responds to events, how The President relies on Cabinet and senior staff, and the structure and functioning of White House operations.
        For the Defense Prize, reporting should address Department of Defense operations, military operations, defense resource management, military preparedness, or international arms control, or other national security issues.

        The Gerald Ford Administration Alumni is like a who’s who of death eaters
        Nelson A Rockefeller (Vice President)
        Henry Kissinger
        Donald Rumsfeld
        Ford Administration Senior Staff
        Dick Cheney
        Brent Scowcroft (NSA advisor to GHW Bush)
        I’m sold!

      4. “..foster better public understanding of either the United States presidency or national defense.”~ “Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on National Defense”
        “Public Understanding” — “Public Relations” [PR] … key words that give the kings clothes away.
        Once it is presented in the perspective of how it fits into the larger picture ‘Firefight’ is a product obviously forged in Mordor.

      5. Willy

        Once it is presented in the perspective of how it fits into the larger picture ‘Firefight’ is a product obviously forged in Mordor.

        Ha! Classic.

  28. Adam

    The punch-out hole was becoming the focal point of the catastrophe, a single place where a gruesome display of airplane wreckage, building contents, and body parts provided all the visual clues needed to tell what had happened.

    Here’s the earliest image (AFAIK) of AE Drive
    Building contents, yes, but…
    And there’s something else that struck me. When they say that a “body” strapped into an aircraft seat”, I’d always envisaged a single seat. As far as I know, the seats were. Individual but connected in rows of three.
    There are so many conflicting stories of what went on inside that building, coupled with 4 separate evacuations. Even Roosevelt Roberts was postes on duty at the heliport to allegedly prevent “vandalism” and people “stealing debris”.
    Can you picture anybody wishing to lift a “memento” from an area where (at the time) it was thought that there were 100s of co-workers blown and burnt to shreds? That was uppermost in people’s minds? I’ve scoured through 100s of images of the Pentagon lawn and the surrounding area and for most of the day there were only firefighters, plain clothes FBI, rescue workers with stretchers and DPS officers in that immediate area.
    According to Goldberg in his book there were multiple incidents of imposters and people allegedly trying to go back in to “retrieve items”.

    “Chad Stamps is a firefighter with Rescue 104 of the Arlington County Fire Department. [National Fire and Rescue, 5/2002] Along with his crew, he has been fighting fires on the second floor of the Pentagon’s outer E Ring. With fires burning around him, he is astonished to see another crew walk past, carrying two packs of hose line, apparently on its way to fight fires elsewhere in the Pentagon. Describing this incident, authors Patrick Creed and Rick Newman will point out: “Firefighters are trained never to go through a fire without putting it out, since it might seal off your exit. You might as well walk into a burning room and lock the door behind you. Yet there they went.” Seeing the crew passing by, Stamps thinks, “This is totally disjointed.” [Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 137] [b]The odd behavior of this crew is perhaps notable because there is at least one reported incident of fake firefighters being caught at the Pentagon following the attack there: On September 12, three people will be arrested who are not firefighters, yet who are dressed in firefighting gear[/b] (see September 12, 2001). [Goldberg et al., 2007, pp. 170]]
    September 12, 2001: People Disguised as Firefighters Arrested at Pentagon
    The Defense Protective Service (DPS)–the law enforcement agency that guards the Pentagon–arrests three people at the Pentagon who are dressed in firefighting gear but are not firefighters. Further details of who these people are and why they are at the Pentagon are unstated. 

    [Goldberg et al., 2007, pp. 170]..
    “Johnny” – Arlington firefighter Bob Gray is introduced by his colleague Bobby Beer to a man wearing a hard hat. Beer introduces the man only as “Johnny,” and adds, “He’s our go-between with PenRen [the Pentagon Renovation Program], and he knows some of the military guys too.” Although “Johnny” is not wearing any identifying badge or ID, he seems knowledgeable, appears “taut and serious, with a purposeful military stance,” and even introduces Gray and Beer to a couple of friends of his who say they work for Special Forces. Johnny says if Gray and Beer need anything from the military, he can help. As a security perimeter has now been set up around the crash site, Gray assumes Johnny must be there officially. [Creed and Newman, 2008, pp. 367-368]
    Sept 14
    Johnny’s disappearance appears to follow an error he had made after firefighters discovered two bodies inside the Pentagon’s E Ring. Johnny mistakenly called the truck used to remove bodies to the temporary morgue prematurely, before FBI agents had the chance to photograph and document the remains. Gray and Beer start to wonder if Johnny in fact had no official standing, and was an impostor]
    Police Battalion HQs (503d MP Bn) from Fort Bragg, NC (and two active military police companies from Fort Stewart, GA, and Fort Bragg, NC). Active duty units remained in support of DPS beyond December 2001.
    Another unanticipated problem which arose was the number of occupants who felt a need to get back into their areas to retrieve professional papers and personal effects. Some groups tried to circumvent the security officers to get back into their offices. Several people, including one general officer was taken into custody.

    “Johnny” and the three arrested “fake firefighters” have been ignored for too long IMO.

    1. Thanks onesliceshort. Interesting stuff; I had not heard about these 3 arrested fake firefighters before. You mention the author “Goldberg.” What is the first name and the name of the book?
      Another comment which I submitted last night but got lost in a tech glitch (it didn’t even show up as “your comment is awaiting moderation” after I submitted, it just disappeared) concerns further citing of Firefight as somehow being a counterweight to actual 9/11 truth research. Another somewhat prominent blogger (maybe not so much anymore but for awhile was) is John-Michael P. Talboo and his pal “ScootleRoyale” of blog called “Debunking the Debunkers.” Just like Hoffman, Ashley, Legge, etc., this blog claims to be on truth’s side and promotes cd of the WTC to prove it, but then it defends the official scenario at the Pentagon. In a hit piece called “The CIT Virus,” the authors say this:

      If CIT would actually interview someone from the Arlington Fire Department who was in there fighting the fires then maybe we’ll start taking notice of them. But there’s no need, it’s already been done. For the book “Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11,” the authors interviewed more than 100 Pentagon first responders…
      “They walked closer. At the mouth of the third hole they saw a piece of a wheel and countless shards of wreckage. Some of them looked like pieces of seats.” ~ Firefight, Page 149.
      “For the first time, Regan’s team saw something they had expected to see all along but had been scarce until then: recognizable airplane parts. They all thought they would find big pieces of the airliner laying everywhere, the way car parts end up strewn across a highway after a crash. But the physics of an airplane crash were obviously different: Mostly there was just tons of shredded metal and melted plastic.
      Finally, they found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them, which had already been found and marked for the FBI. Most of the workers inside were conscientious about not gawking, yet the seats attracted a lot of attention. They were the first objects the nonaviation experts had seen that unmistakably belonged to an airplane.” ~ Firefight, Page 373.
      “The airplane had nearly disintegrated, but Dan Fitch’s group found several huge cogs, bent and blackened, that weighed a couple hundred pounds each; it took a couple of workers to handle each one. Other objects nearby looked like large gears, and strips of metal that appeared to be fan blades. Workers realized that they were pulling apart the remnants of one of the aircraft’s two engines. The aluminum cowling that had encased it all had been torn away, but the guts of the engine were there.
      FEMA crews used a blowtorch to free the core of the motor from the column in which it was embedded. Then Fitch and several others used pieces of six-by-six to pry the motor loose from the column and push it off the pile. With the help of some Old Guard troops, they rolled the heavy piece of machinery onto a dolly and finally managed to push it outside. The whole effort took the better part of an entire shift.” ~ Firefight, Page 425.
      “As crews dug deeper, unmistakable remnants of a passenger plane were everywhere. Wallets, shoes, jewelry, and the everyday items that had been stuffed into dozens of suitcases were littered throughout the debris.” ~ Firefight, Page 426.
      Tell those people a commercial airliner didn’t hit the Pentagon!


      1. “The aluminum cowling that had encased it all had been torn away, but the guts of the engine were there.”
        No dice, the outer engine is not aluminum – it is titanium steel, and two of them should have been found as whole pieces regardless of what they hit. They could be damaged but not utterly destroyed, dented perhaps but not shattered.
        It took almost a “whole shift” for some sort of theater is what we have there.

      2. Adam,
        Sorry mate, thought I’d included the link. It’s free at the Navy mil site
        Alfred Goldberg
        All of those descriptions quoted? “Fan blades”, “pieces of seats”, “cogs”, etc….were these people qualified to identify aircraft wreckage? There were renovations going on in that area of the building so how did they know that they weren’t looking at machinery used in those renovations?
        And the alleged engine embedded in the column? A 3 metric tonne object supposedly travelling at 540mph was stopped in its tracks within the length of the aircraft’s penetration? But the nosecone made it through to C Ring…riiiight.

  29. “The punch-out hole was becoming the focal point of the catastrophe, a single place where a gruesome display of airplane wreckage, building contents, and body parts provided all the visual clues needed to tell what had happened.”
    This is the spot where the first audio-visual team entered and reported “no evidence of an airplane, no airplane parts or that one had crashed”…and certainly no bodies.
    And this is why that report is scrubbed from the web today. Honneger had the original report with the actual spokespeople in her files. But I had taken it off the web sometime around 2003 – 4. After my last pc blew it’s lid…I thought the info was lost to me for good, until I saw that Honneger presentation. If nothing else from her, y’all should get that in your files.

  30. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mc.htm
    This is quite the fascinating document. It begins in a rather mundane fashion, with information most of us are intimately familiar with – but continues on with some detailed nuts and bolts that really get into the depths of the subject. Highly recommended.

  31. Willy

    And this is why that report is scrubbed from the web today. Honneger had the original report with the actual spokespeople in her files. But I had taken it off the web sometime around 2003 – 4. After my last pc blew it’s lid…I thought the info was lost to me for good, until I saw that Honneger presentation. If nothing else from her, y’all should get that in your files.

    Is there a link to that report?

    1. Yea OSS, it is in Honneger’s presentation, get the HTML version, that way you can copy and paste it for your files.
      In the meantime, let me see if I can find the file I put it in….

  32. Wow, the credibility cops over at you know where have gotten really really really quiet the past few days, with Jon attempting to resuscitate it and pump life into it with new threads no one is responding to. Perhaps my/our exposing the fact that they promote this piece of propaganda as fact finally got the paid shills to be fired/relieved/transferred?

    1. There was a recent spat between various members in one of their threads. The “Mea Culpa” thread has Snowballs claiming that it’s his last post blah, yada, fart.

      1. Yeah, I saw the spat, but I saw Scott N. doing the “this is my last post ever” fit. Did Snowcrack also declare a final post? (Sorry, I don’t feel like going to that sewer right now. Bummed about the Cincinnati Reds’ historically painful loss.)

      2. Do you guys know what the N stands for in Scott N ?
        I knew a Scott Negron who used to post on Amazon 9/11 forums. He went by Scott N there…

      3. Thank you Adam,
        I have heard that name before. I haven’t seen this film/video…but am so familiar with the genre and info from so many angles now….
        And, all the video links loaded busted at any rate.
        Seems all of 9/11 has clicked at some spot. We are a click here, it depends on our sophistication I suppose, and a sequence of happenstance in our web journey.
        I didn’t have a map when I first began commenting on the issues, and ended up on the Amazon political forums, which are spiked with teams of government agents. That was a crazy experience. I was banned twice under two separate gravitars. The first time was for “antisemitic remarks”…Lol I was commenting against the brutal policies of Israel. The second time I was banned was because they figured out I was the same person banned before. When they ban you there – everything you have ever written is expunged – as if you never were there; a true MEMORY HOLE.
        From there I went to OEN, Rob Kall’s blog. I got banned in a Stalinist purge of about 15 of us who wouldn’t toe the “Liberal-Progressive” line, and were warning that Obama was just another Wall Street shill and puppet.
        It was on OEN that I had my first encounters with super-shill Assbury Smith.
        I’m glad I finally discovered Truth & Shadows. It’s the best 9/11 site I have ever experienced. Yourself, OSS and RuffAdam are among my favorites here. And of course Mr McKee gets #1 Editor spot in my book.

        1. Ah yes, the Amazon forums. I first saw you there back in ’07 or so. Amazon was where I met others I would later come to know on 9/11 sites, namely Sheila Casey and Gustavo Espada/RT/Gretavo (the wtcdemolition.com webmaster). I remember when Espada first got the shaft there. When Amazon bans someone, it’s almost certainly a computer doing the banning; if enough users flag enough of your comments as inappropriate, an algorithm kicks in and it results in all your posts, in all forums and reviews, getting a mass delete. Of course, such a system is a wide open door to infiltration by shills. I also remember seeing “Deleted by Amazon” under your name there too. I never got the shaft because I didn’t in those days go there with Israel and the Holocaust; I stuck purely to 9/11 being an inside job by the US. I’ve now seen the phenomenon with three sites — Amazon, the Randi Rhodes forums, and 911blogger — where the sites go from being great sites with mostly sincere people, to sites infested with shills the more popular the sites got. What became of 911blogger was a microcosm of the Randi Rhodes forum. At the RR forum, truthers were chided, put in moderation, etc. for suggesting that the JREF types posting there were government shills; to suggest such a thing was “uncivil.” We had to assume that Mark Roberts, Ron Wieck, etc., merely had “innocent differences of opinion.” It was clear to real truthers that these people were OCT shills, probably paid, and being nice to them was very very very very very difficult to do sometimes. Now, at blogger, the JREF types were eventually given the boot, and most truthers welcomed this because we saw the JREFers as intentional disruptors. However, we were required to treat the “757 DID hit the Pentagon” position with dignity, because the people putting it forward were not “debunkers,” but rather, “responsible truthers” who were doing what they were doing out of a deep care for credibility. The people who get my goat are not so much the cognitive infiltrators; we’d be naive to think they won’t send those people in. It’s the non-infiltrators who actually fall for the “responsible truther” mask who get me. For several people at blogger (LeftWright in particular), it seems that their heads are so far up Victronix’ rectum that her shit actually tastes like chocolate to them.

  33. Adam,
    Do you remember John McConnel? He was high rank Navy. He was on the 9/11 forums at Amazoo, on the side of the ‘truthers’ there, and was great at organizing URL lists of informative sites. he just disappeared one day. None of his posts were ever removed or anything to indicate banning – he just dropped off the end of the world.
    Others, those who stood out as shills, were a guy under the moniker of Suetonius, a professed “engineer” called John B. and a guy named James Asherman.
    I look back on the arguments by John B. now and laugh my ass off, even then he came off as a liar {as far as his profession claims}…
    Some of the flame wars between Suetonius and I were intense, and I still wonder that they were not banned – both of ours, for ‘bad attitude’ and ad hominem. Of course we had our ways for calling someone a prick…such as ‘preek’ and such {grin}.
    It is a funny episode, I got mixed up with a gal there, who was generally on the other side. Her name is Allison, she was a NASCAR model spokes-gal…
    We had one of those “web romances”…I ended up meeting her in Florida. She was from Louisiana and I was in Thomasville GA at the time. Anyway, that turned out bad jazz, she was married and has six kids…Lol. At least she wasn’t a serial killer.
    Yea…I still won’t buy books or DVDs or CDs from Amazon. I hold grudges.

    1. The name John McConnell sounds familiar, don’t remember his posts specifically. I definitely remember Suetonius, though, and yes, that person definitely stuck out as a shill. Another obvious shill was “bellerophon.” Remember him? He would call me “kameeloon” and I would call him “Bellow phoney.” Do you remember the guy who wrote the most favorable helpful review of Popular Mechanics, “A. Daniels Jr.”? He was a hard core religious person. His main argument was that no experts support us. He also, like a lapdog, summed up pretty much the entire book in his long review, as if to say: “Look at me and my extensive knowledge of this subject!” If he wasn’t a shill professionally, he was someone whose mind was infested with ignorance coupled with arrogance. Once in a blue moon I check out the Amazon forums. Slightly more frequently, I check the total number of reviews for the Griffin books and Popular Mechanics, and how the voting and comments on those reviews are going. But yeah, Amazon was my main online activism/debate hang for quite awhile there, but after it got infested with shills after the truthers gained serious traction on there, I lost a lot of patience with the shills and moved onto other audiences. Suetonius is still active to this day (last time I checked). Bellerophon fell quiet, as did A. Daniels. Jr.
      By the way, if you want to see me be a real a-hole, check out the dialogue between myself and A. Daniels Jr. on an Amazon thread he created (I’m kameelyun of course). I was probably drunk, and really went off on him and his “Christian” hypocrisy. Normally he responds to comments within minutes (he probably receives an email notification of replies), but after I smacked him upside the head, he fell silent for a month and didn’t come back until a third party came in and commented. 😀
      Enjoy the laughs:
      PS My how times have changed… look at how I promoted Jim Hoffman’s site back then…

  34. >”Another obvious shill was “bellerophon.” Remember him? He would call me “kameeloon” and I would call him “Bellow phoney.”
    Yes yes, now I remember you! Kameelyun…well I be. Wow the memories flood now.
    >”look at how I promoted Jim Hoffman’s site back then…”
    But of course, Hoffman’s WTC work still stands up. He took a wrong turn at the Pentagon. That doesn’t despoil everything else before that time. I don’t recall the title of the paper, but it is a Hoffman piece on the probable demolition details of the towers, that is to my mind the most likely that I have read. It was written just after the thermite had been proven present in the dust, and has some dialog with Jones in the piece.
    But yea; McConnel was a sharp cookie, he knew his physics, and his critical thinking skills were top notch, and his arguments indefatigable. Ran circles around his critics, regardless of their denials. Suetonius, who supposedly taught physics at university couldn’t even due the algebra straight…hahahaha. All Sue had was rhetorical gymnastics. I’ve seen a bit of that here from certain parties as well.
    Nice to recall our former, and now continued alliance.

  35. Look who I just found posting on an old thread at C2…On this thread you would find Assbury Smith and another shill, ieaffiliates, making countless comments to Rogue and “Roggie” as Smith used to call me…I am not there…all my posts were removed by Rady Ananda {Randy Kuntananda} who used to be an ally until she decided to put a PayPal button on her site…a long story best left for Halloween night,,,,
    Anyway, I was alerted that this old thread was back on the hot hit list:
    Brian Good | September 28, 2012 at 9:51 am | Reply
    >”William Rodriguez’s hero story is a lie from the claim of 15 initial rescues to the claim that he was the Last Man Out. Showing his co-workers how to get to the street when they already knew how to get to the street is hardly a “rescue”. That claim is a lie.”
    Brian Good sure has a knack for sticking it in someones back.

    1. This is the second slander Good makes on that C2 thread:
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      Brian Good | October 16, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Reply
      “Yes, spuzzum, Willie was able to misdirect truthers for several years, and he did major damage to the movement.
      He’d inspire truthers to take his story to the media, and the skeptical reporters who should have been our greatest allies would do a little fact-checking, would find that Willie’s claims were unverifiable, self-serving, and very suspect, and would conclude that 9/11 truthers are idiots.
      He’d inspire truthers to take his lawsuit to their lawyer friends, and the lawyers would read a suit that was illiterate and impossibly and irrationally complex.
      He’d inspire truthers to take his DVD to firefighters, and the firefighters would see a strutting braggart who stole his glory from the dead telling obvious lies about locked fire doors. The people were not locked in!
      He got two hours on C-Span and all he did was brag and lie and make fools of a church full of people who believed his nonsense.”
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  36. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_circuit
    Various arrangements are known as the Wien bridge, Maxwell bridge and Heaviside bridge.
    All are based on the same principle, which is to compare the output of two potentiometers sharing a common source.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    What this has to do with the price of circuit boards from China is ANYBODY’S guess…
    Perhaps it has something to be with decibels, barely oats, and heavy grog in a goblet made of pewter. Lead poisoning? Pewter aka Lead. The stalk of the living dead? Bela Lugosi’s undead head chattering tone on your iPhone?
    Let us pause and consider, let the catspaw torture the church mouse one more time, then we’ll jump in the river holding hands…
    “Judy Judy Judy”~Cary Grant

    1. Dear Mr. Rogue,
      What deeper meanings might one sift out from your “catspaw torturing of the church mouse?” A threat? A warning?

      Perhaps it has something to be with decibels, barely oats, and heavy grog in a goblet made of pewter. Lead poisoning? Pewter aka Lead. The stalk of the living dead? Bela Lugosi’s undead head chattering tone on your iPhone? Let us pause and consider, let the catspaw torture the church mouse one more time, then we’ll jump in the river holding hands…

      The Bridge circuit information is fascinating reading, particularly to those who understand it in- and out-of-context for the obvious and not-so-obvious meanings.
      Guess that rules you out. How can I be so sure? One only need look at your “ego links” to Coto2, where “the Roggie went missing” from the discussion.
      If your words were worthy of preserving particularly with respect to databases, websites, and blogs owned and maintained by others — some of whom are very antagonistic towards you –, you probably would have been clever enough to build yourself a bridge to your own legacy long ago.
      Take it from me: having a bridge to a legacy helps in so many ways, even if not advertised and for personal amusement [and reference links 🙂 and intended for family members not yet born.] Why, just the thought that your words will be preserved and re-purposed can be sufficient motivation to take the high-road (as much as possible) in the very words chosen while you are typing it. More “thinking twice before speaking once.”
      Know that it is one thing to cyber-stalk someone across a bridge, and yet another to publish personal information from the other side. The damage can be real [thanks to Google background checks in job searches]. And the motives for doing such unwarranted publishing are hardly ever pure. So be careful. Enough said.
      Pseudonyms and Anonymous Sourcing

      Writing under a pseudonym or pen name on political topics has a long and distinguished history going back to the Federalist Papers when Founders Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote under the pen name of Publius in the late 1700s.
      I believe that from a speech standpoint a pseudonym provides accountability. A person writes under her pen name and if called on misuse of facts or making stuff up can’t hide behind the “I didn’t say that” that anonymous blog commenters can.
      So I don’t think using a pen name is itself bad for public discourse. … Outing people is a form of Ad hominem attack to me. You don’t care about their facts or sources, you are arguing the writing shouldn’t be trusted because of the person hiding behind the pseudonyms.
      In a few specialized cases, this could be legitimate. For example, it would be worthwhile to know that a blog purporting to be from an American Jihadi was in fact written by Dick Cheney to try and scare us. Or if a blog purporting to be that of a homeless man trying to get by on the streets of New York was actually being written by George Soros. But unless the outing is to show the writer isn’t in a position to know what he’s writing about, it’s not useful or conducive to public debate.
      ~ alaskanlibrarian

      Against Outing (Most) Anonymous Bloggers

      It is rash, uncharitable actions like the outing of Publius by Ed Whalen that prevents us all from enjoying the thoughts of countless folks who don’t blog because anonymity is prone to leak. This isn’t to say that anonymous blogging hasn’t any downsides, or that outing is wrong in all circumstances. In this case, however, the cost Mr. Whalen imposed on us all seems to come without any benefit to anyone save himself. I hope that the next time anyone decides to out an anonymous blogger, they’ve met a far higher threshold than is the case in this instance.
      ~ Conor Friedersdorf

      On outing anonymous bloggers

      People who blog anonymously have a moral responsibility not to abuse their privilege by making nasty personal attacks against others from behind the mask of anonymity. If you do abuse that, I don’t feel sorry for you if you’re outed. On the other hand, I think bloggers who out pseudonymous bloggers are, as a general matter, doing us all a grave disservice, by making it harder for people who have interesting things to say but who cannot say them under their own name (for professional or personal reasons) to get their ideas into public conversation. Bottom line: if you are going to out an anonymous blogger, you’d better have a very, very good reason for doing so, because the damage you can do to that person’s career, and to the online public square, can be real and irreversible.
      ~ Rod Dreber


  37. Let me see now, there seems to be a volunteer here claiming to be “outed” in some way.
    But the question under the catspaw is; is the “real name” the real name? Is that not obvious to all having their Dick Tracy decoder ring?
    As far as my “legacy” at C2, which stands for COTO 2, officially under the title of COTO Report, is nothing that can be gleaned from the thread herein proffered, as I said, the Amazon treatment was given to me by the person running this bogus COTO site, which has a complex history. But I will recount some part of it here.
    There were several 9/11 threads running on C2 at the time, not just the one about Rodriguez. There was also a discussion on C1 that this character, “ieaffiliates” showed up on. Also someone was tampering with the Rodriguez thread – showing some expertise with hacking. This person turns out to be a dentist, who had backed up ieaffiliates {also posting as Shooter} on the C1 thread, where I had ‘dashboard’ control. So I was able to get the second parties email address used to post on my thread at C1. He was using his office email to post there. I tracked that email to his actual office as all the info was in the email address.
    I deduced that this dentist was the one tampering with the C1 thread when he was able to delete his posts on C1. No one can delete the posts on wordpress other than the administrator in charge of the dashboard. Do you comprehend this situation so far?
    Someone was rearranging the postings on the C2 Rodriguez. This was done to advance the cause of “shooter/ieaffiliates”. It seemed reasonable to conclude that the party doing this was the dentist capable of hacking my thread on C1.
    Back to C2, on one of the other 9/11 threads current at the time {one by Woodworth}, Shooter was making nasty remarks there as well. On that specific thread, I posted a message to Shooter that I knew who was messing with the threads, and that if it happened again I would post the party’s name email and address, also mentioning I knew the physical address. I posted this as a warning, mentioning that this hacking was illegal and could be proven, as I had save the before and after C1 posts that were taken down from outside.
    At this point there are considerations to be made to motivations. Rady the C2 administrator had just put in a Paypal type button, and was hoping to make some money off of her site.
    She was especially sensitive to the “Rules” of WordPress, and was frankly acting a bit paranoid about everything at that point. She had been out of paying work for months and had used up her unemployment and was apparently desperate.
    She emailed me that as far as she was concerned I had made a “threat” to Shooter. I was of course quite astonished at this allegation, as the history thus far seems to me to indicate that I was not making a “threat” but giving a warning as to what could reasonable construed as illegal activity on the part of this association of 9/11 debunkers revolving around ieaffiliates, I.E.Affiliates, turns out to be an insurance agency. I had their web site on record as well.
    Anyway in this email from Rady she said I was banned for making personal threats. And by the time I logged back on to C2 I found she had deleted every single comment AND essay I had written there; the Memory Hole treatment.
    So “the Roggie went missing” from the discussion because of the panic of the moderator.
    Now, as far as characterizing what I wrote on C2 as a “threat” – I see this on the same terms as Homeland Security characterizing blogs such as these as “threats”. As if we are advocating armed rebellion or violence. Neither are we doing that, nor was I ‘threatening’ Shooter/Affiliates with physical harm, but was warning of possibly pursuing the legal aspects of hacking.
    And continuing in that vein, if Señor is also tending towards a hysterical reaction to my post on electrical bridges, he is as fruitloops as Rady Ananda.
    I do not believe that which he promotes as his actual name is his real name. I don’t really care one way or the other, I just don’t believe it as it is too coincidental as per the electrical system moniker.
    What ever harms might be forthcoming from this are, again a matter of hysterics and paranoia. In the first place that “Name” is well known and mentioned in a thread here {36 Truthers} – so any claim that I have ‘outed” Señor is absurd.
    But I DO wish to thank him for being so REACTIONARY in his response to my subtle strategy of tension, by in effect standing up and going; “Me me, Willy is talking about me here…see everybody? He’s talking about ME…and I wanted to remain anonymous.”
    How fricking stupid is THAT?
    Jump in the river alone Señor, from your ‘high bridge’.

  38. And I DO have the Last Man Out thread with my commentary saved to file.
    Up to the 347 comments mark. Which is just before Kuntananda purged my commentary.
    hybridrogue1 | September 12, 2011 at 11:12 pm | Reply
    You are a dolt affiliater. Take this one off too, we are on to you.

  39. I also was commenting on the posting Hybridrogue1 is mentioning here and my commentary is also gone as are others contesting the debunkers. That posting lasted for almost a year and went for 771 comments until we figured out how to steer it onto a dead end siding. What’s with that, as Rogue mentioned, he was in the throws of outing them and it appears that his methodology was misconstrued. My objection is, what’s with the censorship, I think the host took it personal. On an open forum, censorship sets a bad precedent

  40. For the information of Señor Curiosoto,
    I do not now, nor have I ever lived in Florida. I stayed with my father in Florida for a couple of months back in 1980 or there about. I have not now nor ever had any business or interest in one in Florida.
    I will no longer reply to email messages from Señor. I am not in the slightest interested in his real name. I hope this is clear.

  41. Let me make my position absolutely clear. I have stated that I will no longer deal with Señor by back channel emails. This is for the reason of open disclosure of any and everything said to and about each other. I will also note that is my intention to speak in the third person, rather than ‘debate’ Señor directly as it is my firm opinion that Señor is a pretender who uses disingenuous argumentation. I also think that direct one on one with Señor is more likely to lead to long flame wars between us.
    I have objected before and will continue to object to Señor’s habit of posting long essay length commentary, rather than making clear single focused points that can be dealt with without a continuing cutting off the fat to get to the core of the argument.
    Señor has “hoped” in the last correspondence that I will not only ‘filter’ any of his future emails, but that I would not confront him on this forum either. This ‘hope’ is in vain. As I have stated herein, I will do my best not to confront him directly – but I certainly WILL address any and all errors, misconceptions, slanders, and any other issues that appear on these pages concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot.
    In General:
    I have become distressed that the New Wave 9/11 movement has cast the original movement in an equal light as the Official Story – framing their arguments as if the works of the original activists fighting for truth about 9/11 is in itself the ‘Official Story’. I have noticed the similarity, and at times the precise arguments originally made by the Mainstream to by now regurgitated by this New Wave 9/11.
    Just recently I listened to a debate on web/radio between Richard Gage and Dave Thomas. I was struck by the similarity of Thomas’ argumentation and much of what I read and hear from the New Wave 9/11 personalities.
    During the debate with Gage, the host asked Thomas if the magazine Skeptical Inquirer is a ‘peer reviewed’ journal, like the Bentham journal* Thomas lied when he claimed that yes it is. The Skeptical Inquirer is clearly NOT a ‘peer reviewed journal’.
    Thomas also brought up the controversy of editors quitting Bentham over the Harrit peer reviewed paper at Bentham, which was an obviously politically inspired ruse to dispoil the science, plus the fact that another Bentham journal let a hoax slip by is a red-herring. It is simply a smear, and is in fact a technique to avoid discussion of the science. {This same techniques on this very issue is used by Fetzer and others to debunk the thermite paper of Harrit and Jones}
    Thomas also cites the test filmed at ‘Tech’, but fails to acknowledge the experiments of Jon Cole which proves conclusively that simple thermite can cut such steel beams in mere seconds.
    I think it is therefore in the interest of all who are seeking the truth of 9/11 to be very careful when assessing the arguments made against the controlled demolition proposition, which are now being steered to mimic the very arguments initially made by JREF and other so-called “skeptics’.
    Again, it is my firm conviction that the New Wave assertions to do with, ‘No-Planes’ ‘Video Fakery’ ‘Holograms’ ‘Nukes’ ‘Dew’ and the hybrid ‘NookieDew’ are very likely a COINTELPRO type counter intelligence operation being played against the movement and truth itself.

    1. When Mr. Rogue isn’t successful at defeating the message, he attacks the messenger. Who likes to use such techniques? Mr. Rogue writes:

      It is my firm opinion that Señor is a pretender who uses disingenuous argumentation.

      “Oooo-oh yes, I’m the great pretender…”
      [Colored girls sing] “woo-woo”

      Ah, but the “diningenuous argumentation”? That’s in Mr. Rogue’s playbook, not mine. Mr. Rogue purposely tries to assign his debate techniques to me. Here’s previous example of such a Rogue play that I call “operating dishonestly: the [no-nookie lord] doth protest too much, methinks.”.
      If Mr. Rogue can find instances where I have used “diningenuous argumentation” (and that themselves don’t unravel to be Mr. Rogue’s “diningenuous argumentation” as happens regularly), he should point them out with links, so that I can apologize and correct the matter. I do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on these matters, and want to be set straight with properly applied science to all of the 9/11 evidence.

      I also think that direct one on one with Señor is more likely to lead to long flame wars between us.

      No, unlikely. Mr. Rogue has attempted flame wars both on-list and off-list many times. The only real flames with any regularity came from Mr. Rogue’s keyboard.
      [Disclaimer: I did rather recently attempt some Mr. Rogue-style “ad hominem” and acknowledge how fun & addictive it is. But that’s not my style; it’s all Mr. Rogue’s. Of coure, I have often called Mr. Rogue an agent, but I do so while documenting why it was MHO to the best of my ability with suppositional & guesswork substantiation based on Mr. Rogue’s own actions and inactions. (To list an example of the latter will result in Mr. Rogue’s nose figurately getting bloodied by his copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook that — like an agent — he avoids objectively reviewing for nuggets of truth. His analysis of Mr. Prager’s dust work runs parallel to Dr. Wood.)]

      I have objected before and will continue to object to Señor’s habit of posting long essay length commentary, rather than making clear single focused points that can be dealt with without a continuing cutting off the fat to get to the core of the argument.

      Such a nonsense philosophy. My “long essay length commentary” are so much easier to ignore, and don’t flood the forum. And they are also so much easier to respond to: point-by-point. The key is to copy it off-line so that a discussion participant has better control of the authoring process before pasting it back in. This advice applies whether all points are being addressed, or only a few salient ones while attempting “to trim the fat.”
      What Mr. Rogue doesn’t mention is his alternative to my “long essay length commentary”: lots of tiny postings, sometimes several in a row, designed to distract, detour, and fork, but not to make a comprehensive argument. They are too often shot from the hip in a shot-gun pattern just to see what sticks.
      Mr. Rogue is welcome to object all he wants, because he’ll stoop to anything to avoid drafting a point-by-point as well as “trimmed fat” response.

      Señor has “hoped” in the last correspondence that I will not only ‘filter’ any of his future emails, but that I would not confront him on this forum either. This ‘hope’ is in vain.

      Mr. Rogue has his Q-group assignment, and evidently I am it and have been it since January 2012. Despite numerous promises to not engage me — an admitted “bat-shit crazy duped useful idiot” –, Mr. Rogue has always felt duty-bound to ignore his personal promises and come right back at me with his unobjective and dubious arguments. How “bat-shit crazy” is that, versus how much is agenda-driven?

      As I have stated herein, I will do my best not to confront him directly – but I certainly WILL address any and all errors, misconceptions, slanders, and any other issues that appear on these pages concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot.

      Certainly… If Mr. Rogue can find it, and if his work doesn’t get held up as a great example of being exactly that which he would confront. For example, just recently Mr. Rogue accused me of belittling Professor Jones (slander). I demanded for substantiation of such, if for no other reason so I could apologize. Guess what? Mr. Rogue’s responses had no exact quotations (nor any URLs) from me that would prove such a charge. The slander/libel charge doesn’t apply to me, but does come closer to fitting Mr. Rogue’s shoe.
      I would be grateful for Mr. Rogue (or anyone) pointing out my “errors, misconceptions, … and any other issues.” Repeatedly in these forums, most of the above were on Mr. Rogue’s side of the debate fence. So what we’re seeing here is either another example of Mr. Rogue’s failing short-term memory or a crafty PR hypnotic psy-op to re-frame our 10-month history on Truth & Shadows. Even funnier:
      Thank you, Mr. Rogue, for making it crystal clear what your duty in life is: “I certainly WILL address any and all errors, misconceptions, slanders, and any other issues that appear on these pages concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot.” I’ve known that all along. Who gave you this assignment?
      No need to wrap this duped useful idiot in with your “New Wave 9/11 movement”. Sure, I might “regurgitate” a thing or two when brought to my attention, but because my focus has always been on nuggets of truth, very quickly the dross gets cooked off and the fake nuggets expelled.
      Speaking of fake nuggets, here’s one from Mr. Rogue himself:

      The experiments of Jon Cole … proves conclusively that simple thermite can cut such steel beams in mere seconds.

      Not that the above isn’t true; it isn’t applicable to the observed destruction of the WTC. The towers came down in mere seconds total time, which makes simple thermite not a plausible option for explaining what was observed. So when things are added to thermite to really crank down the activation time into the needed in mere milli or micro seconds to achieve the total collapse time, what you are left with is a destructive mechanism that cannot account for the lengthy duration of under-rubble hot-spots without obscenely large quantities that are allegedly unspent from the pulverization. Can’t have it both ways with such chemcial means.
      I don’t know about other readers, but I consider this to be “errors and misconceptions” from Mr. Rogue that he keeps promoting… while at the same time getting stuck in the waffle treads of his black paratrooper boots lots of “neu nookiedoo” for which the evidence is becoming clearer and clearer.

      I think it is therefore in the interest of all who are seeking the truth of 9/11 to be very careful when assessing the arguments made against the controlled demolition proposition, which are now being steered to mimic the very arguments initially made by JREF and other so-called “skeptics’.

      Indeed. And also “be very careful when assessing the arguments made for the controlled demolition proposition” that suggest conventional (and exotic) chemical mechanisms that can answer neither to the physics nor to the wealth of anomalous evidence (the fire damaged vehicles).

      Again, it is my firm conviction that the New Wave assertions to do with, ‘No-Planes’ ‘Video Fakery’ ‘Holograms’ ‘Nukes’ ‘Dew’ and the hybrid ‘NookieDew’ are very likely a COINTELPRO type counter intelligence operation being played against the movement and truth itself.

      Whew! What a relief!
      Mr. Rogue didn’t mention “neu nookiedoo”, which is a bastardization of his coinage meant to belittle neutron nuclear DEW (directed energy weapons), which might actually go by ERW (enhanced radiation weapons). Thus, “neu nookiedoo” is still on the table, and I have no problems not only agreeing with Mr. Rogue’s paragraph above but also pointing out from Mr. Rogue’s frame his own “very likely COINTELPRO type counter intelligence operation”.
      Before closing, allow me to express my thanks to Mr. Rogue for providing not only another opportunity for me to respond with “neu nookiedoo” “shit slipped in sideways,” but also insight into his marching orders: “I certainly WILL address any and all … issues that appear on these pages concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot.” Were they not so, he could easily just STFU, STOP, move on to other participants, and let my have the final bat-shit crazy word on my hobby-horse topic.
      Final word (so far), readers should be “concerned” about the phrasing from Mr. Rogue “concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot,” particularly when a couple of Mr. Rogue’s postings over the last couple of days have attempted to turn discussion on me — the person with valid reasons for hiding behind online aliases — and not on my neu nookiedoo message or any alleged “errors, misconceptions, and any other issues” contained therein.
      // pretending to be shocked about Mr. Rogue COINTELPRO

  42. The assertion that I have not defeated the message and therefore “attack the messenger”, is merely a figment of Señor’s own fevered imagination.
    It is my position that neither Señor, nor the parties he cites have come even close, let alone proven the nuclear hypothesis. As far as Judy Judy Judy, I see her as totally out of the running as far as responsible scientific inquiry is concerned…chicken McNuggets aside.
    It is true, I am not making an argument against all of these New Wave assertions at the present moment. I am not providing URL flashbacks to what is so readily available to anyone on the forum to locate within the threads of this forum. This is so because I sincerely believe that no one else here really gives a shit about the squabbles so far.
    Nevertheless, as we go forward we shall see. There is the proper time and place for all of this.
    One last note, the assertions that I have “orders” other than my own lights is the sort of subtle ad hominem of a sneaky slippery creature. When I make a flame it is easily recognized as direct and purposeful.

    1. In composing this response to Mr. Rogue, I first copied his text from the forum into my editor. I put <blockquote> and </blockquote> bookends around each paragraph (or sentence) that I was going to address. And then I composed my response to each one. Mr. Rogue should take a lesson from this, because this is how a worthy participant to this discussion should handle my book-length postings.

      The assertion that I have not defeated the message and therefore “attack the messenger”, is merely a figment of Señor’s own fevered imagination.

      My “own fevered imagination” sees a figment on October 4, 2012 – 4:46 pm, which has two notable features. (1) It points out that Mr. Rogue drops PR hypnotic suggestions regarding the invalidity of “neu nookiedoo” concepts and that Mr. Rogue doesn’t substantiate this — nor has he ever. (2) That would have been my last posting on this thread, until Mr. Rogue used his “strategy of tension” on October 17, 2012 – 2:25 pm to drag me back into the discussion in a veiled and underhanded manner whose purpose was to go after me — a proven real person albeit a “duped useful idiot” — as opposed to the bat-shit crazy neu nookiedoo that I champion.

      It is my position that neither Señor, nor the parties he cites have come even close, let alone proven the nuclear hypothesis. As far as Judy Judy Judy, I see her as totally out of the running as far as responsible scientific inquiry is concerned…chicken McNuggets aside.

      If there be any truth to Mr. Rogue’s assertion, it will be based on the undisputed facts that: (1) Mr. Rogue has not read cover-to-cover “Judy, Judy, Judy” to offer his chapter-by-chapter good, bad, and ugly review, nor can he cough up any source within the 9/11 Truth Movement that has done so either; (2) Ditto for the review of Jeff Prager’s Dust Analysis; (3) Mr. Rogue is crippled in his reviews by not being to write from his own understanding, but is overly reliant on others who themselves have minor issues and skew in their works.

      It is true, I am not making an argument against all of these New Wave assertions at the present moment.

      So why has Mr. Rogue repeatedly in this thread alone dropped his PR hypnotic statements on the matter?

      I am not providing URL flashbacks to what is so readily available to anyone on the forum to locate within the threads of this forum.

      Such a cop-out and a devious trick. Mr. Rogue is notorious for saying “I defeated you on subject X, so no sense repeating it,” when in reality he did not and any URL links he would provide (assuming he had the smarts to figure out how to get them since Mr. McKee’s redesign) would not substantiate his assertion. And my links end up putting the icing on the falsity of his assertions.

      This is so because I sincerely believe that no one else here really gives a shit about the squabbles so far.

      Mr. Rogue acts like he doesn’t give a shit either, yet his postings here and the PR hypnotic suggestions he drops tell another story.

      Nevertheless, as we go forward we shall see. There is the proper time and place for all of this.

      Mr. Rogue knows what he must do: “Judy, Judy, Judy” and “Jeff, Jeff, Jeff” and “good, bad, and ugly.” Anything that doesn’t have the fortitude to acknowledge the “good” nuggets of truth — however few and far between [or thick & plentiful] they might be — will discredit Mr. Rogue.

      One last note, the assertions that I have “orders” other than my own lights is the sort of subtle ad hominem of a sneaky slippery creature. When I make a flame it is easily recognized as direct and purposeful.

      Whether “direct and purposeful” such as his “Goober impersonating Cary Grant”, Mr. Rogue shouldn’t be flaming at all, period. Not very becoming.
      “Subtle ad hominem of a sneaky slippery creature?” Evidently, Mr. Rogue references me as the “sneaky slippery creature” in his “direct and purposeful” flaming manner, which I think is mostly because how how the high road protects.
      But if I have been too “subtle”, I will amend that. However, when someone demonstrates talents and traits of a farmer, a mechanic, a plumber, an artist, an engineer, etc., it is not “ad hominem” to call them such. Of course, some professions require more demonstrations and more proof before one can be sure, such as it is with being a “Sunstein Agent” (or Q-Groupie, etc.) to infiltrate online forums.
      I know many participants like Mr. Rogue and find many of his contributions to T&S agreeable. Even I will admit to this. Alas, it fits into the meme of “establishing his legend as a 9/11 Truther”, so that he’ll get a get a pass from others when he must act (ruthlessly) on his true agenda:

      As I have stated herein, I will do my best not to confront him directly – but I certainly WILL address any and all errors, misconceptions, slanders, and any other issues that appear on these pages concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot.

      If I am the “duped useful idiot”, why so much attention? Worse, it is attention that has been rather constant with a high frequency since Mr. Rogue’s entrance into this forum in January 2012. I’m not complaining too much, because they were opportunities for me to “feed the sheep” and help bore into (nuggets of) truth that I would have been unable to do otherwise.
      I’ve got other things to do this weekend (like clean the gutters), so I will refrain from listing every detail and suspicion I have that makes Mr. Rogue an agent in my mind. But I will drop two seeds regarding Mr. Rogue’s online legacy for others to explore. These are my fresh words:

      Mr. Rogue claims to have been a very vocal person on the 9/11 conspiracy meme since its early days, now eleven years passed. When queried where one could find his writings, he didn’t offer many links and waved his hand in the air “COTO” [which then necessitated him spelling it out “Coalition of the Obvious” so it could be googled along with names and aliases.] When one extrapolates Mr. Rogue’s frequency and fervor in postings on T&S backwards to COTO, COTO2, his blog, what can be googled… his online legacy becomes very thin very quickly. He bragged about writing great things that, as luck would have it, got zapped from databases. [It does happen, even to me.] One would think that when he saw other posters get deleted from his favorite online haunts, he would have been clever enough to preserve his worthy words himself. He wasn’t. When he was bumped from various places, one would think he would have used his blog (established 2009) to compensate. He didn’t. All writers have egos; they want their words to be read, just like visual artists want their works to be appreciated. Mr. Rogue certainly has an ego, but such a thin portfolio of what would be required to back up his words of having written lots of words.

      The above is just a couple of tiny seeds. His thin legacy by itself means nothing, except when couple with his big bragging mouth that offered countradictory words regarding his online activism.
      The real kicker for me has always been his reaction and handling of “Judy, Judy, Judy” (and now also “Jeff, Jeff, Jeff”). How many months did he try to pass of his book review of Dr. Wood WITHOUT having her book? Then after I called his bluff and got the book into hands for the purposes of an objective review (good, bad, and ugly), he hasn’t changed his tune in the least. In fact, he hasn’t acknowledged one good thing from reading or skimming her book that he didn’t know before. And to keep his opinions in the rut they were in, he coughs up alternatives that he doggedly won’t admit have deficiencies in adding up.

  43. Spot on with this write-up, I really believe that this amazing site needs a lot more attention.
    I’ll probably be back again to see more, thanks for the info!

  44. Hi OSS! (Hope you’re still around but haven’t seen much online here and elsewhere lately.)
    Hell- this reply is about 2.5 years old now. Speaking of my “CIT-bashers’ handbook” @911oz & some of the above-mentioned groups, fora, entities, etc. let’s take a little inventory of the “propaganda team” in hindsight shall we?
    TrueFaction forum: MIA/KIA
    JREF forum: KIA (but back as another Hydra’s head as some Int’l skepter forum- kind of fun to read about the demise IMHO)
    911oz forum: MIA/KIA
    (see my links posted FAR above in this article’s group of comments)
    “Arabesque”: MIA/KIA (cough.. cough.. “Jim Hoffman…)
    Incomplete list (but very interesting in retrospect.)

      1. Some of my past work has involved New Zealanders somewhat closely. My understanding is that they have a negative/zero immigration policy still in effect. WHO would “Cosmos’ ” SPONSOR have been?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *