The Pentagon lawn shows no sign of a 757 impact with the building.
December 1, 2017
By John O’Malley (Special to Truth and Shadows)
At the Pentagon on 9/11, the plane did not fit the hole, there was no wreckage of a large plane outside the hole, and the lawn that should have been dug up by the engines was pristine. How stupid do they think we are?
My view of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 is influenced by my background in aerospace and the fact that I used to work in the very part of the building that was destroyed. Fortunately for me, I was no longer working there on September 11, 2001, or I might not be typing this now.
The first thing that is important to know is that security in the Pentagon is exceptionally tight. One day when I was working there, I did something with a package that someone thought was suspicious. Within less than a minute a man was at my side to investigate me. I showed him my credentials and explained what I was doing. He thanked me and left. He was very polite and courteous. The point of this is that there are video cameras all over the Pentagon and surrounding area. They watch and record everything, as would be expected in a highly secure area.
If an actual 757 had hit the Pentagon on 9/11, we would have been shown videos of it hitting the Pentagon. These videos would be shown ad nauseam on the controlled news stations just like the planes hitting the Twin Towers. I think the reason they will not show the videos is that they would not show a 757 airliner, and their official story would crumble. (If I have to guess, I would say the photographic evidence is consistent with a cruise missile with a carbon fiber composite fuselage – but it is clearly not a 757, as I explain below.) After all these years and an FOIA request and legal suit by Judicial Watch, the FBI still will not release the videos. Why did a federal judge allow the FBI to commit this apparent crime of obstruction of justice?
When I worked in aerospace, I looked at many pictures of aircraft crash sites, more than I can count. When you look at an aircraft crash site you will usually see the engines and the tail section. Twin-engine aircraft (one engine under each wing) have a design requirement that the aircraft can operate on only one engine. This is so that if one engine stops working, the pilot can navigate to the closest airport and land safely. This sometimes happens. This design requirement drives two design features:
-
There were supposed to be two of these.
These engines have to be huge. Each engine by itself has to be able to power the aircraft. The diameter of these engines is about eight or nine feet. In addition, the engines will not melt in the crash fire because they are made of temperature-resistant materials. The reason we were not able to develop usable turbine engines until the 1950s was because of the difficulty of developing engine components that would not melt at high temperatures. Unlike your car, which has a cooling system with a radiator, a turbine engine cannot have a cooling system because the engine is spinning at high speed. In the 1950s they were able to develop a titanium steel alloy that could operate at high temperatures without melting. When I was working with turbine engines back in the 1980s, there was research into the use of ceramics because of the problem of developing temperature-resistant materials for components in turbine engines. Ceramics can operate at very high temperatures without melting. They are always trying to develop more temperature-resistant materials for turbine engines, so the engines can run hotter. This is because the power of the engine comes from the expansion of the gas. The hotter the engine runs, the more gas expansion and the more power from the engine. These engines are made from materials that will not melt or vaporize in a crash fire.
-
The tail would have been visible on the lawn.
The tail section has to be very large. This is because when the plane is flying on just one engine, the tail fin has to compensate; otherwise you could only fly in circles. The tail section of a 757 is about 44 feet tall, which is about the height of a four-story building. If you crash a car into a brick wall at sixty miles per hour, the front of the car will be demolished but the rear of the car will be relatively undamaged. Planes are the same. The front of the plane serves as a crumple zone for the rear of the plane. This is why the “black box” is located in the tail section of the plane. This is why passengers in the rear of the plane may survive but the pilots are usually killed in a crash.
If a 757 really did fly into the Pentagon, the pictures would show the remnants of two large engines with corresponding holes in the building and evidence of damage from the large tail section.
I believe the evidence is inconsistent with a large 757 with an aluminum fuselage hitting the Pentagon on 9/11. How could an enormous plane hit the Pentagon and not produce an enormous amount of plane wreckage or holes consistent with the two engines? I suspect, but cannot prove, that some of what appears to be remnants of an aluminum fuselage may have been planted. Unlike a 757 mechanic, I do not have the knowledge to determine if the pictures from the crash site show wreckage of a 757 or a different aircraft.
The lawn:
When you design aircraft, it is desirable to make the center of mass lower than the center of lift. This increases flight stability. This is a part of a design goal that the plane should fly straight and level in the event of a control failure of control surfaces due to a loss of hydraulic pressure. An engine is a very heavy component of a plane. This is why they always try to locate the engines as low as possible in relation to the wings. The engines of a 757 are located low for this reason. If you land with the landing gear up, the engines will hit the ground. The pictures of the Pentagon alleged crash site show a pristine lawn. It appears that a 757 with the landing gear up did not crash land on that lawn.
Pentagon topography changes:
It might be helpful to use something like Google maps to understand the following. The Pentagon is divided into five wedges. When I worked in the Pentagon (in Wedge 1), I would often walk on the sidewalk along the west side of the building. On a spring or fall morning with the birds singing, it could be a pleasant walk. Wedge 1 was where the “flying object” is alleged to have hit on 9/11. When on that sidewalk, I used to sometimes stop and watch a Blackhawk helicopter land at the heliport, where the 9/11 Memorial is today. If I had been on that sidewalk during the morning of 9/11, I might have been killed.
The sidewalk was separated from the building by a flat and level lawn. On this lawn were the heliport and the small control tower. There was a small chain-link fence about 40 inches high on the edge of this lawn next to the sidewalk.
This shows the level of the floor of the building’s first floor in comparison to the level of lawn that would have been dug up by the engines of a 757 hitting the first floor.
If you visit that part of the Pentagon now, you will notice that they have removed much dirt from that area of the building. It would be much easier to walk from south parking to the west side of the building now, because there is no longer that steep hill. It is a more gradual slope. If you are outside the exterior wall now, your feet would be much lower than the feet of someone standing inside the building.
The point of this is that the changes to the topography near Wedge 1 seem to be a part of the cover-up. This was probably done because without these changes to the topography, the physical impossibility of the official story would be more obvious to more people. If the nose of a Boeing 757 hit the first floor, the engines would have gouged ruts in the lawn. The pictures show a pristine lawn. That is why they had to remove the dirt to lower the level of the lawn outside the building. I would guess the contractors who removed that dirt did not know the real reason for their job. (It is also worth noting, perhaps, that the Navy Annex and Citgo station have been torn down, which further changes aspects of the Pentagon surroundings that came into play on 9/11.)
Eyewitnesses:
One of the principles of running a disinformation campaign is that it is necessary to get your idea into the public’s mind as early as possible. This is because ideas have stickiness. Once a person gets an idea into his or her head, it becomes difficult to change their mind. Eyewitness accounts are used for this purpose. We can assume there were “disinformation agents” posing as “eyewitnesses” in the 9/11 operation. Having worked in aerospace, I think it would be difficult to accurately identify, from a distance and in just a few seconds, an unexpected 757 traveling around 400 miles per hour.
Many of us see evidence of a multi-threaded disinformation campaign waged for the purpose of muddying the waters about the Pentagon in order to create as much confusion as possible. (And many suspect the large-plane-impact hypothesis at the Pentagon is a part of this.) This is an old CIA tactic. For this reason, we should be hesitant to accept any information from any eyewitness.
Disinformation campaigns, like the one at the Pentagon, have telltale characteristics. Most have at their core one or more absurdities; this is how you know it is a disinformation campaign. They try to use a trusted source, so the public will believe the false information. They use multiple sources and repetition to bombard the public from all directions. Sometimes they insert nuggets of truth to gain credibility. The people delivering the information seem to be too smart to believe what they are telling you. They will never renounce their story and will use the technique of ridicule against anyone who disagrees with them. Trying to argue with these people is a waste of time.
We may never know exactly what happened at the Pentagon that day because the cover-up has kept much evidence from being seen and studied. But one thing is very clear: the evidence contradicts the claim of a 757 impact with the building, and therefore the official story cannot be true.
Hi Mr. O’Malley,
Awesome write-up. Thanks!
When you say that you worked in Aerospace, could you be a little bit more specific as to what your job entailed?
aerodynamic analysis of flight test data in defense aerospace
I am very glad to see this article. It is well written and it makes sense to me.
However, there seems to be a new push on disinformation and I wonder about the people who wrote it and the list of “scientific” papers at the end: John D. Wyndham, Frank Legge, David Chandler, Ken Jenkins, Warren Stutt, Victoria Ashley, Jim Hoffman.
Are they delusional? Or have they sold out? Does anyone have any information on these people and how they changed their minds?
This is the article from Foreign Policy Journal: “Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016”
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/
With the right carrots and sticks, anyone will “change their minds.” For those who don’t want to go to the link, here is the complete list (from the bottom of the above referenced dis-info piece) of everyone in the truth movement who believes that a large plane hit the Pentagon.
Do you see how small and incestuous this group is? They always cite and praise each other, and by waving their hands around wildly, they try to look much larger than they are.
Acknowledgments
This article is based on the research and writings of the following authors: Victoria Ashley, David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, Jim Hoffman, Ken Jenkins, Frank Legge, Warren Stutt and John D. Wyndham. These writings point to many other researchers, such as Adam Larson, Russell Pickering, John Farmer and Arabesque, who have contributed to an understanding of the Pentagon evidence.
The author of this article would like to thank David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, and Ken Jenkins for reading the manuscript and offering useful comments and suggestions.
Additional Reading – Websites, Papers, Articles and Videos
Websites and Owners/Sponsors
The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows – Jim Hoffman
Pentagon Attack Errors – Jim Hoffman
Evidence: The Pentagon Attack – Victoria Ashley
The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras – Ken Jenkins
The Pentagon – A joint statement – David Chandler and Jonathan H. Cole
The Science of 9/11, Pentagon – Frank Legge
Warren Stutt’s Home Page – Warren Stutt
Papers on the Pentagon – Scientists for 9/11 Truth, various scientists
Papers on the Pentagon – Scientific Method 9/11, John D. Wyndham
Papers
Frank Legge, “What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, July, 2009.
David Chandler (based on Ken Jenkins), “Blink Comparator Views of the Plane at the Pentagon,” 911Speakout.org, 2016.
Frank Legge, and Warren Stutt, “Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path…“, Journal of 9/11 Studies, January, 2011.
Frank Legge and David Chandler, “The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path,” STJ911.org, September, 2011 and its Addendum, Foreign Policy Journal, December, 2011.
John D. Wyndham, “The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, November, 2011. Revised version (3), ScientificMethod9/11.org, April, 2016.
Frank Legge, “The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, June, 2012.
John D. Wyndham, “The Pentagon Attack: The Event Time Revisited,” ScientificMethod9/11.org, March, 2013.
John D. Wyndham, “The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues – A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman,” ScientificMethod9/11.org, April, 2013.
Victoria Ashley et al., “The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted,” ScientificMethod9/11.org, April, 2016.
Articles and Videos
Jim Hoffman, “Pentagon – Exterior Impact Damage,” 911Review.com, February, 2003.
Jim Hoffman, “The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics,” 911Research.WTC7.net, November, 2004.
Victoria Ashley, “To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’,” 911Review.com, July, 2009.
Jim Hoffman, “Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce,” 911Research.WTC7.net, July, 2009.
Frank Legge, “Science, Activism, and the Pentagon Debate,” Scientistsfor911Truth.org, April, 2014.
Ken Jenkins and David Chandler: “Pentagon Plane Puzzle + David Chandler: Going Beyond Speculation,” YouTube, September, 2015.
Frank Legge and Ken Jenkins, “Why Not Use a Plane?,” Scientistsfor911Truth.org, January, 2016.
The effect – turmix – shows that an airplane can not fly at ground level.
Link added to “When are The Flights Not The Right Flights on September 11th 2001”
http://911truthout.blogspot.com/2017/11/when-is-flights-not-right-flights-on.html thanks
Nice job John! However I disagree with you about eye witnesses for two reasons.
One is that eyewitnesses contradicting the official story are far more credible than eyewitnesses confirming it, because the former don’t have the resources to organize a disinformation campaign. It is easy for the Deep State to hire actors or induce high-level people to repeat their talking points and get them interviewed on TV, but it would be far more challenging for you or I to accomplish that.
The second point is that I do believe that eyewitnesses have credibility if there are a large number of them saying the same thing. Have you ever heard of the Phoenix Lights? Thousands of people in Arizona, Nevada and Mexico witnessed a mammoth UFO moving through the sky overhead. It sounds unbelievable, but the unbelievable becomes believable when so many ordinary people tell exactly the same story.
When you have a large number of witnesses who report seeing something that contradicts the official story, it should be taken seriously.
Sheila, your point is well taken.
Anyone, I’d like to see pictures of area around the Pentagon that John could walk on and see how it was changed from before, specifically how it could be one part of a cover-up. This is the kind of attention to detail that makes an important point.
What John is saying in the article is that the first floor of the building now looks higher than before relative to the lawn. So if you looked today you might be able to imagine how a plane could hit the first floor without the engines gouging the lawn. But in 2001 this would have been impossible.
I know, Craig. I am asking for picture verification, before and after. Doesn’t anyone have them?
Good question. I’ve seen aerial shots of the Pentagon but I don’t know if there are some closer to ground level that show what John is talking about. Perhaps I can check with him about this.
I found the flight path anomalies according to eye witnesses worth listening to – people rarely make a mistake about which direction they saw something – that skill is hard-wired into our hunter-gather genes. But what better way to dismiss the many key witnesses at the Citgo gas station than just demolish the gas station! What better way to reinforce a false flight path than make all the lines in a memorial park in that direction! What better way to get rid of that embarrassing pristine lawn issue than to just dig it all up right away and haul it to a landfill!
Google Earth can operate a bit like a wayback machine if you activate the historic satellite imagery, and there is a lot of strange things going on around that side of the Pentagon in the last two decades, especially underground, from where a missile might have been launched.
How do you “activate the historic satellite imagery”?
If you have the standalone GE app, not the in-browser version, then just click the clock in the toolbar and drag slider to left to go back in time. Always fascinating to see the changes!
You have nailed some key elements of disinformation campaigns succinctly. The whole article is succinct. The re-landscaping was news to me. As has often been said: “It’s the cover-up that trips them up.” Some disinformationists are tasked to cover up the cover-ups. Sowing confusion in a variety of ways and guises are tactic of such disinformationists. Another old saying comes to mind: “Bullshit baffles brains.”
John O’Malley’s powerful writing making the clear case that a missile and not a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11 provides yet more weight to the already immense argument that a new investigation is absolutely warranted and indeed a moral necessity.
Who amongst America’s 535 elected representatives from the 50 states possesses enough moral or spiritual courage and integrity to lead the charge in answering that unarguably urgent call for truth? How many more innocent men, women and children sharing this world have to perish before the criminal lies of 9/11 which caused their tragic deaths become revealed?
After more than sixteen years of immeasurably harmful 9/11-generated divisiveness at all levels of societies on the human spectrum, when will the brutal truth about 9/11 finally become rightly known, understood and acknowledged throughout the world?
It’ll never happen I’m because the foxes are guarding the henhouse. When you have a country where dual citizenship allows people into the highest level of government the system is broken.
Amen
Reblogged this on THE ONENESS of HUMANITY.
This is a comment section. You can post a comment that comes with a video. But just slapping down a link to a video tells us nothing. So make a comment.
You are a guest on this blog, and you will follow MY rules or you can buzz off. The links do not speak for themselves. I made it clear you could post them but not without some indication of what you are saying about them. So your charge of censorship is bullshit.
I seriously wonder what is wrong with you. Canadians? We’re the censorship lovers? I had not heard that. I will say this one last time. You have always been allowed to post a video by Ken Jenkins or David Chandler or anyone you like as long as it’s on topic. But you need to say WHY you are posting it. This isn’t Facebook. It’s odd to me that you want to link to a video without even having the courtesy to tell readers what you are saying about it. So, last chance. I really hope you say something that gives this control freak the opportunity to boot you.
I join all Canadian speech nazis in saying, “Bub-bye!”
Of Course Not Cruise Missiles with a paint job don’t have that Regardless of Paint Job.
What?
The lawn was shaved like the pool tables of Princeton. Shaved like the heads of the shave-tails who in that long line, vacuumed every inch clean of all confetti immediately post strike. No ‘crime-scene protection’ from the gum-shoes there.
Later carrying the counter narrative evidence out under blue tarpaulin..
later bringing in trucks of dirt to spread over the lawn in the most literal of coverups the world had ever seen.
Later presenting a video with the wrong date stamp.
Flight 77 is the magic bullet of nine one one.
.
http://emetgroupllc.com/
Try applying said “emet” to the goings on of the middle of the 20th Century see where that gets you.
I had some concerns when I seen bush get informed of the incident while he was sitting in the classroom the look on his face said he knew about it
Colin Powell had the same look on his face when he was addressing the you in about weapons of mass destruction Iraq Susan Rice had the same look on her face when she was covering up for Benghazi the only one that looks comfortable lying was Bush
That may have just been the moment he realized he had been completely deceived.
http://www.heliofant.com/index.html
“At the Pentagon on 9/11, the plane did not fit the hole, there was no wreckage of a large plane outside the hole, and the lawn that should have been dug up by the engines was pristine. How stupid do they think we are?”
1. The fact that the hole is not the exact size and shape the a plane is not unexpected. All of the most highly respected, professional, and credible 9-11 truth researchers agree that the *damage* is consistent with the impact of a 757 – as are eyewitness statements and plane debris..
2. If the plane didn’t make contact with the lawn, which is certainly possible, then obviously, the lawn wouldn’t have been dug up.
3. There was some wreckage from a large plane outside the Pentagon. You’re either unaware of the facts, or you’re deliberately misrepresenting them.
4. You call everyone who doesn’t share your misguided and long ago debunked personal opinion “stupid”. Again, that include the most highly respected, dedicated, credible, professional, and expert independent 9-11 truth researchers. This is very immature and unprofessional behavior. it’s also obviously very divisive, which appears to be your intent.
5. You claim that the absence of videos showing a plane strike is evidence that no plane hit the Pentagon. That’s very misleading and short sighted. The terrorists love to see truthers arguing over what hit the Pentagon over 15 years after the event. They planned it this way, which is why they confiscated the videos. Divide and conquer is a tried and true strategy. and you play right into it.
How do you imagine it helps the 9-11 truth movement when you post a highly controversial, divisive, poorly documented, and immature opinion piece that insults the most highly respected, credible, expert, and professional 9-11 truth researchers? What do you expect to accomplish, exactly?
A. THE PORT LEFT-SIDE ENGINE COULD NOT HAVE BOTH HIT THE 1ST-FLOOR CEMENT SLAB AND NOT HIT THE LAWN.
You say, “2. If the plane didn’t make contact with the lawn, which is certainly possible, then obviously, the lawn wouldn’t have been dug up.”
The problems with this are:
1) the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) says that the plane came in low and LEVEL and that the left-side engine hit the Pentagon at ground level – hitting the bottom floor cement floor. Yet, to do this it would have had to have hit the lawn first. No significant damage to the lawn in any photos proves that this is NOT what happened.
2) The ONLY way the port engine could have hit that cement slab WITHOUT hitting the lawn would have been if the plane (impossibly) dropped some feet in a split second despite all claims that its flight was level.
3) ALL fotos of the damage show ZERO damage to the cement floor slab. (Therefore the would-be left-side engine didn’t hit anything, either the lawn or the first-floor cement slab – both necessitated by the OCT.
Ergo, no OCT plane – something else did the damage.
—————
B. YOUR APPEAL TO AUTHORITY IS NOT A PRINCIPLED MEANS OF DEBATE:
You attempt to make another of your main points TWICE:
“1. The fact that the hole is not the exact size and shape the a plane is not unexpected. All of the most highly respected, professional, and credible 9-11 truth researchers agree that the *damage* is consistent with the impact of a 757 – as are eyewitness statements and plane debris..” ….
“How do you imagine it helps the 9-11 truth movement when you post a highly controversial, divisive, poorly documented, and immature opinion piece that insults the most highly respected, credible, expert, and professional 9-11 truth researchers? What do you expect to accomplish, exactly?”
This simply an appeal to authority (repeated for extra influence).
Here’s some problems with this:
1) In is simply and definitely NOT the case that “ALL the most highly respected, profession, and credible 9-11 truth reasearchers agree …” (emphasis added by Pablo). Those that support this (OCT) position are instead:
i) IN THE MINORITY, far from “all”;
ii) NOT the most highly respected (when it comes to the Pentagon part of the 911 OCT);
iii) Their claims / analysis is ONLY “credible” to those who accept it; the rest of us don’t accept it, and naturally find their Pentagon claims NOT CREDIBLE.
iv) They ARE NOT EXPERTS; and they are not the only 9/11 researchers who know SOME things about planes and their crashes.
Further, YOUR claim “… as are eyewitness statements and plane debris..” is directly contradicted by the following:
v) The pool of witnesses at the Pentagon could hardly be more (self-)contradictory;
vi) Among those witnesses, the statements that most support the OCT come from people we should AUTOMATICALLY most be skeptical of (US Gov employees, employees of MSM …)
viii) The witness testimony “supporting” the OCT is IMPOSSIBLY split between: small plane, large plane, roof-top level vs not, fast vs slow, one color paint job vs another, etc.
ix) The CIT witnesses contradict ALL the testimony of the OCT-supporting witnesses WHILE being consistent with each other. The CIT witnesses have high credibility (particularly given both their jobs AND that while they couldn’t actually see the would-be crash, all believed that the plane they did see (on the North of Citgo path) did hit the Pentagon. This clearly indicates that they are NOT 9/11 Truthers – giving further creedence to their “pre-crash” testimony.
So YOUR question comes back to you: What exactly do YOU expect to accomplish by:
a) OVERSTATING the number of 9/11 Truthers who support the OCT version at the Pentagon;
b) OVERSTATING the quality of their qualifications to opine on the matter (“experts”);
c) OVERSTATING the quality of their roles within the 9/11 Truth Movement (“most highly respected”, “most … professional”, “most … credible”)
———–
C. WHO IS REALLY TRYING TO SPLIT THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT?
Lastly, your questioning of the author’s intent (as if it were to split the 9/11 Truth Movement on this Pentagon issue) … that questioning, especially given what I’ve said above, comes right back to you. Why are YOU (seemingly) intent on dividing the 9/11 Truth Movement on the Pentagon issue?
(My point here is that, it does precious little good to be throwing around “wreckers and splitters” labels – as it can accomplish nothing positive – but it can and does DEMORALIZE those who are not yet sure and/or new to this issue. And doing that is a sign of weakness, imo.)
Besides, doesn’t it strike you as strange that a segment of the 9/11 Truth Movement (whom many of us respect for their OTHER 9/11 Truth work) is effectively DEFENDING THE OCT?
In my 52 years of heavy-duty peace-justice activism, seldom have been the instances when REAL anti-establishment activists have supported official establishment positions. The two don’t really seem to go together do they? Instead, such NATURALLY raises the eyebrows. imo
I didn’t write an unscientific opinion piece based on my misconceptions and claim that everyone who disagrees with me is stupid. The author of this hit piece did that. The question is, other than divide, discredit, and obstruct the 9-11 truth movement, what does he expect to accomplish by posting this long ago debunked disinformation?
The terrorists *love* to see truthers wasting their time, divided, and arguing about this more than 15 years later. That was their plan, which is why they confiscated the videos. And then their disinformation agents morphed from no plane hitting the Pentagon to no planes hitting the towers, which *really* makes truthers look like nut jobs.
Jim Hoffman got it right over a decade ago. And again, this no plane speculation is soundly rejected by all of the most credible, professional, qualified, and expert 9-11 researchers.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
You trolls love to share BS talking points, don’t you? I’ve heard that “morphing” of the no plane garbage before. Are you buddies with another troll named Nelson Martins? If you’re not, you should be. You guys are made for each other.
The “terrorists confiscated the videos?” Disguised as the FBI? You are way out of your depth here Mr. Hugger.
People working for the terrorists – i.e. the Bush regime.
You think Jim Hoffman “got it right” a decade ago? Have you ever checked out this takedown of his position by Joe Quinn? I’ll bet you haven’t.
http://www.sott.net/signs/hoffman_rebuttal.htm
The author calls Jim Hoffman CoIntelPro, and speaks of magic disappearing airplanes. And he denies the existence of close to 100 eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon. No credibility. When someone insists that all these people are either lying or delusional (without citing any evidence for their far-fetched belief) we have no choice but to question their motive and/or mental state. And why do no-planers refuse to answer this question?
Other than divide, discredit, and obstruct the 9-11 truth movement by arguing over what hit the Pentagon year after year, after year after year after year after year after year after year after year, and calling anyone who disagrees with him “stupid”, what does the author, and what do you, expect to accomplish by arguing about it? Isn’t 15 years long enough? I’m sure you’re familiar with the “divide and conquer” strategy, and the saying, “United we stand, divided we fall.” .So why are you trying to divide the 9-11 truth movement by posting unscientific hit pieces that attack and insult some of the most highly respected, credible, dedicated, professional and qualified, 9-11 researchers? How is that in any way helpful to 9-11 truth?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
I will give you a final warning. One more mention of “no planers” with respect to those who do not believe in a 757 impact and you are out. It’s a flat out lie, and you know it.
Here’s another takedown of Hoffman.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2458
“Here is Bruno’s post on 911Blogger discussing Hoffman’s dishonest research methods in response to John A’s juvenile attacks in which JohnA once again compares Boeing crash skeptics to “Holocaust Deniers”. I think Bruno sums up the situation quite well:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21517#comment-218640
I got sucked into this Pentagon discussion because I saw real footwork getting real answers when I watched CIT’s documentaries on the witnesses. Then I was informed that CIT was getting bashed and treated like disinfo. I slowly got into each consecutive discussion, and it’s Hoffman’s attacks that disturbed me the most, because when I looked at his Pentagon opinion page (it can’t really be called anything more than his opinion) at 911Research I was shocked. How can this guy who really does not present much if any legitimate research on the Pentagon then go on the attack against somebody else who is actually going to DC and getting actual witness testimony as evidence on record? Even if someone disagrees with CIT’s conclusions, the evidence stands and should not be dismissed, no matter whose feelings got hurt.
On the other hand, you can’t even qualify Hoffman’s presentation as research. He makes far far too many conclusions without doing any actual footwork. Legge does the same. The page that Hoffman presented as support for his opinion that large recognizable plane debris is rare at crash sites was shown to be 99% fail. For each example he gave of historical crash sites, he provided only one photograph to corroborate his claim. When I spent time researching each example, I found evidence of large plane parts at the crash sites. We are talking huge obvious parts like sometimes a wing, sometimes an engine, sometimes chunks of fuselage and usually the tail section in whole or parts. 100% of his examples where other photos or video was available, large plane debris was visible. The remaining handful of examples where only one photo is available can’t be considered as evidence either way. Hoffman should correct this page in order to maintain his integrity, and not to be classified as disinfo.”
Niko, the link you posted begins by calling Jim Hoffman a “notorious disinformationist”. Wow. That’s almost as bizarre as Craig claiming that David Chandler believes *all* the evidence presented by the government. In both cases, the exact opposite is the truth. It’s no exaggeration to consider Jim Hoffman’s website (911reasearch.wtc7.net) a masterpiece and an encyclopedia of meticulous, credible 9-11 information. And of course, making the gigantic leap from Chandler agreeing with the government that planes hit the towers and the Pentagon to Chandler believing *all* the government’s claims is completely absurd, too. After lying about Hoffman, the hit piece you linked goes on to attribute this quote to him: “Airliner crashes typically leave no recognizable debris.” I’m almost certain that’s another blatant lie. Hoffman doesn’t make nonsensical claims like that. He’s a professional, credible researcher and he knows that details and credibility matter. That’s why he’s recognized as as one of the best among 9-11 truth researchers. Can you provide a link to where he actually said or wrote that? Also, did you see the prominent notice at the beginning of the hit piece you linked stating, “THIS USER HAS BEEN BANNED”. No need to wonder why, is there?
Finally, I’ll ask you the same question I’ve asked Craig but have yet to receive an answer. What do you hope to accomplish by attacking, insulting, and libeling the most highly respected, professional, credible, and dedicated 9-11 researchers alive? How does it help the 9-11 truth movement when you focus on the one area that divides us rather than the many areas of agreement? What is your goal? This infighting makes no sense at all to me – unless of course, the intent is to divide, discredit, and obstruct the 9-11 truth movement….
Excellent points. Thank you.
Mr. Hugger,
You are obviously a would-be “debunker” because you are using some of the most tired and false talking points that no truth activist is unfamiliar with. You are, in fact, perilously close to being booted for stating an outright falsehood. You state: “All of the most highly respected, professional, and credible 9-11 truth researchers agree that the *damage* is consistent with the impact of a 757 – as are eyewitness statements and plane debris.”
This is, of course, a huge lie. Perhaps you genuinely believe it, which is why you are getting a second chance. But it is absurd to state that ALL the most highly respected blah blah blah…
The single most highly respected truth activist and researcher, David Ray Griffin, is completely on board with the position that the Pentagon was NOT hit by any large plane. And I am compiling a list of truth activists who take this position. It is just getting started but we are already close to 500 names.
John O’Malley is much more interested in telling the truth than avoiding “insulting” your favorite plane-impact cheerleaders.
I agree.
Craig, other than divide, discredit, and obstruct the 9-11 truth movement by arguing over what hit the Pentagon year after year, after year after year after year after year after year after year after year, and calling anyone who disagrees with him “stupid”, what does the author, and what do you, expect to accomplish by arguing about it? Isn’t 15 years long enough? I’m sure you’re familiar with the “divide and conquer” strategy, and the saying, “United we stand, divided we fall.” .So why are you trying to divide the 9-11 truth movement by posting unscientific hit pieces that attack and insult some of the most highly respected, credible, dedicated, professional and qualified, 9-11 researchers? How is that in any way helpful to 9-11 truth? Just imagine the total loss of credibility and demise of the 9-11 truth movement if the government succeeds with its no plane disinformation program and then releases videos showing a 757 hitting the Pentagon. Why take that risk?
I have a lot of respect for David Griffin, but if he believes that no plane hit the Pentagon, I would say that he probably hasn’t yet read all the research. Recent work has actually produced photographic evidence of a commercial jet just prior to impact. There’s a lot of excellent research here.
http://911speakout.org/the-pentagon/
David Ray Griffin hasn’t read all the research? He’s produced much of it.
And trust me, we are really not trembling with fear that a video will someday be released showing an impact. These days it could all be CGI and no one would know the difference.
Sheila, can you post a link to a reference showing David Griffin denying that a 757 hit the Pentagon? I’m not saying he didn’t. I just want to see it.
Griffin has been steadfast in this position from the beginning. And while it is not Sheila’s or my responsibility to do your homework for you, I will give you this, from page 75 of Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor Revisited:
“The alleged eyewitness support for the official account is, in sum, far too problematic to provide support for the claim that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon. Corroborating physical evidence would be required, and that evidence does not exist.”
Is that clear?
Craig, thanks for the David Ray Griffin quote. It’s about a decade old, though. I wonder what he would say if he studied some of the more recent research by some highly credible, professional and respected 9-11 researchers with long record of getting their facts exactly right.
What do you think of the photo analysis using a “blink comparator” that shows a large plane about the same size and colors as an AA 757 just prior to impact? The evidence is under the heading, “New Research on the Pentagon Events”. If you’re in contact with DRG, please forward this link to him.
http://911speakout.org/the-pentagon/
.
No, I will not forward a six-year-old piece written by Chandler and Cole that has been answered in detail by CIT.
It is disingenuous of you to suggest that Griffin’s position is only that because he hasn’t read this paper. It’s insulting to the intelligence of anyone reading your comment. Griffin knows the evidence a lot better than you do, and he is clear that he does not believe a 757 hit the Pentagon. He affirmed that to me just a week ago when he agreed to add his name to the list I am compiling of people willing to make this statement. We now have more than 500 names.
You can read all about the list, which will be posted on Truth and Shadows in the next few days.
What do you hope to accomplish by fighting this battle with fellow truthers, dividing 9-11 truth into opposing sides, and by posting an article by an unprofessional former employee of the terrorists that calls some of the most highly respected, credible, knowledgeable, professional, and dedicated 9-11 truth researchers on the planet stupid? This makes no sense to me at all. We have dozens of points we agree on. Why focus on the one thing that divides us?
It is NOT the “one thing that divides us.” It is only your very small group of precious experts who continually push the impact idea (and some genuine people who have been duped and a small army of trolls and debunkers.) In fact, the object of my “No 757 hit the Pentagon” initiative is to find common ground on a point MOST OF US agree on. Your small group has held this movement hostage for years because people don’t want to go against people who have done good work in other areas of 9/11. You are quite wrong that I or this article seek to divide the movement; those pushing the government’s impact scenario are already doing that.
I’m tired of your appeals to authority.
Craig, the only authorities I appeal to are hard evidence and the scientific method – something noticeably absent from those who insist that no plane hit the Pentagon.
And I’m not saying that you are deliberately seeking to divide the 9-11 truth movement. I’m saying that dividing the 9-11 truth movement is the obvious result when people focus on the one thing that divides us, rather than the many points we agree on, Even worse, is calling people who disagree with a very unscientific and insupportable faith based belief stupid, as did the author of this opinion piece – a former employee of people who played a key role in the 9-11 attack.
This was written well over a decade ago. How much longer do plan on focusing on what hit the Pentagon – and more importantly, why?
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
Here are two analyses of the alleged witnesses’ statements.
http://www.911-strike.com/eyewitness_explicit.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20061124070632/http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/
If one examines these statements, one finds they are:
1) Inconsistent;
2) Incompatible with the physical evidence;
3) Unreliable.
The incessant reliance on the “hundred witnesses” is not supported by a thorough examination who they are and what they actually said. Blind allegiance and trust to somebody else assuring us that these witnesses can’t be mistaken, but at the same time completely dismissing the CIT witnesses’ statements, when they are on video and much more reliable.
I love this one:
David Marra, 23, an information-technology specialist, had turned his BMW off an I-395 exit to the highway just west of the Pentagon when he saw an American Airlines jet swooping in, its wings wobbly, looking like it was going to slam right into the Pentagon: “It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground.” There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,174655-4,00.html
So reliable-the plane first caught the edge of the wing on the ground (despite there being no damage to the lawn) and then “cartwheeled into the building.”
Tree Hugger,
First of all, please do one comment at a time, and focus on a single thread. I realize you are responding to two or three other people but I don’t want to answer you and a short time later see four new comments to contend with. Pick one place and say your piece.
Also, please stop dropping links to all of Chandler’s work over and over. We get it. If a link is relevant to a detail in your comment then say exactly why it is relevant. This comment stream is not a commercial for his work. You’ve linked to the blinked plane thing at least three times. Once you have shared a link, don’t share it again.
Also, your endless appeals to authority are tiresome. You’ve made that point. You’ve repeated that this group you love are respected in other areas of 9/11 research. But they are not respected when it comes to the Pentagon, except by you and a few others. Move on. And you’ve already asked why I would want to divide… blah blah. Stop asking the same question. It has been answered.
And please stop conflating my comments with the article. I didn’t use the word “stupid” and John O’Malley meant it to refer to the government, not to your favorite researchers. Was that not clear?
Henry, if you have nothing new, then let’s draw this to a close.
Mr. T. Hugger, (your real name is Henry Hansteen, isn’t it?)
It’s amazing how you people appear to have chosen the “no plane disinformation” line, which is obviously intended to link those who don’t believe a 757 hit the Pentagon to those who don’t believe planes hit the towers. You and a number of Facebook trolls repeat this mantra over and over. It is dishonest to conflate these two, but I can see why you would do it given your attempt to blatantly mislead people.
You love your “divide, discredit, and obstruct” line, don’t you? I’m guessing you use that a lot when facts and evidence fail you. Or perhaps you aren’t even trying to be truthful.
If anyone is “dividing and conquering,” (or trying to) it is those who push an impossible 757 impact with the Pentagon. They use the “discredit” line to justify pushing us towards the official story – supposedly so we don’t look like conspiracy kooks. And it is a campaign of disinformation that has been going on for more than a dozen years that is obstructing the search for the truth by genuine activists.
And if anyone is “arguing,” it is you. Most genuine truth activists get that the story of a 757 impact with the Pentagon is absurd.
Yes, Craig, I’m Henry Hansteen. It’s good to learn that you don’t believe the “no planes hit the towers” insanity. But as I’m sure you know, many people do, and I think it’s reasonable to believe that it could have been started by government hired disinformation shills. You agree they’re among us, right? And I also believe that if enough truthers claim that no plane hit the Pentagon, the jump to no planes hitting the towers becomes easier for the disinformation shills to present as plausible. People who insist that no planes hit the towers use many of the same tactics as no planers at the Pentagon – childish insults, speculation, avoidance/denial of evidence and research, misstatements of facts, etc. But I don’t equate the two. I never believed that no planes hit the towers, but for years, I was skeptical about a 757 hitting the Pentagon. But as more of the evidence was better analyzed by highly respected and professional 9-11 researchers, the case for a 757 hitting the Pentagon became very compelling – 757 parts inside and out, clipped trees, large generator knocked off its foundation, light poles down 100 feet apart, 100 foot wide damage to the facade of the blast resistant, concrete, steel, and Kevlar reinforced wall, dozens of very credible eyewitnesses, and more. A missile couldn’t do all that.
But what hit the Pentagon isn’t something I mention when I discuss 9-11 and try to convince people that the government’s 9-11 cave man conspiracy myth is an impossible, intelligence insulting pack of lies. Since the Pentagon is controversial, I leave it alone and focus on irrefutable hard evidence that’s agreed on by the 9-11 truth movement. For me, that’s primarily the physics of the demolitions. Have you seen David Chandler’s videos in which he documents and discusses WTC7’s free fall, and uses Newton’s Third law to *prove* the upper block of WTC1 couldn’t have crushed its way through the undamaged steel frame below? Very professional stuff, with no speculation – just the hard facts with a professional, correct analysis. His research on the Pentagon is the same, in my opinion. And like his other videos, I have yet to see anyone refute a word of it.
Let’s look at one of the statements in the article above.
“If an actual 757 had hit the Pentagon on 9/11, we would have been shown videos of it hitting the Pentagon.”
Do you agree with that, Craig? I certainly don’t. The terrorists behind the 9-11 attacks were murderous psychopaths, but they were anything but stupid. They know their flock well. They knew that most people would *simply* believe whatever they were told without thought or question. And they knew a significant number would look at the evidence closely and realize that there are some problems with the story. I believe all the planes were flown using a state of the art remote GPS guided system that “conveniently” happened to be in all the planes used on 9-11. They performed a wild maneuver before hitting the Pentagon and confiscated all the videos so they could work on confusing and dividing the skeptics with doubt and disinformation. I don’t believe for a minute that if they had the videos, they would have released them. In fact, their best bet would be to push really hard to convince as many truthers as possible that no plane hit the Pentagon, and then leak one of the videos. Result – truthers are immediately ridiculed and dismissed as delusional kooks by the corporate media 24/7. Why take that risk, especially since, as this discussion clearly shows, arguing over what hit the Pentagon divides, discredits, and obstructs the 9-11 truth movement. It’s a waste of time.
I’m only here because one of my less informed and more gullible (former) FB friends posted this article on his FB page and it showed up on my news feed. If I see and article written by a former employee of the organization that played key role in the attack begin with a paragraph containing three false statements, and then label anyone who disagrees with his misconceptions stupid, then I’m going to have some input. Not only does the little known and highly unprofessional author call some of them most dedicated, respected, professional, credible, and hard working truthers alive stupid, but he’s calling me and many of my friends stupid. And he’s making highly speculative, unscientific assertions that harm the 9-11 truth movement.. In my humble opinion, of course. 😉
,
Tree Hugger said:
“I don’t believe for a minute that if they had the videos, they would have released them. In fact, their best bet would be to push really hard to convince as many truthers as possible that no plane hit the Pentagon, and then leak one of the videos. Result – truthers are immediately ridiculed and dismissed as delusional kooks by the corporate media 24/7.”
OK, so why haven’t they done that? 9-11 was 16 years ago.
Peter, fortunately, the most widely respected, credible, and professional researchers who have put out the most research and information (Jim Hoffman of 911research.wtc7.net, David Chandler, Jon Cole, and Frank Legge of 911speakout.org, Richard Gage of ae911truth.org, the journalof911studies, and scholars for truth, and more) all reject the no plane at the Pentagon “theory”. So the best and brightest and the who’s who of 9-11 truth won’t be discredited if the government releases clear videos of an AA 757 hitting the Pentagon. So playing that card now won’t succeed in discrediting the strongest part of 9-11 truth. All these experts would gain credibility. The risk is if a lot of people buy into the no plane “theory” and it becomes widely parroted by 9-11 truth movement. That risk, and the fact that arguing about this for 15 years has only divided, discredited and obstructed the 9-11 truth movement, is all the reason anyone needs to avoid it. The author of this hit piece, a former employee of the organization that carried out the attacks, and has no hard evidence or research to support his “theory”, actually accuses the most respected, professional, credible, and dedicated 9-11 truth researchers of spreading disinformation. His motivation and intent are clear.
This article by O’Malley is not a “hit piece,” but “Tree”s comments certainly are. As others have pointed out repeatedly, saying something is true just because others say it is not an argument. Tree keeps demanding that the negative be “proved,” when the positive (that a big plane hit the Pentagon) cannot be or has not been proved or demonstrated. This is absurd. There is no convincing evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Period. No one has to present any arguments at all to “prove” this negative fact. It stands by itself.
Tree should be spending his time presenting what he thinks is the evidence for a plane crash. This requires more than simply citing studies that he finds convincing. He has cited the Chandler “blink” study, for example, but after reading it and studying the images, I do not find it convincing at all. see no evidence whatsoever of an airplane. So much for that study, unless Tree can persuade me that I am missing something important.
There is other purported evidence, e.g., debris. Why not discuss that? Tree should give us a photo of debris and try to persuade us that it is in fact a photo of debris from a Boeing 757 that crashed at the Pentagon on 9/11. Just saying that the govt, or someone else, says so is not an argument.
I believe these debates have already taken place, but I have not followed them. If Tree is determined to support the Hoffman/Ashley/USG etc. argument, he should relish the opportunity to convince relatively uninformed readers such as me that they are correct. It is foolish to just keep saying they are correct because they themselves say so. Tree needs to say what they say, again, and in a more convincing way, since the way they have said it is clearly unconvincing to many. This is how a person interested in establishing the truth would proceed.
Tree Hugger,
Meh, I still need proof of an airplane and those blurry frames that have been released are not proof. If the Pentagon were to release footage now, they are the ones who would look foolish for having concealed it so long.
Exactly!!!!!
FALSE!!!!! Richard Gage does NOT reject the “no plane at the Pentagon theory.” He released a withdrawal of support for CIT specifically after months of pressure to do so from certain CIT opponents. He has not taken any definitive position on this.
And it is nonsense to say “the best and brightest” of the movement support the Chandler/Cole/Hoffman clique. This is utterly false. The list I’m putting together of truthers who do not believe a 757 hit the Pentagon includes people like David Ray Griffin, Niels Harrit, Barrie Zwicker, Elias Davidsson, and many more. So get off the appeal to authority crap. You’ve made that point.
And it is NOT A NO PLANE THEORY. You know full well that it isn’t. Stop calling it that or you are out of here.
Peter, I’ve posted several links that make a very compelling case for a 757 hitting the Pentagon, but Craig has asked me not to support my claims with research and references, and he has deleted most of the links I’ve posted. In my opinion, forbidding and deleting links to professional, credible research (from only one side of the debate) doesn’t help his case or his credibility, but it’s his blog, so it’s his choice.
I’ll ask you the same question I’ve asked Craig and others, but have yet to receive an answer. What do you hope to accomplish by focusing on one area of disagreement among truthers rather than than the very many areas of agreement? Isn’t 15 years of division and arguing long enough? Isn’t it a waste of time? Why not agree to disagree, let it go, and focus on things that are not controversial or contentious? Divide and conquer is a tried and true battle strategy, and the author of this hit piece and it’s supporters are playing right into the government’s strategy. I’m sure they absolutely *love* watching us wasting our time arguing about what hit the Pentagon and attacking one another for 15 years. That’s probably why they programmed Flt. 77 to perform such a wild maneuver before hitting the Pentagon and then confiscated all the videos. There are many very compelling reasons not to divide ourselves over this, and only one reason to continue beating this dead horse – and that’s to kill the 9-11 truth movement. And don’t forget, the government has the videos showing a 757 hitting the Pentagon, and they can play that card whenever they want. Right now, it looks like they’re trying to get as many truthers behind the no plane at the Pentagon disinformation as they can. This is an information war, and you are playing right into *their* battle strategy.
Craig, you’ve repeatedly criticized me for appealing to the authority of hard evidence and expert independent research using the scientific method. That’s how humans have learned about the world around them for many centuries. That’s how we learned that the Earth isn’t at the center of the universe, that thunder isn’t caused by angry gods, and that the government’s 9-11 conspiracy myth is impossible. So I really don’t get your objection to it.
You, on the other hand, are appealing to group think. You say that it’s only me and maybe three or so other people who agree with the Pentagon research of Jim Hoffman, David Chandler, Jon Cole, Frank Legge, Victoria Ashley, Ken Jenkins, etc., and everyone else agrees that no plane hit the Pentagon. Of course, your number is absurd (maybe you were joking) but if the number of people who believe something is your litmus test for believability, and hard evidence and expert research are set aside, then shouldn’t you be defending the government’s cave man conspiracy myth? That’s what most people believe. Following the masses and group think isn’t a credible way of determining the truth – never has been.
Anyway, I’m glad to see that you couldn’t find even one example of the researchers listed above getting any of the evidence or analysis wrong in their Pentagon research. That was expected, as those people are very highly regarded professionals with a long history of getting their research exactly right., I’ve challenged many followers of the government’s cave man conspiracy myth to find fault with their research, and not one person has ever cited even one example. That’s a truly impressive record. The responses I got from them are much like the responses I’m getting here.
Are you aware of any professional research that uses the scientific method to defend the missile theory? I’ve never seen any, and I’m interested to know how they explain a missile taking out light poles 100 feet apart, clipping trees 50 feet from the center of the impact, and damaging the facade of the blast resistant steel and Kevlar reinforced masonry wall for a span of about 100 feet. I’d also like to know how they explain the large holes through several interior walls, 100 or so eyewitnesses who saw a large low flying jet impact the Pentagon, the 757 parts inside and outside the Pentagon, and the recently revealed video evidence of a large AA jet just prior to impact. Was this missile modified to look like an AA 757? If you know of even one research paper that defends the missile theory, I’d like to see it.
Also, you denied that the author of this opinion piece referred to people who believe a 757 hit the Pentagon as stupid. Read the first paragraph again. He very clearly states that people need to be stupid in order to believe that. That’s very immature and unprofessional way to begin an opinion piece. And then there are all his blatant misstatements of facts and evidence and his questionable background that further detract from his credibility. I’d say he does more to harm your missile theory than defend it.
Finally, I’ve listed many reasons why it makes no sense for truthers to continue to argue about what hit the Pentagon 15 years later. I’m still waiting for you to tell me what you imagine 9-11 truth has to gain by this division and arguing. I makes no sense to me – unless of course, the intent is to divide, discredit, and obstruct the 9-11 truth movement. Then it makes perfect sense.
Tree hugger,
My patience for this exchange is wearing thin. You use dishonest debating tactics. You mix your endless appeals to authority with other claims that are just false or deliberately misleading. Let’s take your first line: “Craig, you’ve repeatedly criticized me for appealing to the authority of hard evidence and expert independent research using the scientific method.”
This is deliberately false. Even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt, it would still be highly misleading. You know what I meant. I was accusing you of simply claiming that your position is correct because it is argued by supposed “credible, knowledgeable, respected, professional, and dedicated” researchers. You keep going on about the scientific method as if it has any relation to what this team has done. The use of this term is a case of repeating something long enough that people take it as true. It is not.
First of all, I don’t support any missile theory and never have. And even if I did I wouldn’t be claiming this is what took down the light poles. In fact, I’ve never heard anyone suggest that the poles were taken down by a missile. So that’s a straw man argument.
Second, your claim that no one has come up with a single claim to refute anything your group of wise men (and Victoria Ashley) have said is laughable and disingenuous. I’ve written dozens of articles showing how their support for most of the official story is speculation at best and impossible at worst. Do some homework before demanding that I produce evidence I have produced many times before.
Why don’t you reach into Chandler’s grab bag of speculation to tell me what happened to the wings. To the tail section and horizontal stabilizers. Perhaps you could explain how the windows in the direct path of the tail were not even broken. Or how the C ring hole was created. Or how a plane can hit light poles at 530 miles per hour with the wing not ripping open and exploding – and how those poles could simply fall over near their bases. You might tell us how a plane could enter through a hole that isn’t big enough to accommodate it while leaving NO LARGE PIECES OF WRECKAGE outside the building.
Why don’t you provide some evidence instead of just gushing praise of your favorite “professionals”?
Craig asked, “Why don’t you reach into Chandler’s grab bag of speculation to tell me what happened to the wings.” David Chandler doesn’t like to speculate. He uses hard evidence, science, physics, and expert peer reviewed research to reach his conclusions. If you disagree with the author of the article you posted and don’t believe a missile hit the Pentagon, what to you imagine did hit it? Can you please elaborate in detail and provide some evidence for your belief?
I’ll assume that you know the area of the Pentagon that was hit had been recently renovated and the renovation included concrete walls well over a foot thick, reinforced with steel and Kevlar. Here’s what happens to a plane that hits concrete at high speed. You asked me to post some evidence but you also asked me not to post links to evidence and research, so I’m not sure what you want. But here’s a video showing the disintegration of a plane hitting a concrete barrier. I think it’s reasonable to believe that something similar to this would have happened to the wings of Flt 77 when they hit the steel and Kevlar reinforced exterior concrete wall of the Pentagon. Obviously, since the concrete barrier in the video is much thicker than the Pentagon walls, the stronger, heavier parts of the plane (landing gear, engines, center frame) could have penetrated the walls and left the damage we see in photographic evidence. But not the wings. Also, if not the wings of Flt 77,, what do you imagine damaged the facade of the Pentagon wall for over a span of about 100 feet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn_fZZ74MQU&feature=youtu.be
Uh oh, the dreaded “high speed” crash of a small jet into a concrete wall that proves everything. We have seen this before used by debunkers endlessly.
How about this oldie but goodie:
http://physics911.net/missingwings/
From “experts” and scientists.
Niko, why do you dread hard evidence and real research, why did you put the words “high speed” in quotes, and why do you imagine that this experiment somehow “proves everything”? None of those comments make any sense or address any of the evidence. Craig asked me why the wings weren’t found outside the Pentagon. This video provides an explanation. Maybe that’s why you dread it.
Also, I’ve asked this question repeatedly but so far, no one who denies the evidence that a large commercial jet hit the Pentagon has been able to answer it.
What do you expect to accomplish by arguing about what hit the Pentagon and attacking other 9-11 researchers? Isn’t 15 years long enough? I’m sure you’re familiar with the “divide and conquer” strategy, and the saying, “United we stand, divided we fall.” .So why are you trying to divide the 9-11 truth movement by supporting unscientific hit pieces that attack and insult some of the most highly respected, credible, dedicated, professional and qualified, 9-11 researchers? How is that in any way helpful to 9-11 truth?
TH, actually the ‘missingwings’ link he provides IS real research.
High speed is relative and a non scientific term. Forward motion can be described with adjectives such as slow, moderate, or fast. Other descriptors are low and high. Some mechanical devices like blenders and drills have similar speed settings.
Regardless, the video you provide has been used over and over and over and still proves nothing ‘concrete’. I see plenty of “high speed” impact shots (in slow motion 😆 ), but none of the final resting result of things. Maybe it does prove no plane…
It appears the concrete held up, whereas the ‘jet’ on rails did not. So now explain that hole in the pentagon, both the outer facade and the inner ring. And my next question is, why didn’t those planes disintegrate when striking the twin towers at relatively high speed?
I really had no idea there was still a debate over the pentagon. It is so obvious there was NO PLANE the size of a commercial jet involved there. If this is a divide issue in the community, you are definitely helping forge that rift.
poolman, please read what was written before replying so people don’t need to repeat themselves. You asked, “It appears the concrete held up, whereas the ‘jet’ on rails did not. So now explain that hole in the pentagon, both the outer facade and the inner ring.”
Previously, I wrote, “I think it’s reasonable to believe that something similar to this would have happened to the wings of Flt 77 when they hit the steel and Kevlar reinforced exterior concrete wall of the Pentagon. Obviously, since the concrete barrier in the video is much thicker than the Pentagon walls, the stronger, heavier parts of the plane (landing gear, engines, center frame) could have penetrated the walls (of the Pentagon) and left the damage we see in photographic evidence. But not the wings.”
I also wrote, “Also, if not the wings of Flt 77, what do you imagine damaged the facade of the Pentagon wall for over a span of about 100 feet?” Please answer that question. No one else h
Finally you asked, “And my next question is, why didn’t those planes disintegrate when striking the twin towers at relatively high speed?”
That question displays an incredible (but not at all surprising) lack of knowledge about the construction of the walls of the towers. They were not made of blast resistant concrete walls over a foot thick. They were built from steel columns in which the steel was only about .25″ (1/4 of an inch) thick near the top, which were bolted together. It’s absolutely nonsensical to compare these with the over one foot thick blast resistant concrete walls of the Pentagon.
You also wrote, “I really had no idea there was still a debate over the pentagon. Well, of course you didn’t know that either. You’ve demonstrated very clearly that you know next to nothing about the events of 9-11-01, or the research and facts involved. You imagined the towers had exterior walls that were over a foot thick, and made of blast resistant reinforced concrete.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Ridiculous. You cannot be a serious detective/researcher.
Let’s see the final resting picture of your high speed railed jet. Let’s examine that and compare to the pictures pentagon’s damage. You think it’s ‘reasonable’ to assume the same result happened, I do not. Let’s compare resting pictures in terms of wing size and plane components in the debris field. Even if the airliner in question were empty, there would be seats and large plane parts scattered throughout the debris field.
Obviously since the concrete barrier blah blah blah… How can you then even offer this as an example if none of the conditions match? Obviously you are putting your own opinion out there with no substantiating facts. The actual photos of the pentagon impact site refute your opinion.
I don’t have the answer for what damaged the pentagon. That isn’t the point. The point that is WASN’T a commercial airliner. I do not have the expertise or desire to find out what did. We KNOW they (the government) are lying. If we ever see any of the confiscated video, we would all know what it was.
The walls of the twin towers were much stronger than a commercial airliner. I never “imagined the towers had exterior walls that were over a foot thick, and made of blast resistant reinforced concrete.” Show me my quote. Disingenuous on your part.
You did claim they penetrated 1/4 inch steel. How thick and of what material do you claim makes up the nose of those commercial airliners? Just as ridiculous.
I apparently know more about the real events of 911 than you, if you insist that the pentagon was hit by an AA 757 aircraft. Nothing you have provided proves your (and the government’s) theory. If anything, you have helped prove one could not have.
I have been aware of the 911 lie for 10 years and have watched and read countless articles and videos. I have heard and seen some ridiculous things offered as theory and/or proof. Your opinion is definitely one that falls in that category. I don’t find you credible, so I hope for your sake this is just a hobby for you. Some of us have to operate in that real world of concrete and steel.
Why use such a different type of plane to make a point? Unlike in small thin delta-winged supersonic military jets, the large broad wings of commercial aircraft are filled with kerosene, many many tons of it, especially so soon after takeoff on a continental flight. At point of impact, all this cool liquid would probably prevent the aluminum and magnesium structure of the wings from vaporizing, and even prevent oxygen from reaching and assisting that process. Black smoke is a sign of oxygen-starved low-temperature fires. All the metal from the wings of a 757, which obviously didn’t penetrate the building like they did the twin towers, should have been scattered in visible chunks all over that lawn, since there was little resistance to explosive force AWAY from the Pentagon wall. Any turbine shaft would act like a hardened spear and keep going, so there should have been two round holes in C ring, not just one.
Had the plane “cartwheeled’ into the building, as one “witness” stated, they would have been looking for engines flung way off into the Potomac.
This guy is a troll; if it were my blog I’d boot him immediately.
It seems Adam is terrified of hard evidence, expert, credible, and professional research, and eyewitness testimony,. Most people who cling to faith based beliefs are like that. The free and open exchange of hard evidence crushes their faith based beliefs
Maybe you can answer this question. Most no-planers are afraid of it.
Adam, other than divide, discredit, and obstruct the 9-11 truth movement by arguing over what hit the Pentagon year after year, after year after year after year after year after year after year after year, and calling anyone who disagrees with him “stupid”, what does the author, and what do you, expect to accomplish by arguing about it? Isn’t 15 years long enough? I’m sure you’re familiar with the “divide and conquer” strategy, and the saying, “United we stand, divided we fall.” .So why are you trying to divide the 9-11 truth movement by posting unscientific hit pieces that attack and insult some of the most highly respected, credible, dedicated, professional and qualified, 9-11 researchers? How is that in any way helpful to 9-11 truth?
The author has not argued year after year… He has written an article that commits the serious crime of not supporting the bulk of the official story like all your favorite “experts” and “professionals” do.
Do not keep repeating blocks of text in comment after comment or you will be removed.
True, the author hasn’t, but the 9-11 truth movement has. How much longer do you plan to argue with other truthers about what hit the Pentagon? Why not agree to disagree after 15 years and focus on what we all agree on. Have you seen this video? I think it has excellent advice for us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nX8xt5YOjg
I never argue about “what hit” the Pentagon since I don’t think any aircraft did. And what do you mean by “focus on what we all agree on”? I take the position that no 757 hit the Pentagon, and the vast majority of those in the Truth Movement share this view.
That’s good to hear because I agree with Griffin about the eyewitnesses and I have seen no evidence of planes hitting the Pentagon. As for the term “no planer,” I guess I qualify as one because although I do not know what caused any of the explosions, I have seen no convincing evidence of planes crashing anywhere on 9/11. Why is there no discussion of Shanksville? And I realize that “video fakery” has been discussed to death, but I still find the videos, e.g., of a plane melting into a building facade, nose coming out the other side, unconvincing to say the least.
If the OCT were true, there would be no discussion about any of this because there would be a mountain of incontrovertible evidence for it instead of the opposite.
mdmorrissey says: “As for the term “no planer,” I guess I qualify as one because although I do not know what caused any of the explosions, I have seen no convincing evidence of planes crashing anywhere on 9/11.”
Right, no planes crashed anywhere on 9-11-01. Certainly no plane in any of these photos . It was done with holograms, and all the people who saw, heard, and felt the impact of jets hitting the towers are either lying or delusional, and all the plane parts were planted, right? Just like the plane parts and the hundred or so eyewitnesses at Pentagon, Wow. It’s no wonder truthers are laughed off and ridiculed as delusional nut jobs.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2jet1.html
The burden on proof is on you. If you think there were holograms, you have to prove that too. The reason why your arguments in support of the OCT is that your “evidence” is no more convincing than what the govt has provided, and I admire Craig and others for their patience in trying to explain why you fail to make your case. The effort reminds me of trying to explain to students why their essays do not make sense or make faulty arguments.
It’s like trying to explain to someone why a cloud formation they see as pink elephants (which have been mentioned here) are not pink elephants. Even if other students say they are elephants, and even if Prof. Dr. Haselnuss, who is a zoologist, sees the elephants, they are not elephants if the essay is badly written.
So despite the totally unconvincing case made by the govt and by you and Hoffman/Ashley et al. for the pink elephants, you insist that we, the readers, demonstrate and explain to your satisfaction why your arguments are unconvincing.
And then you have the audacity to suggest that if we do not see the elephants that you, we see holograms of elephants, and that we are therefore delusional!
It would make a nice comedy skit.
mdmorrissey, It’s you who denies that planes hit the towers, not me. I don’t know anything about your imaginary pink elephants, either. You’re not making any sense, but no-planers never do…
I do not deny that planes hit the towers, the Pentagon, or the ground in Shanksville. I deny the proposition that they did. That any planes crashed in any of these three places is a proposition put forth by you and the US govt.
As with the student who proposes that pink elephants are in the clouds, it is not up to me to convince him that the elephants are not there. It is up to him (you) to convince me that they are there. Good luck!
By focus on what we all agree on, I mean the evidence discussed in David Chandler’s video above. Evidence that’s not controversial and isn’t disputed among the 9-11 truth movement. Why do you put so much time and effort into the one area that divides us? That makes no sense to me. Isn’t 15 years of arguing long enough? People who rely on the scientific method are not going to agree with those who rely on faith to imagine that a drone, a missile, bomb or something else hit the Pentagon, because applying the scientific method to the evidence proves that it was hit by a large commercial jet. we even have photo evidence now. How do you reject that?
It’s hard not to notice that the people in this comment section (as well as the author of the opinion piece) who claim that something other than a commercial jet hit the Pentagon, do not use hard hard evidence or expert research to support their belief. They rely on insults, faith, opinion, and speculation to support it. This is the same tactic used by followers of the government’s physically impossible and intelligence insulting 9-11 cave man conspiracy myth.
It is obvious that you are some kind of PR spokesperson for this small and discredited group that continually pushes a large plane impact. And it is also obvious that you are repeating garbage. One immediate example is your claim that one side is using “the scientific method” while the other relies on faith. Did you get that one from Ken Jenkins? Do you guys all agree on your talking points?
Let’s correct the false statements you’ve just made:
1. We do not all agree on what Chandler has said.
2. The absence of a large plane impact is only controversial with a tiny minority
3. It is not “the one area that divides us.”
4. We’re not arguing, we’re standing up against efforts to push most of the Pentagon official story.
5. People who don’t agree with an impact are not “imagining” things
6. We DO NOT HAVE PHOTO EVIDENCE!!!!! If you mean the “blink” comparison, that is based on doctored video.
7. You cannot decide what is true by criticizing the tone and style of people’s comments.
You are engaging in the same kind of manipulative spin that is the norm with the group you defend. But few who actually know the evidence are following them.
I’m not a PR spokes person for anyone. That’s yet another false claim on your end.
I’ve been following 9-11 truth closely since about 2002. I have yet to see any of the research done by Jim Hoffman, David Chandler, Jon Cole, Frank Legge, Victoria Ashley, or Ken Jenkins, discredited by anyone. They are literally the who’s who of 9-11 truth and are considered to be some of the most credible, knowledgeable, respected, professional, and dedicated 9-11 researchers alive. Their research is all peer reviewed and solid. If you disagree with their evidence and analysis,, please show me where, exactly. Simply saying that people who disagree are stupid doesn’t carry as much weight as the scientific method. So let’s talk about the actual hard evidence and research. What do you believe they get wrong in the research below? Please use quotes, credible references and the scientific method to make your case.
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/
Treehugger
QUOTE :
“Anyway, I’m glad to see that you couldn’t find even one example of the researchers listed above getting any of the evidence or analysis wrong in their Pentagon research. That was expected, as those people are very highly regarded professionals with a long history of getting their research exactly right., I’ve challenged many followers of the government’s cave man conspiracy myth to find fault with their research, and not one person has ever cited even one example. That’s a truly impressive record. The responses I got from them are much like the responses I’m getting here.”
The laughable “identification” of “two lamp support arms” lying beside Downed Pole # 1 by your “very highly regarded professionals with a long history of getting their research exactly right”, Wayne Coste and David Chandler, used to support their “proof” that a 757-sized plane flew across the bridge, hit 5 poles and crashed into the Pentagon, can be summarily dismissed by simply reviewing Jason Ingersoll’s photo DSC_0420, where these “support arms” are revealed to be nothing more than a section of doubled-over electrical cable from the lumen of the pole.
This is the level of “accuracy” produced by your respected “researchers”.
The fact that, as cab driver Lloyde England has always stated, he was not on the bridge when a pole hit his cab, is all the concrete proof we need that the plane did not fly across the bridge, therefore could not have been what caused any of the damage in the trajectory endosed by the Official Fairy Tale and since set in stone as the Pentagon 9/11 Memorial on the lawn across which no plane ever flew.
Coste and Chandler “excuse” Lloyde England’s “confusion” about his location when his cab was hit by a pole, still insisting that we should “respect him and his cab as witnesses” to a large plane impact at the Pentagon (which England never saw, and which he did not believe).
However the fact is that Lloyde England’s actual position beside the cemetery opposite the Heliport north of the Columbia Pike exit sign when the plane flew over his car (therefore on the North-of-Citgo flightpath) and the pole hit his windscreen (therefore not a light pole at all), was 400 yards further north than his later publicised, staged position on the bridge (as now proven by newly-discovered video evidence from numerous sources and vantage points).
This exposes and proves exactly what desperately incompetent disingenuous liars your
“most highly respected, credible, dedicated, professional and qualified, 9-11 researchers”
are.
They “defend” Lloyde England only on the basis that England’s TRUE story is a LIE.
Their fake evidence self-destructs in the light of the truth which Lloyde has been telling for many years,
“I WASN’T ON THE BRIDGE”.
That the Pentagon had to go to such extraordinary lengths to manufacture this scenario in which a taxi cab only APPEARED to have been hit by a light pole downed by AA77 as it flew across the bridge on a direct line with the damage to the Pentagon, is the proof that has always been under everybody’s noses, but was never previously even dreamed of.
This true testimony from Lloyde England, for so long maligned as the ravings of a “senile old man unfit to drive a cab”, is now the solid gold evidence that proves the lie of Pentagon 9/11.
This newly-analysed video evidence shames, blames and names numerous operatives in this phase of the plot, and demolishes the “proofs” concocted to deceive the Truther movement by the likes of Chandler and Coste.
For proof of this, start by reading for instance Page 9 of my thread “LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED with NEW EVIDENCE on PHOTOS and VIDEO”, titled,
“Lloyde England’s True Story in Pictures.”
http://letsrollforums.com//lloyde-england-vindicated-new-t32464p9.html
Mr. Tree Hugger,
Stick to being an environment activist.
I’m not an environment activist. I just like trees a lot. Shade is a wonderful thing on a hot sunny day. Oxygen is good, too. Plus you can cut them down use them to build things. And burn them to keep warm.
Have you seen this research yet? See the plane? It looks like an AA 757, don’t you think?
http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/BlinkedPentagonPlane.html
An accurate account of Reality is Our goal. Thanks for your question.
Well at least they made the effort to display a (“a” as in the only one) jet engine that was associated with theTwin Towers. Shame though, that it was the wrong type of engine and that before it had dropped onto the ground (at the other side of the Twin Towers), that someone had managed to hang onto it (a passenger perhaps?) and unbolt all of its ancillary components before it had landed.
“How stupid do they [the Master 9/11 conspirators?] think we [the human population?] are?” They don’t quite think we are stupid. They simply understand fundamental psychology, particularly the marginal power of rational analysis in the human mind. They also master the techniques and logistics of making a multitude of human brains absorb false beliefs. They best displayed their mastery with the Twin Towers’ destruction: they televised live the spectacular and morbid controlled demolition to hundreds of millions of people who were already anxious, blamed Osama bin Laden’s airplanes for it, and were successful. Even nowadays, just about every opinion-maker, all over the world and across all disciplines, treats the cover story as an absolute truth.
Another illustration of their competence is Building 7. There, the cover-up’s transparency appears to lie beyond their comfort zone, so much that opinion-makers that could effortlessly make 9/11 fall flat by educating their audiences have tried hard to ignore it.
To return to John’s framing, they think—correctly—that we are stupid enough to attribute the Twin Towers’ destruction to Osama bin Laden, but not enough to attribute Building 7’s destruction to an office fire. Accordingly, they can be quite sure that we are stupid enough to believe the Pentagon cover-up.
Love,
This is nothing new at all. Many of us, that work in the aircraft trades, have been saying this since the day of 9/11. ANYBODY that knows what an engine like that is made of, can tell you this.
It’s deja vu all over again. See here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1lzPPi9400n7slxSEDHyLXAzINfAvsO14J5PswERNY/edit?usp=sharing
a chapter from my book (The Transparent Conspiracy)
and here:
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/10/27/local-assassination-researcher-has-little-interest-in-jfk-documents/
Michael
I don’t understand why my comment has not been posted. I do have a wordpress site, but I don’t use it since I already have a website here: https://sites.google.com/site/michaeldavidmorrissey/
Thanks, John, for writing this, so now I understand your whole rationale. I just wish there weren’t such a controversy over the Pentagon within the Truth movement.
Hi Janet. I wonder if you’ve considered the possibility that the controversy is contrived to marginalize some of the very best evidence the movement has. I certainly feel that way.
I agree, though someone I respect believes the OCT because he thinks it is supported by “over a hundred witnesses,” and he feels, as do Chandler et al., that the “no plane theory” could be a “honey trap,” implying that it is the “no planers” who have contrived the debate. But as others have said here, witness testimonies are hopelessly contradictory and unreliable, and the honey pot theory seems to me also contrived, since there is more than enough physical evidence (i.e. lack of same!) to prove that there was no plane involved. I believe what I see, not what other people say they saw.
I think it’s a good article.
No commercial plane hit that building that day which is so very obvious to me I would definitely question anyone claiming one did.
Like the author said, if one did in fact, we would have surveillance video shown us and there would have been plenty of plane parts to look at in the pictures and videos. That is what we were shown over and over and over again with the twin towers. Planes anyway, though no plane parts. It is often what isn’t shown us or isn’t evident that produces the most skepticism.
This one is so obvious, I don’t think it’s worth debate.
“No commercial plane hit that building that day which is so very obvious to me I would definitely question anyone claiming one did.”
Here are 100 or so people you need to question. Do you really imagine they are all either lying or delusional? That’s pretty far-fetched…
I rely on my own abilities and perception. I don’t care how many people claim to be witnesses. How many of those claim to have seen the impact? There may have been a plane that flew in and over. That has been suggested and reported by multiple witnesses. How many still believe the government’s story? And the nano thermite discovery hasn’t done jack to bring anyone to justice.
But NO PLANE crashed into the pentagon. No plane. I have spent many hours over the years going over photos and videos, some of which are no longer available on line. There is no way a plane of that size hit that building that day. Tim Roemer slipped up and said a missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11. I come closer to believing that.
“poolman” says: ” I don’t care how many people claim to be witnesses.”
Most people who have faith based beliefs and a closed mind don;’t care about facts or evidence. I actually heard a follower of the government’s 9-11 conspiracy myth say that he “wouldn’t believe 9-11 was a inside job even it was true”. The power of cognitive dissonance is not to be underestimated.
See the plane? It’s there. Looks just like an AA 757.
I don’t see a commercial jet plane in your link. And I have seen that clip before. That is one ‘the officials’ put out after so many people complained there was no video showing a plane. Apparently you see something that isn’t clearly there.
Maybe you can’t see the forest through the trees, mr hugger.
“Most people who have faith based beliefs and a closed mind don;’t care about facts or evidence.” – TH
I’m going to throw that back on you. What facts or evidence do you have? Your faith is in people. You have no idea what my beliefs are or who/what I put my faith in. I base my beliefs on the tangible things I have experienced and encountered. My beliefs change with discovery. I learn new things everyday. Sometimes it changes everything down to my foundation.
I could spent the day revealing lies most people believe. But that wouldn’t change any closed minds. Nor would it be productive on my part.
NO PLANE! Unless you have REAL evidence to contradict what I have already researched.
This claim by Chandler is based on video that is provably doctored. Therefore it can’t be relied on.
It’s not “doctored”. It’s compared to another frame of the video. Nothing in any of the video frames has been changed. Do you see the plane, Craig?
The video was doctored.
Exactly what do you imagine was doctored, and what evidence do you have to prove your accusation? This is a very serious accusation against a man with an impeccable record of solid, credible, peer reviewed research.
If this is the photo evidence you are discussing, I for one see no sign whatsoever of a plane:
http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/BlinkedPentagonPlane.html
What are you talking about? I’m accusing the U.S. government of doctoring the Pentagon video. And the proof was laid out in Massimo Mazzucco’s film September 11: The New Pearl Harbor. You’ll find it in Part 4, DVD 2 at the 18-minute mark.
But I imagine you join Chandler in claiming the government evidence is all genuine? Odd that he only challenges those who challenge the government evidence while defending the government evidence.
Or you can read my report on this on this blog:
Craig says, “But I imagine you join Chandler in claiming the government evidence is all genuine?”
How can you say Chandler believes all the government’s evidence? Chandler is one of the most credible, professional, and qualified *debunkers” of government evidence. He is often credited with exposing the government’s denial of WTC7’s free all. The government claimed 40% slower, but Chandler proved that it dropped at a rate that was indistinguishable from free fall. And anyone who understands basic high school physics also understands why WTC7’s free fall is irrefutable physical proof of controlled demolition. He’s also used high school physics to prove that it’s quite literally physically impossible for the upper block of WTC1 to crush its way through the much thicker, heavier, and stronger undamaged steel frame below.
You really should look at his research. It has a lot of very detailed, professional, peer reviewed video analysis of the evidence. Some of the best, In my opinion, and this is what we should be sharing with the public.
Why won’t you tell us what you hope to achieve by attacking some of the best 9-11 truth researchers, and focusing your time and energy on the one area of 9-11 that divides the 9-11 truth movement? I’ve tried but I can’t think of even one way that can help us, but obviously, there are *many* ways it harms the 9-11 truth movement. Why do you do this? Please answer this question, Craig.
Tree, please explain why you think a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
If I said pink flying elephants crashed into the pentagon, would you go looking for pink elephant dung on the Pentagon lawn, or would you already know that I was lying?
The official flight and impact path is a physical impossibility for an airplane of that size, whether it flew south or north, or even under Citgo, whether the hole was 16, 18 or 164 feet wide, or if Hani Hanjour was the best pilot that had ever lived.
The so-called controversy is a carefully manufactured JFK-magic-bullet offensive, perpetrated by a small compromised group on research, science and truth.
And they come here and waste everyone’s time and energy with their bulldung every time anyone says the word Pentagon.
Oh… By the way… Did anyone see that photo of the debris on the lawn??… I am 100% sure I saw some pink stuff in there!!!! Let’s discuss for another 16 years.
Thanks for the laugh. 🙂
David asked: “If I said pink flying elephants crashed into the pentagon, would you go looking for pink elephant dung on the Pentagon lawn, or would you already know that I was lying?”
If pink elephants had been flying around for 100 years or so, they had crashed into many buildings in the past, and they had just crashed into two buildings earlier that morning, and one was tracked on its way to the Pentagon, and about 100 eyewitnesses said they saw one crash into the Pentagon, and there were pink elephant parts in front of the Pentagon, then I might not know you were lying….
I posted the following here on Dec. 4 but it is still “awaiting moderation,” though a couple of other comments were posted. I guess I didn’t log in right. Here goes again:
It’s deja vu all over again. See here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x1lzPPi9400n7slxSEDHyLXAzINfAvsO14J5PswERNY/edit?usp=sharing
a chapter from my book (The Transparent Conspiracy)
and here:
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/10/27/local-assassination-researcher-has-little-interest-in-jfk-documents/
Michael
The questions discussed here are fully and definitively answered in Ch. 7 of David Ray Griffin’s book “9/11 Ten Years Later.”
Does anyone know what the opinions of those arguing for a 757 crash at the Pentagon are about the Shanksville incident … particularly, do any of them believe that a 757 buried itself mostly underground, which is the official story as I understand it?
Hoffman’s take is here: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html. He thinks the plane was shot down, accounting for the widespread debris, and then plunged into the hole in Shanksville. He says “there is no reasonable basis for questioning that it crashed in the field in Shanksville PA, as thoroughly documented by the website Flight93Crash.com” (see http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/index.html#f93_debris). The Consensus is here: http://www.consensus911.org/point-flt-2/.
So Hoffman thinks the lack of airplane debris in the hole is “no reasonable basis” for doubting the govt story.
With “truthers” like this, do we need liars?
Hoffman thinks the plane was shot down, scattering debris, but still crashed into the hole near Shanksville that according to the OCT is the crash site.
JO quote: “If you visit that part of the Pentagon now, you will notice that they have removed much dirt from that area of the building. It would be much easier to walk from south parking to the west side of the building now, because there is no longer that steep hill.”
John, does this refer to the area where the construction trailers were located?
The level of the land was lowered (dirt removed) from the crash site down to the area near south parking.
Looks like the grade was lowered before construction began, well before 9/11. What year did you leave the Pentagon?