While the wing of the Navy Annex where Hemphill watched the plane has been torn down, this image shows approximately where he was when he saw what he describes as the plane flying over the Annex and the Citgo gas station.
December 29, 2017
He claims CIT’s ‘entire process’ is invalidated because of one interview – and he gets that spectacularly wrong
“Okay, well that makes, you know, I mean I don’t know it just makes whatever you say, like any, I don’t know how to say it, I guess that makes it, I don’t even know what to say, like from what you’re saying it could easily have hit the light poles and smashed into the Pentagon from where you saw it.” –CIT opponent Jeff Hill, who receives gushing praise from Chandler, helping Albert Hemphill “clarify” what he saw on 9/11
By Craig McKee
Much of the supposed “division” about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 involves research carried out by Citizen Investigation Team – or, more to the point, attacks on that research.
Some say this is because the research itself is “controversial.” But, by and large, for more than a decade now, it is the attacks on CIT that generate the controversy. The attackers then decry this result as being responsible for splitting the 9/11 Truth Movement.
David Chandler’s latest unwarranted assault on CIT illustrates this scenario and process. The article, called “Why the CIT Analysis of the Pentagon Event on 9/11 Should Be Rejected Outright,” begins cloaked in seemingly objective garb, but its substance comprises exaggerated and inaccurate claims. It is yet another attempt to demonize CIT’s essential findings – that a 757 or similar plane approached the building but did not hit as explosives were detonated inside.
After doing valuable work on the World Trade Center evidence, Chandler has turned his focus to rescuing the Pentagon official story from almost any challenge. Yes, we know he says he doesn’t support all the official story (he doesn’t think Hani Hanjour flew the plane), but he only ever talks about the parts of the story he agrees with. And those, he never stops talking about.
He is determined to convince everyone inside and outside the Truth Movement that the government’s 757-crash scenario at the Pentagon is true and that virtually all the government evidence is authentic and accurate. If there is any compelling evidence that contradicts the official claim of a 757 impact, Chandler and a small group will be right there to attack it. He claims he is just following the evidence where it leads and that he is only protecting the movement’s “credibility.” But his relentless support for one element of the official story after another should prompt any reasonable person to ask what it is he thinks he is trying to accomplish.
Chandler’s latest effort, perhaps his weakest yet, reveals that it is his “methodology,” not that of CIT, that is misleading and unscientific. I say “perhaps” his weakest yet because one would have to go some distance to find something worse than a paper he co-wrote with Jonathan Cole in 2011 called “Joint Statement on the Pentagon: David Chandler and Jonathan Cole.” In this ill-conceived piece of work, the authors call the position that no 757 hit the Pentagon both “absurd” and “foolish” as well as likely being planted to divide the movement and make it look “ridiculous.” The authors appear more concerned with ridiculing the no-impact position than with assessing what the evidence actually shows.
To some in the Truth Movement, it is unthinkable to criticize Chandler’s work but apparently fine to accuse CIT of being agents without a shred of proof. Under the heading “CIT (Citizen Investigation Team),” Chandler and Cole do just that when they write: “It is sometimes hard to tell the difference between simply foolish theories and intentionally planted foolish theories. The difference is generally speculative. The wisest policy is to avoid foolish theories altogether.”
In addition to insinuations like the above, it is standard for Chandler and his pro-impact colleagues to talk about using “the scientific method” to arrive at their conclusion that big planes can enter buildings through too-small holes without leaving any large pieces of broken plane on the outside (or the inside, for that matter). But claiming to be scientific is not the same as being scientific, especially when they venture into speculation, name-calling, and unscientific opinionating.
No one denies that science is one of the essential tools for assessing what did and did not happen at the Pentagon. But listening to Chandler and his teammates, you would think they were the only ones adhering to the scientific method and that there is no such thing as investigative journalism. You would think that only “scientists” are in a position to tell us what is true and what isn’t. Chandler doesn’t engage in science when he addresses the Pentagon so much as he engages in spin dressed up as science.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in this new article. It purports to reveal the flaws in the “methodology” used in interviews by CIT. Chandler bases his claims on a “case study” of a single interview (pdf transcript here) that CIT’s Craig Ranke did with Pentagon witness Albert Hemphill in 2010. Chandler claims he shines a light on manipulative tactics used by CIT that invalidate their “entire process,” but it is his own process that is shown to be wanting.
The green line is the official flight path in this aerial shot. The Navy Annex is at the left of the frame, and the Citgo station is marked with the yellow dot nearest the center of the frame. The official path is entirely south of the Annex and gas station, which does not match what Hemphill reported.
To support his claims, Chandler contrasts Ranke’s interview with two interviews that “independent researcher” Jeff Hill did with Hemphill. Listening to Ranke’s interview, a reasonable person can agree that while it may not be perfect, it is reasonable, fair, and does not involve pushing the subject to say anything he doesn’t want to say. Ranke does lay out all the evidence CIT unearthed in its investigation to show Hemphill the contradictions between what he is reporting and the official story, but he does this after having asked Hemphill the bulk of the pertinent questions.
Hill’s interviews, on the other hand, are intermittently incoherent and manipulative, which the listener can discern with no effort at all. That Chandler offers no criticism of Hill’s “methodology” whatsoever (in fact, he finds no fault with him at all in his article) is absolutely astonishing.
The timing of Chandler’s article seems more than coincidence given that it comes just a few days after the publication on Dec. 11 of the “No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11” list on Truth and Shadows. The list, which is an effort to find common ground on a fundamental statement that contradicts the official story, surpassed 700 names from 46 countries on Dec. 24. It has certainly gotten Chandler’s attention. He is regularly engaging in discussion on Truth and Shadows since the list was posted, which he never did before. He is doing the same on Facebook.
And now this article.
We’ll take a look at some of Chandler’s new claims along with the interview he bases his article on. Finally, we’ll have a look at the embarrassing Hill interviews. (Chandler refers to Hill’s interviews as allowing Hemphill “to express himself fully” about the Ranke interview and to “clarify his testimony.”)
Before getting into the Ranke interview, let’s make some things clear. Hemphill says he believes that the plane he saw did hit the Pentagon. He is emphatic about this. He also says he believes the plane hit one of the light poles because he saw a “flash.” He did not see any pole fall, however. He also says the plane hit on the second floor, which he contends means it would not have had time to pull up and go over the building. He describes the speed of the plane as being much slower than the official 530 miles per hour and says the plane dove into the Pentagon.
It is clear as you listen to the interview that Ranke is trying to establish where Hemphill saw the plane and what path it took towards the Pentagon. Before getting to this, Ranke carefully goes over where, exactly, Hemphill was in the Navy Annex. We learn that he was in the 8th wing (the one closest to the Pentagon, with a clear view of the Pentagon) and that this wing had been torn down by the time of the interview to make room for the Air Force Memorial. (Since then, the rest of the Navy Annex has also been torn down.) Hemphill was closer to the Arlington Cemetery side of the end of the building (the north side) and farther from the Columbia Pike (south) side.
Hemphill clearly explains that the plane was over the Navy Annex and over the gas station. He repeats this several times throughout the three interviews. He also specifies that the plane flew over his right shoulder, which it could obviously do while still being over the building, since Hemphill was standing near its north end. Chandler tries to spin this into Hemphill claiming the plane was on the south path. More on this later.
It is essential to note that a plane on the official path, which is south of the Navy Annex, south of the Citgo gas station, and south of Columbia Pike (until it curves around the Navy Annex) is required to account for the damage. A plane over the Navy Annex and the gas station is north of the official one and is irreconcilable with the damage.
Chandler alleges ‘badgering’
Chandler takes great offense to one question Ranke asks. After hearing that the plane flew over the gas station, Ranke asks Hemphill to specify whether the plane might have been more over the north end of the station, the south end, or directly over the middle. Chandler objects to this because he thinks Ranke is trying to push his subject into saying the plane was north of the gas station. Here is the exchange:
Ranke: Now when you saw it, let’s back up a little bit. When you saw it pass the gas station, what side of the gas station was it on? Was it on the, again, on the Arlington cemetery or north side, or else perhaps the south side, the other side?
Hemphill: You know it’s hard to say, it looked like it went right over the top to me, you know, because of the way its flight path was, but you know you would have come pretty much right smack over the top of it, right over the bridge there, it takes you over to I think on the right if I did all those years ago, I said 110, I meant 27.
Ranke: Right.
Hemphill: But he went right over there towards where the old heliport was, so if you go from where the old heliport was and you draw a line straight back over the Navy Annex, it’s going to take you pretty much over the gas station.
Ranke: OK, but would you say if you had to say if it was leaning towards one side or the other of the gas station, perhaps a portion of the plane, or did it look directly over the top? Or what do you think?
Hemphill: Yeah, I would say more towards the cemetery side.
Ranke: A little more towards the cemetery side, OK.
In his complaint, Chandler treats Hemphill as if he is a child being pushed to recall abuse that never happened. But he is not a child. And he isn’t being tricked into reporting something he didn’t see.
Chandler writes: “It is troubling that Ranke ignores Hemphill’s first answer and persists in digging for another answer.” He also writes: “He is clearly telling Hemphill he is unsatisfied with his previous answer.”
But this is clearly not what Ranke is doing. He asked if the plane was more to the north, the south, or just over the top. Hemphill said north. Not north of the station, just over the north end of it. No one made him say that. Hemphill could have repeated that it was just over the station and that he could not be sure whether it was slightly to the north or to the south. But, instead, he said it was to the cemetery side (the north side). Even if he was mistaken about this, he still puts the plane well north of the official path.
But this distortion by Chandler only worsens when he writes: “This is leading the witness, if not badgering the witness. Such questioning is bad practice because it distorts the testimony. It has no place in scientific data gathering interviews since the goal is to get at true memories uninfluenced by the questioner.”
Badgering the witness? This is absurd. Ranke asks a simple follow-up question. There is no badgering. And this rubbish about “scientific data gathering interviews” is just more jargon that Chandler is throwing around in an attempt to lend weight to his blatantly false statement about this portion of Ranke’s interview.
As you’ll see, the manipulation, witness-leading, and memory influencing comes later, when Hill gets involved. (By the way, Hill’s main claim to fame in the Truth Movement comes from his sickening 1 a.m. drunken phone call to 9/11 WTC witness Jay Maisel. Hill is so abusive on the call, including swearing at Maisel and telling him to “Shut up!” more than once, that Maisel repeatedly hangs up on him, only to have Hill keep calling back. This is actual “badgering,” unlike anything Ranke could be accused of doing. )
Before going further, it is worth looking at the rest of the exchanges between Ranke and Hemphill that involve the question of where the plane was (the ones that involved discussion of what Hemphill saw):
Hemphill: … and then I hear a roar and I looked at the window, airplane, I mean that guy missed the Navy Annex by 15, 20 feet.
Ranke: So what do you mean, are you saying it was off to the side of the Navy Annex? Or…
Hemphill: No he would have been to my… over my right shoulder
Ranke: But you, so you saw the fuselage appear from over was it directly over the top of the Navy Annex? Or…
Hemphill: Right over the top. Right over the top.
***
Hemphill: You know I, you could see him go right over the, about where the gas station is, he clipped a street light …
Hemphill: You could hear the spooling of the engines, the distinctive whine of those things being wound up. And he kicked in, in my opinion, like he kicked in a little bit of right rudder and threw in some aileron because he hit the Pentagon at about the second window level. He did not hit the ground. He did not touch the ground. It smacked right into the building.
***
Ranke: OK, Did you see it actually hit light poles or did you just hear about that afterwards?
Hemphill: I saw him clip it.
Ranke: Saw it clip a light pole.
Hemphill: Yeah.
***
Ranke: But you say you’re absolutely certain that you did see it clip a light pole?
Hemphill: Yeah, because it was like a flash with it, you know.
Ranke: A flash? Did you see a light pole go flying or anything like that?
Hemphill: No. No, no, no. You just, you see the kinda a glance or something, a flash of a wing catching it or something.
***
Ranke: Yeah, in fact your account certainly does corroborate [Terry Morin’s], he also describes the plane as being right over the top of the Navy Annex. How sure are you that it was directly over the Navy Annex as opposed to being on the complete south end of Columbia Pike, in fact I mean on the south side of the VDOT building. You know where that communications antenna tower that there is on the other side of Columbia Pike there?
Hemphill: Yeah. I know where it is.
Ranke: What are the chances that it was on the south side of that, between that and the highway?
Hemphill: I think that’s over a little bit far. I mean I could, from my vantage point I could, it … you know, Terry’s probably correct, as to where he was, that it probably went more over the center of the gas station then, but he definitely was to my right shoulder, so that would correspond to what Terry has always said.
Ranke: Well yeah, no, Terry describes it as being absolutely directly over the Navy Annex, like he looked up, he was between the wings, and he said he looked up and saw the belly only.
Hemphill: Okay.
Ranke: After he ran out is when he saw the plane caught again, and caught the tail of it, but that it was directly over the Navy Annex, and that seems to correspond with what you’re saying here.
Hemphill: Yeah, Yeah, that’s, that’s pretty accurate.
***
Ranke: … They all drew the flight path for me right there on video, and it’s rather compelling watching all these accounts match, over and over and over, and all describing the plane flying in the exact same place. Now they all describe it as being between the gas station and Arlington Cemetery, in that little area right there, so you know after…
Hemphill: Yeah?
Ranke: …after Columbia Pike turns around, goes in front of the Navy Annex and starts, before it goes underneath the bridge, that’s basically where they describe it, between, on the north side of the gas station, just south of Arlington Cemetery.
Hemphill: I would say that’s pretty accurate.
Ranke : OK. Now the problem with this
Hemphill: But I’m shu…. Go ahead I’m sorry.
Ranke: Well I’m sorry, what were you going to say?
Hemphill: I was just going to say they, … anybody who was out and about right then in that area would have had a great vantage point if they were at that gas station
Ranke: Precisely. There’s zero room for perspective error because they’re sitting there on the property. And they’re just telling us hey, you know, what’s, where’s this plane in relation to the gas station, and they all said it was on the north side. If it was on the south side it would have been pretty difficult for them to make that mistake if not impossible, let alone all three of them to make that mistake.
Hemphill: Right, right.
Ranke: And it’s not just them. We’re actually, now with your account we’re actually up to 15 witnesses who corroborate this approach of the plane as flying directly over the Navy Annex and then north of the gas station, as you described.
As the discussion continues, Ranke explains what CIT has learned from multiple witnesses and how this contradicts the south path/impact scenario. He does this in considerable detail. Would I have felt the need to offer such detail? I don’t think so. I would have more succinctly summarized the problems with the story to get Hemphill’s reaction. But that’s a judgment call, and I don’t think it had any effect on Hemphill’s account.
The key thing to note is that all the relevant questions had been asked, and Hemphill’s account ascertained, before Ranke really begins laying out the case. One can’t point to examples of Hemphill saying something he has been pushed into saying. In fact, for the second half of the discussion, it is more Ranke talking than Hemphill.
Until Hill got involved…
So, let’s summarize. Hemphill is clearly of the opinion that the plane hit the building and that it hit at least one light pole because he saw a flash. He is also clear that the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex and directly over the Citgo gas station. He says both on multiple occasions. And, as Ranke explains in the later part of the conversation, a north path approach is not compatible with an impact.
Chandler can argue that Ranke’s conclusions are not valid (he can try, anyway), but he can’t honestly claim that Hemphill was manipulated.
At least not until Hill got involved. That’s when all reason, professionalism, and fairness were tossed out the window. And this is when Chandler’s bias is fully revealed. The two Hill interviews are simply atrocious, and yet they are accepted uncritically by Chandler, who fails to accuse Hill of manipulating or trying to elicit a desired answer.
Chandler’s treatment of Ranke is very different. In his article, you’ll find phrases like, “Ranke tried to persuade him…” and “Ranke pushed him to concede…” and “…Ranke induces Hemphill to contradict himself” and “Once Ranke had maneuvered Hemphill into stating….”
Chandler suggests Hemphill is easily “maneuvered” into saying what he does not believe. But it’s Hill who gets Hemphill to contradict himself, as we’ll see.
But before we get to Hill, let’s go over some contradictions and inaccuracies Chandler presents in his article as he “summarizes” Hemphill’s account.
He writes: “The plane came in over his right shoulder, i.e. to his south, therefore to the south of the Citgo station.”
NO! As I’ve already shown, over his right shoulder does NOT mean south of the station. In fact, Hemphill already made it clear the plane flew over the station. Why does Chandler make such a misstatement?
It gets worse. His next point, as the two are discussing the account of witness Terry Morin:
“The VDOT tower is south of the Navy Annex. [Hemphill] estimates that the plane was not that far south. i.e. south but probably not that far south. This statement would not make sense if the plane were to his north, so this answer confirms that the plane was on a south path.”
NO! Absolutely false! Hemphill has already said the plane flew over the building. He keeps saying that even to Hill. When Chandler writes “a south path” he means the official path. Hemphill is saying the plane was slightly to his south because he was near the north end of the building.
Chandler calls Hemphill an exceptional witness, and Hemphill does sound sincere and firm in his recollections. But his account becomes much more problematic when Hill starts yanking him towards the official story. If you read the transcript or listen to the interview you realize that Hemphill is trying to make what he saw fit with the official account, in response to Hill’s manipulations.
Chandler makes these two outrageous statements concerning Ranke telling Hemphill what other witnesses said:
“Ranke is not asking Hemphill for his own memories as an independent eyewitness, but rather urging him to go along with what others had supposedly said.” And: “Ranke is explicitly asking Hemphill to step back from his eyewitness role and accept a belief based on hearsay.”
But Ranke isn’t. Ranke explained (in great detail) how eyewitness accounts don’t line up with an impact on the official flight path. He was not trying to get Hemphill to change his statement.
Now, to the interview stylings of Jeff Hill.
A photo Hill sent to Hemphill: The red area is where the plane would have had to fly to create the damage. This image, and Hill’s manipulation, pushed Hemphill to recount a path more to the south than before, while still maintaining that the plane flew over the gas station, which is irreconcilable with the damage.
In the first of two interviews (pdf here), Hill calls within an hour of Ranke’s call. Heck of a coincidence, which Hemphill notes with amazement.
Hill: Oh yeah, was his name Craig Ranke?
Hemphill: That was the guy.
Hill: That was the guy, and he sounded like he was an interrogator or something?
Hemphill: Sounded like a reporter, just asking questions wanting to…
Hill: Oh wow, that’s strange, ’cause that’s the guy that I’m arguing with (laughs).
Ah, yes, let the science happen. Hill has already referred to Ranke as an “interrogator” and we’ve barely gotten started. Hemphill sounds like he’s defending Ranke at this point when he says he sounded like a reporter.
But Hill has more up his sleeve to twist Hemphill’s perceptions.
Hemphill repeats his position that the plane flew directly over the Annex and gas station, and that it was over his right shoulder when it passed.
“… so the aircraft would have been kinda over my right shoulder as it came over and it, because where I was it meant it just came directly over the Annex, over the gas station and boom into the building.”
Sounds pretty clear to me. But Hill then explains how Ranke’s theory can’t work with Hemphill’s account of a plane impact. He is clearly pushing Hemphill to disagree with Ranke here.
Hill: I don’t know if he explained to you how they’re saying about how they say it must have flew over the Pentagon, they talked to a bunch of people and they said it came in north of the CITGO gas station. And they say that it wouldn’t have been able to hit where it did if it came over the north of the CITGO gas station.
Now the stage is set for what is to follow. First, Hill helps Hemphill to reinforce that the plane did fly over the Annex by asking him about the Morin account.
Hill: Oh, okay, yeah. He said he was at the Navy Annex, and he saw like the belly of the plane fly over his head or something.”
Hemphill: Yeah, that sounds about right.
Unlike Ranke, Hill proceeds to “maneuver” Hemphill into getting angry and rejecting Ranke’s position, even though he continues to corroborate a path north of the official one.
Hill: … they’re saying is that if it came in north of the CITGO gas station, it wouldn’t have been able to hit any of the light poles in the path, and it wouldn’t have been able to do the damage to the Pentagon, and then they’re saying that it flew over the Pentagon and it was like a flyover and something else, that was either bombs in the Pentagon or something.
Hemphill: No way. I told this guy the same thing. No way. I saw an airplane hit, I saw a big yellow fire ball and a gigantic puff of black sooty smoke, like happens when something that is filled with jet 1-A blows. And I believe that because the guy they’d taken off from Dulles, and had not flown that far, you’re talking about an aircraft capable of doing a transcontinental flight he was loaded, with thousands and thousands of pounds of fuel and unless he vented that meant, you still had, even a flight to Kentucky and back, if he was fully loaded, you’re not going to burn off that much fuel. So he was a flying bomb. And that’s what caused him to disintegrate.
***
Hill: Yeah, OK, well like, what about like after it hit? Like OK, so you already told me like 100% you saw it hit the building with your own eyes. Right?
Hemphill: It didn’t happen. It didn’t happen. It did not happen that way. That is not what I saw from my vantage point where I was in one of the windows looking down the hill towards the Pentagon from the Navy Annex. It hit the building.
At this point, Hill is already getting Hemphill annoyed with Ranke. Hemphill even indicates (as mentioned above) that he thought Ranke was trying to push the idea of the plane being over Columbia Pike – the opposite of what Ranke contends happened.
Hemphill: So, you know, he was trying to make a fine point with me of well could it have been more over Columbia Pike or was it directly over the Annex and I said I don’t know, I said look. I believe it came right over the Annex from what I could tell for the approximate 3 to 4 seconds that I saw this, ok.
I must remind the reader at this point that Chandler is accusing Ranke of leading the witness to make statements he would not otherwise make. But it is Hill doing exactly this:
Hill: Well basically anybody that doesn’t think a plane hit the Pentagon is, well I can’t say really an idiot, but they’re wrong. They’re wrong. And…
No, nothing leading there!
Hill pushes Hemphill ‘south’
Then we get to the second Hill interview (pdf here), and that’s when things really get crazy.
For this follow-up, Hill has sent Hemphill a photo of the scene so he can see the implications of his statements. Now, thanks to Hill, Hemphill is given a clear choice: Stand by your repeated statements of the plane flying over the Annex and the gas station or move away from that so that his claim of an impact can work.
Hill: So when I was looking at a picture like where you were in the Navy Annex, if you were looking over your right shoulder it seems to me that the plane would have been more closer to Columbia Pike?
Closer than what? Hemphill is already clear that the plane was somewhat to his right (over his right shoulder). So it is on the “Columbia Pike side” of his body. But that does not mean it is over Columbia Pike or that it is even close to the official path, which is south of Columbia Pike almost entirely.
Hill: So from the way it looks with all those lines that those guys were drawing that doesn’t seem right to you.
Hemphill: No, the lines that they’ve got with it coming way over as I’m looking at the Pentagon from my office with it way over to, which would have been my left, no way, it just didn’t happen that way. Didn’t happen that way.
How about this effort to push a conclusion:
Hill: I had someone call me today and like some guy I didn’t even know he’s like, yeah I noticed you’re looking in the Pentagon and I just wanted to tell you that I, I saw a, in 2002 I saw an interview with a guy from, that was in Afghanistan talking about how he was in the Pentagon and saw an F-16 fighter flying right towards him. And so that guy is like well so that’s proof of a missile. And I’m like wow, I don’t think so cause I’ve talked to a lot of people who saw the plane hit. So I don’t know how…
Then he turns to attacking Ranke while rushing to establish himself as Hemphill’s buddy:
Hill: Well they got their forum, CIT, Citizen Investigation Team, I think it’s dot org or dot com, I’m not sure exactly which one it is, but there’s like a few different forums where they’re posting the same nonsense. And it’s just it’s aggravating, actually to see that, that there’s people defending this nonsense and there’s other people buying into the flyover of the plane when there’s like, as far as I, well no evidence, and you guys, like you yourself and like every other witness says it hit, and like, it’s just ridiculous.
You can tell in the tone of the discussion as it goes along that Hemphill is getting more and more hostile to Ranke as he is manipulated by Hill.
Hill then plays the “conspiracy theory” card:
Hill: I guess some people just like a good conspiracy theory, I don’t know, the stranger it is the better the more, the more interesting, more people latch onto it I guess, I don’t know. Like I guess that’s why so many people, it deters them away from even looking into any of the stuff because they hear all these stupid ideas, and they just, you know like even to the fact of aliens blowing up their own trade center, or whatever, I guess it’s just as odd to say a plane flew over the Pentagon.
He guesses, he doesn’t know. He’s just throwin’ it out there. And aliens blowing up “their own” trade center is just as odd as saying a plane flew over the Pentagon? What was Chandler saying about methodology, again?
Hill’s colorful take on conspiracy theories fits well with a statement from the Chandler/Cole paper that indicates how the authors feel about the majority position in the 9/11 Truth Movement that no 757 hit the Pentagon:
“On the other hand the mystery that surrounds the Pentagon makes it an attractive target of speculation and the subject of truly wild conspiracy theories. (This kind of attractive diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a “setup” to be discredited at a later time.) This is not the only instance of theories that seem designed to be easily discredited. There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space lasers. Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at all: they were just holograms. What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?”
Then this word salad from Hill:
Hill: OK, well that makes, you know, I mean I don’t know it just makes whatever you say, like any, I don’t know how to say it, I guess that makes it, I don’t even know what to say, like from what you’re saying it could easily have hit the light poles and smashed into the Pentagon from where you saw it.
Hill mentions Hemphill’s statement that the plane flew over the gas station, slightly to the north side, and Hemphill responds:
Hemphill: No, absolutely wrong. It flew over the gas station more to the Columbia Pike side.
He has changed his account, while not acknowledging that it was a change. Nevertheless, he still puts the plane north of the official path, which doesn’t match the damage. But he is trying to reconcile his account with the contradiction Ranke exposed. He has been consistent through all three interviews that the plane was to his right, but he does not put it far from himself since he describes it as going over his right shoulder. As the discussion goes on with Hill, Hemphill makes more and more attempts to align his story with the official one:
Hemphill: OK, if you see the edge of the gas station where the gas station parking lot is, for the CITGO station, it was right over in that area, then it hit the Pentagon. Could it have been a little further over? Yeah, hell, I don’ t know. I only saw it for 3 to 5 seconds. But, the key point is what I saw was the left hand side of the aircraft. That’s what I drew for special agent Heidi Messerschmitt of the FBI.
Hill: Um hum.
Hemphill: OK, so that, what I’ve just described, is consistent, or more consistent with the official story produced by the government as to the flight path of the aircraft. And is not consistent with what this guy Craig is saying. Because the aircraft did not fly directly over my head. It was to my right.
Another attempt to align with the official story:
Hemphill: … if I had to predict and look at the flight path there based on this picture, I would guess that the guy probably was lining up on Columbia Pike and used the hotel that’s up the street from the Annex as his initial point in order to line this sucker up, and then he dove the aircraft right down Columbia Pike, down the hill and it hit the Pentagon, which meant that probably his wing or so probably was over the Pentagon, uh over the Navy Annex…
Hill: So like I guess when you told Craig that it was slightly more toward the Arlington Cemetery side you were just like mistaken in the moment?
Hemphill: No I didn’t say that. I said my office is more toward the Arlington Cemetery side. The aircraft was not more toward the cemetery. It’s more toward Columbia Pike.
But he did say that, as shown above. He was led into being annoyed with the Ranke interview by Hill’s not-so-subtle manipulation. He also had a photo in front of him that led him to have to change his story somewhat so he could continue to claim his account lined up with the official one.
Chandler says that Ranke telling Hemphill about what other witnesses saw brings to mind the Asch Conformity Experiment, in which subjects changed their perception of something because of what others said. In yet another irony, it is Hill who feeds Hemphill information to get him to doubt what he clearly told Ranke in the first interview.
While Hemphill was clear about the plane being over the Navy Annex and over the gas station, Hill manipulates him into describing the path he saw as being closer to the official, south path. But even as he is doing this, Hemphill sticks to the key part of the story: that the plane flew directly over both buildings.
A ‘minor’ detail?
The core of Chandler’s “argument” seems to be that people’s belief that the plane hit the Pentagon trumps their descriptions of the flight path, no matter how specific those descriptions are. Chandler describes the flight path as being of little importance.
“Elevating the significance of a memory of a seemingly minor detail, many years after the fact, is a common thread in nearly all of the Ranke interviews.”
But the flight path of a large aircraft on 9/11 headed toward the Pentagon, as established by many un-manipulated eyewitnesses, including Hemphill, is NOT “a minor detail” nor a “seemingly” minor detail, whatever the time frame.
Chandler writes: “An unbiased interviewer would recognize a memory that the plane hit the building as more likely true than any memories of a path inconsistent with that direct observation, especially when the eyewitness expresses certainty that it actually hit.”
NO! First of all, the mention of bias is more than a little disingenuous. Also, some of the eyewitnesses were not even in a position to see a large aircraft hit the Pentagon. They were in a position to see a large aircraft fly low toward the Pentagon and then in a position to hear a loud explosion and see black smoke billow up from the Pentagon. Chandler seems to be saying we should accept what some witnesses said about an impact because they “express certainty,” but they also expressed certainty about the path the plane took, and it wasn’t in line with the official one.
Chandler concludes with a bizarre and entirely irrelevant story about falling and knocking himself out in 8th grade PE class and how he was left with two contradictory memories of what had happened. This can be deconstructed along the lines of my italicized insertions:
“The circumstances surrounding my jumping over the net were mental reconstructions, equally as vivid as the undeniable memories, but in reality, not memories at all,” he writes.
“Our minds flesh out the details surrounding distant memories, as my own experience illustrates. The methodology at work in the CIT interviews is to distract a witnesses [sic] from an actual, vivid memory of a plane impacting a building, [Several, if not most, of the CIT eyewitnesses were not in a position, because of the lay of the land, to see the ground floor of the Pentagon, where the plane is alleged to have hit.] and soliciting, [No, quite straightforward asking, and then repeating the ask for even more clarity and certainty.] or even planting by suggestion, [No, straightforward asking. The only “planting by suggestion” going on is by Chandler himself and by his fellow researcher, Jeff Hill.] a minor secondary detail. [No, not minor, not secondary. Rather major and highly significant, pointing to an elaborate deception.] This sets the stage for the witness to reconstruct or elaborate on the actual memories to “fill in the gaps” or to satisfy the questioner [Again, he treats Hemphill like he’s an impressionable child.]. That detail [Now actual significant memories are being downgraded by Chandler to a “detail.”] is then elevated to be considered the single most significant element of the testimony, and used to discount both the primary memory [Here, “primary memory” is elevated to mean the explosion and smoke, which most of the eyewitnesses in and around the Citgo station and the Navy Annex heard and then saw in the air above the Pentagon.] and the physical evidence. [“Physical evidence” is introduced as meaning evidence of a large plane hitting the Pentagon but without saying so. Such evidence is severely lacking but is introduced here as a given.] The witnesses themselves are then declared [No, they are quoted as to what they are sure they saw.] to have been deceived about the discordant elements of their testimony. [The witnesses interviewed by CIT, almost all of them, did not recognize their testimony as “discordant.”] The witnesses may come back and protest loudly that the one thing they know for certain is that the plane actually hit the building, but such protestations are ignored. [No, they were not ignored. Their eyewitness reports, when seen as anomalous in light of the totality of other evidence and especially lacking proof a large jet impact, are treated with understanding and respect.] When interviews are conducted in this manner, whatever the reason, the conclusions have no claim to any validity and should be dismissed.” [In a properly run court of law, CIT’s witnesses would be heard out and their testimony weighed within the larger framework of all evidence concerning events at the Pentagon that day. All evidence that can be brought forward will be the best indication of what actually happened and did not happen. “Interviews conducted in this manner” is a putdown phrase grossly misrepresenting the nature of CIT’s interviews, which, in a properly conducted court of law, would carry considerable weight for the judge and jury.]
What Chandler doesn’t even consider is that those who “saw” a large plane hit the Pentagon could have been fooled about what happened – or, more to the point, that fooling them could have been the intention of the perpetrators. That’s not the same as saying their memory was faulty. Several “impact” witnesses who described a north path could not even see the alleged impact point from where they were. They saw the explosion, and they heard the media repeat over and over that a plane hit. Of course they would be influenced by that. But the flight path is something they wouldn’t have been told about. They would just remember where they were and where the plane was relative to that.
In Hemphill’s case, it seems pretty clear that he saw the plane fly over the Navy Annex and the gas station. This doesn’t line up with the damage. Other witnesses, like Robert Turcios, William Lagasse, and Chadwick Brooks, were in an even better position to see whether the plane was north of the gas station, because they were at the gas station.
There are those in the movement who consider Chandler to be above reproach, if not above criticism altogether, and some of them may feel that this article is “fueling controversy.” But I would argue that whether it is his statement with Jonathan Cole in 2011, the “Going Beyond Speculation” talk he gave at the 9/11 Film Festival in Oakland, CA, in 2015 (my response to that here), or this most recent effort, it is Chandler who is repeatedly fueling this fire. I would urge anyone, particularly those who think Chandler can do no wrong, to read his new article, listen to the three interviews (or at least read the transcripts) and truly assess whether his attempt to trash CIT’s entire body of research is either scientific or fair.
The opinions in this article are my own and are separate from the “No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11” list, which is a group effort.–Craig McKee
It’s clear. Ranke was not an impartial interviewer.
What about Jeff Hill, Dwain? What did you think of his interviewing technique?
More importantly, are you agreeing that all of CIT’s work should be tossed in the garbage because of this interview?
That is as pathetic a response as I have almost ever seen Dwain. Ranke’s interviews are highly detailed and impartial and furthermore they reveal a crucial piece of evidence which proves there was no 757 impact. I need no further evidence that you have no credibility left. From here on out Dwain I consider you a disinformationist.
I get it that Craig McKee disagrees with my conclusions. There is nothing here but contentious quibbling. There’s nothing to respond to. The best rebuttal is to urge you to listen to the interviews yourself and read my original paper. I stand by my analysis.
There is nothing here but contentious quibbling. There’s nothing to respond to. ~ DChandler
There’s actually quite a bit to respond to. For example, even if we were to assume you are 100% correct in your analyses of Ranke’s interview, I am sure there are others besides me who would like to understand why you felt no need to scrutinize Hill’s questioning methods during his interview. This alone casts a shadow on your analysis which you, once again, declare that you stand by.
David (Chandler, that is), you kept prodding me to engage in a discussion on Facebook about your article even when I kept telling you that I was working on a response. Well, now you have the response, which offers many more opportunities for discussion than a few Facebook comments would. So, let’s do it! Tell me what is wrong in my article. Your “nothing here but contentious quibbling” is not going to convince anyone.
Let me focus on one of the key points of my recent article on CIT’s interviewing methodology.
Albert Hemphill clearly testified to an airplane impact that involved the plane flying over his right shoulder (which would place it to the south), over the overpass bridge and clipping one light pole that he could see from his perspective. He did the initial description purely from memory long after the event with no diagrams or maps clarifying the physical relationships.
Craig Ranke’s premise is that the relationship of the plane to the CITGO station was the key observation, but Hemphill was not at the CITGO. It was a building some distance away, whose position he misremembered. The relationship of the plane to his own body was key for him, and he repeatedly insisted it came over his right shoulder. It was to the south, but probably not as far south as the VDOT tower. He several times refers to the plane flying directly over the CITGO station and then over the bridge, clipping the light pole, etc. This shows that he remembered the CITGO station too far to the south, as though it lined up with the bridge, because he clearly testifies to the plane flying over the bridge, clipping a light pole, and hitting the Pentagon.
Craig’s agenda was to draw out a north path concession from him. He succeeded after several failed attempts to get tentative agreement that it might have been a little to the Arlington side of the station. However in Jeff Hill’s second interview Hemphill denies that he ever said that to Craig. Jeff sent him a diagram showing the line of sight from Hemphill’s office to the impact point. The line of sight goes straight across the center of the CITGO station, which can be clearly seen to not be in alignment with the bridge. With the diagram in front of him he has no trouble asserting that the plane flew south of the CITGO station.
Trapping a witness into speaking from confusion does not constitute valid interview data. When the only thing Hemphill said that serves Ranke’s purpose was obtained in this way, and when he repeatedly makes clear that what he told Ranke was wrong (not even remembering that he had said it), and when all of the other details spell out a south path, Hemphill cannot be used as a north path witness. This interview speaks volumes about Ranke and the whole CIT agenda.
(I posted this same response on Facebook where I also posted a Google Earth view showing the line of sight from Hemphill’s office to the impact point. I would have posted that diagram here if there were a way to add pictures. There are some pictures in other blog comments, but no instructions how to achieve this.)
Hemphill is emphatic about the plane flying over the navy annex south of his position (over his right shoulder) in all his interviews. That in itself is fatal to the official flight path, fatal to hitting the light poles, and fatal to causing the directional damage to the pentagon. Hemphill’s testimony is still fatal to the scenario you are pushing. You cannot possibly not know that. Even if Ranke did try and push Hemphill into declaring north of Citgo (which he did NOT do, Hemphill chose the cemetery side all on his own) The plane flying over ANY part of the navy annex is fatal to your scenario, absolutely fatal. If you refuse to acknowledge that then you are just flagrantly pushing a lie. The maneuver from above the Annex to hitting the light poles is impossible, period! Your scenario MUST be false.
I still stand by my paper from 2011 with regard to you and your pentagon position Mr Chandler. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/cit/to-debate-or-not-to-debate-that-is-the-question-t1701.html
David,
How selective your account of these interviews is. In your first paragraph, you describe how he says the plane flew over the bridge but you ignore his repeated statements that it flew over the Citgo station. You say that the plane being over his right shoulder places it “to the south.” South of what? Him? Yes, he clearly was saying the plane was to his right. But he wasn’t saying it was entirely to the south of the building he was in. Let’s not forget that he was close to the north end of the building. He said “over” his right shoulder. You make that sound like it’s the official, south of Navy Annex, flight path. How can you justify this characterization?
“Craig Ranke’s premise is that the relationship of the plane to the CITGO station was the key observation, but Hemphill was not at the CITGO. It was a building some distance away, whose position he misremembered.”
How do you know he “misremembered it”? He was very clear that the plane flew directly over the gas station. He said this in all three interviews repeatedly (including the horribly unprofessional ones by Jeff Hill, whose “methodology” you make no criticism of). If one thing was consistent it was that he believes the plane flew over the Navy Annex and over the Citgo station. You cherry pick the parts of his statements that you like. You like him saying the plane was over the bridge (which was farther from him and more difficult to determine) but you don’t like that he said the plane was over the gas station. So you pick the bridge statement as accurate and the station one as “misremembered.”
Given his view of the Citgo station, he could clearly see where the plane passed in relation to it. Certainly he had a much better view of that than he would have about where the plane was in relation to Columbia Pike or to the bridge.
“Craig’s agenda was to draw out a north path concession from him. He succeeded after several failed attempts to get tentative agreement that it might have been a little to the Arlington side of the station.”
Your description of Ranke’s “several failed attempts” is simply false. Please show us the “several” failed attempts. I cover this in my deconstruction of your article. He asked once about the plane path and was told that it went directly over the station. Then Ranke asks him if he had to say it was more to the north or to the south, or neither, what would he say. He says the cemetery or north side. Even if he said he could not tell which side, it would still be north of the official path. Need I repeat how this statement reveals your bias in terms of whether it was Ranke or Hill who displayed an “agenda”?
“Trapping a witness into speaking from confusion does not constitute valid interview data. When the only thing Hemphill said that serves Ranke’s purpose was obtained in this way, and when he repeatedly makes clear that what he told Ranke was wrong (not even remembering that he had said it), and when all of the other details spell out a south path, Hemphill cannot be used as a north path witness. This interview speaks volumes about Ranke and the whole CIT agenda.”
Trapping a witness? Seriously? You appear to think you can just ignore my detailed refutation of your entire article. I showed your bias in the ways you describe Ranke’s interview, and you’ve just provided another example. It is obvious to any reasonable person that Hemphill was not trapped into anything. He was asked questions, and he gave his recollections. And you make a very unscientific assumption that he was confused initially but that he was more accurate once he saw Hill’s “diagram.” I think it is clear when listening to the three interviews that – as Hemphill became more angry with Ranke (fed deliberately by Hill) and more concerned about the implications of his earlier statements – he did all he could to make his memories fit with the official path. But even then he maintained that the plane flew over the Navy Annex and over the gas station. HE NEVER ENDORSED THE OFFICIAL FLIGHT PATH.
“With the diagram in front of him he has no trouble asserting that the plane flew south of the CITGO station.”
FALSE! He says late in the second interview with Hill: “It flew over the gas station more to the Columbia Pike side. I told this guy it flew from where I was standing there in this picture right here I’m looking at that’s got the line with the two red arrows on it.”
It flew over the gas station! If anyone is twisting words, Mr. Chandler, it is you.
You are describing how you think Hemphill’s statements support the official flight path as well as an impact. This is false, of course, in the case of the path. But it is also very different from using the contents of this single interview to “invalidate” all of CIT’s work. If you simply disagreed with CIT’s conclusions, that would be one thing. But you claim they dishonestly twisted Hemphill’s statements to get a result they wanted. This is an outrageous and false claim.
You state in your article that Hemphill’s recollection of the plane being over his right shoulder means he is supporting a “south path.” First of all, you again aren’t very scientific when you use the term “south path.” South of what? Would you not concede that the plane had to be on the official path (south of the Navy Annex altogether) to hit the light poles and cause the damage to the building? How can you conclude from his statements that he is reporting the official path? He is clearly not.
You suggest, falsely, I would argue, that the memory of the plane approach would fade over a few years. I think this is highly unlikely given the nature of the event. I think this would remain vivid for the rest of one’s life. Not all the details, perhaps, but where the plane was in relation to the one remembering, yes.
Your comments here in no way address my response to your article. All you do is sum up your article. You have not addressed the many damning points I made.
“Hemphill cannot be used as a north path witness. This interview speaks volumes about Ranke and the whole CIT agenda.”
Hemphill clearly and repeatedly supports a flight path that is north of the official one. But you keep falsely stating he supports the official path. I think your article speak volumes about your whole agenda. And if anyone’s reputation is tarnished by the article, it is not Ranke’s.
*Note: I have changed references like “Craig’s agenda” or simply to “Craig” to “Ranke’s agenda” and “Ranke” so readers will know you mean him and not me. I suggest sticking to last names when mentioning Ranke for this reason.
You and Jeff Hill make a good team David.
Hill calls Hemphill within an hour of Craig Ranke’s call ?
What’s this, coincidence theory?
I guess he must have seen it on TV..
I have never heard Craig Ranke bettered in any open discussion contesting CIT evidence and would be keen to hear him in the open with David Chandler.
Mr. Chandler is quoted above saying of CIT, “This kind of attractive diversion is sometimes called a “honey pot,” a “setup” to be discredited at a later time” which, by virtue of CIT evidence, is exactly where David is stuck. IN the honey-pot.
But it is also the central blinder to the argument. Mr. Chandler is arguing For ‘states evidence.’ In a major false flag deception covered-up BY that very same State controlling the evidence and the narrative. He is arguing FOR the evidence (not)produced by the State controlling the damage field of “its own’ major DECEPTION. Mr.Chandler is asking you and I to trust his judgment of the States’ presented ‘facts’ -without any peer-review or open contest/investigation by experts of any physical evidence gathered on site to prove #77 was anywhere NEAR Pentagon – he is arguing the case FOR suppressed states evidence, over the clear CIT evidence gathered by the likely lads from L.A., because it would be embarrassing if CIT was ‘wrong.’
ALL ‘evidence’ of #77, is secret. No physical remains of that aircraft have ever been allowed peer-review or Proper (due diligence) contest. And I would ask him, if he has ever SEEN touched/tested/verified/corroborated any piece of it and if so, to produce proof of forensic or substantive physical evidence of #77 hitting that building.
CIT’s work remains a critical moment in understanding the FACT of this extremely well planned and executed false flag attack. Their manner of gathering evidence was recorded clear, clean and as far as I can ascertain, integral. It is actually, brilliant. Their work mapped the existence of the NOC aircraft in flight, thus establishing the PENTTBOM lie once and for all.
Personally, CIT remain a beacon of common sense investigative work.
Bravo!
Ditto!
fremo.remo. said:
“I have never heard Craig Ranke bettered in any open discussion contesting CIT evidence and would be keen to hear him in the open with David Chandler”
Never happen ….. D.C Handler will NEVER debate Ranke in public.
It would be like an amateur lightweight getting in the ring with Mike Tyson.
Chandler has already turned down a debate challenge from Ranke.
Well, I don’t blame him. 😉
This is a devastating reply to Chandler’s latest exercise in “projection”, Craig ….. but somehow, I feel like I’m being manipulated ….. where’s my Teddy Bear? 😉
in this article Mckee says: “it is standard for Chandler and his pro-impact colleagues to talk about using “the scientific method” to arrive at their conclusion that big planes can enter buildings through too-small holes”
but in his original hit piece article from sevreal years ago in 2015 ‘GOING FULL DEBUNKER: CHANDLER DEVOTES MOST OF PENTAGON TALK TO BOOSTING 9/11 OFFICIAL STORY” he says: “Chandler likes to talk about things being “consistent” with a 757 plane impact. But whether it was a real crash or staged to look like one, it would have to appear consistent otherwise it would not fool anyone.” https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker/
Make up your mind Craig, which is it? Is the hole big or small? You said it was big in 2015, now you’re saying its small? Are you saying that you’re returning back to the classic 16 foot hole on the second floor premise?
Do you really think that kind of logic fools anyone? The quote from my 2015 “hit piece” means what it says: the damage was staged to appear consistent with a plane impact. It lined up with the official path, etc. But the hole isn’t big enough to accommodate a 757, and there was no large wreckage outside. Okay?
No, you’re the one trying not doing a very good job fooling people other then just fellow Pentards. “was staged to appear consistent with a plane impact”. You’re statement does not indicate specifically that only “It lined up with the official path, etc. ” (of course that has yet to be rationally explained what the assumed addition with explosives are for? you know, the that ones that show no damage for..?) it suggests that it was staged to look consistent, meaning including the impact hole, as you state “it would have to appear consistent otherwise it would not fool anyone” How is it supposed to fool anyone if the hole is too small? Are you saying the 16 foot hole is back to the second floor now, is true? Which one is it Craig, you’re haggling? Oh, and as far as the wreckage? Well that would have to be inside the building, as that is where the plane went in, as there has to be a hole and consistent damage to fool in the obvious direction.. Why more debris has to be on the lawn, then what there already was, makes no sense at all either..
Did I say anything about a 16-foot hole? That’s a straw man that you and your fellow trolls love to throw into the mix, even if no one is alleging it.
Did you just call us “Pentards”? You are not worth one second more of my time djthermaldetonator.
Pentards, lol. If you can’t make a rational argument, make a sophomoric insult.
First out of the gate, Dwain Deets with eight words: “It’s clear. Ranke was not an impartial interviewer.”
Two propaganda techniques: bald assertion and contrived omission (including, remarkably, no comment on Hill’s interviewing technique.)
Second out of the gate, D. Chandler with 45 words:
“I get it that Craig McKee disagrees with my conclusions.” Propaganda technique: fake humility.
“There is nothing here but contentious quibbling.” Propaganda techniques: bald assertion, name-calling.
“There’s nothing to respond to.” Propaganda techniques: outright lie, dismissiveness.
“The best rebuttal is to urge you to listen to the interviews yourself and read my original paper.” Propaganda technique: Diversion (not addressing the points raised in McKee’s article).
Total number of words: 53. Total number of propaganda techniques deployed: seven.
Excellent analysis, Barrie. From another angle: seven propaganda techniques in five short sentences. Very efficient, but wholly ineffective nonetheless.
I don’t understand someone being involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement, while attacking people for being open-minded and independent thinking, and for working to uncover and expose the whole truth about what happened on 9/11. The ones who orchestrated 9/11 set out to deceive us into believing what served their interests – so it is unreasonable to refuse to consider that they had a military drone – disguised to look like American Airlines flight 77 – fly towards The Pentagon, and then blew it up to deceive people into believing that a hijacked 757 crashed into it, as Barbara Honegger presents the evidence proving occurred in this brilliant and very credible presentation endorsed by the leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNFQ8dAf2Ho
…especially when you consider that unclassified documents prove that The Pentagon was planning to carry out an identical false flag plan – Operation Northwoods – in the 1960’s… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp3P2wDKQK4
Ok. A 757 could not have made the Spiral dive of the official story. If it couldn’t have gotten there it couldn’t have hit the Pentagon wall.
I believe Ranke’s witnesses and I know that an A3 Skywarrior owned by Ratheon would have been capable of flying the spiral, dropping a missile and swerving over the maintenance shed per CITY witness statements.
FAA controller, “We thought it was a fighter”!
Jeez!
And, even worse; the gate keeping in the “movement” that the word ‘ nuclear’ triggers.
We had an expert in low energy nuclear reactions show us that it was just thermite.
Same people guiding the story.
I’m sending CIT another $20.
Ugh! I tried to read it – life is too short.
“Intelligent”(?) people quibbling about whether the pretty girl dancing across the magician’s stage wore red or pink. I wonder if there’s agreement that something airborne hit the Pentagon?
Personally, I’m certain a 757 loaded with fuel for a flight to the West Coast did not crash into the Pentagon. Those fire trucks that arrived, unaware of the plan, used water. I can guess they knew what they were doing.
When I was 10, I struck a match near a gas can. The gas can had a flame going within the 2 gal. can, thinking I would help, I began pouring the gas out of the can – a VERY bad mistake – might have been less disastrous had I poured outside the chicken coup – but – I’d panicked – dropped the can, jumped back, and ran. While my younger brother ran for mom and the fire dept. I ran for the garden hose and was dumbfounded at the affect of my water stream onto that gasoline fire, our chicken-coup was becoming MORE engulfed in flame with my hose water.
The fire dept. arrive quickly and used an extinquisher with form – the fire instantly died. The wood was blackened but the chicken coup remained.
I got a stern lecture from Mt. Angel’s volunteer Fire Chief, and my dad, and my sisters, and the neighbor. My neighborhood pals knew it was a reasonable mistake and supported me! Hahahahahaha
Form on a petrol fire quickly extinquishes the burning. Water spreads the fire – add to the blaze.
I’m certain those fireman knew their fire. Perhaps they wanted more fire? I don’t think so – those guys were innocent.
And now that I think of it, that fire burned in spite of all that water very quickly sprayed – maybe the same accelerant that was used in Manhattan??
Craig, Impressive analysis. If Chandler replies, would you let me know please? Happy new year, bro! ✌ Ken
Yes, I’ll let you know. Of course he has “replied” right here in this comment section but only to say my piece has nothing that requires a response. Odd since just three or four days ago he was taunting me to engage him on his article. I guess he got more engaging than he was expecting.
Kudos to Craig for pursuing this. I guess the “eyewitness” accounts amount to reasonably credible evidence that something flew over, around and/or into the Pentagon on 9/11, but as long as there is no physical evidence that it was Flight 77, as David Griffin says, we can forget about the eyewitnesses, especially since most of them are suspect anyway (Ch. 7, 9/11 Ten Years Later).
Would it not be more fruitful to focus on the physical evidence that supposedly supports the OCT? Let’s see what Chandler/Hoffman et al. come up with to support the OCT’s claim that Flight 93 went into a hole near Shanksville or that 175 and 11 hit the Towers. What is the best physical evidence for any of these things?
David Griffin has written nine books covering all of the evidence adduced in all these cases, and concludes that none of it supports the OCT even remotely convincingly. Chandler/Hoffman & Co. are clearly out to challenge this conclusion. In order to do this credibly, they must produce evidence that the USG has so far failed to produce. They have not done so, in my opinion.
What Chandler/Hoffman are doing is ludicrous, and one can reasonably suspect worse. They are demanding proof that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Devil etc. do not exist. Thanks to the work of Griffin and many others, we know that there is no convincing evidence that they do exist, so why should we try to prove that they don’t? How else can we prove that they don’t except by showing that there is no credible evidence that they do? And that has been done, in spades.
The most generous thing to say about Hoffman/Chandler et al. is that they have fallen into the same rabbit hole as Bill Moyers, Robert Parry (Griffin’s examples), Noam Chomsky, and other victims of what Griffin calls the American “nationalist faith,” which has supplanted all other belief systems in the US (and to a lesser extent elsewhere), including Christianity and science.
The only way Hill would have known to call Hemphill within an hour of Ranke’s call was that either Ranke’s or Hemphill’s phone was tapped.
That means that Hill is a government operative that was hired to do damage control.
The integrity of anyone that defends Hill’s actions is in serious doubt.
The only other possible alternative is that Ranke publicly posted on CIT’s forum that he had just gotten off the phone with Hemphill and that Hemphill confirmed NoC. While I did work closely with CIT at the time, I do not remember the chronology, i.e. if Ranke actually did this. Otherwise, yes, I agree. Too coincidental and a sign that either/both Ranke and Hemphill had their phones tapped.
CIT was successful in setting the truth movement on a diversionary track. Had that not happened, the focus would be on such things as the topics on this webpage:
https://digwithin.net/2012/06/15/from-renovation-to-revolution-was-the-pentagon-attacked-from-within/
You didn’t think so in 2010. You invited Craig Ranke to come to your home and you granted him this video endorsement of his work and conclusions.
Who got to you?
https://youtu.be/yYGkiYmVUmg
Touche!
More eye-witnesses volunteer info here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBT-f2Px1wA
Plus, your current position on CIT is reflected in Craig McKee’s words:
And yet Dwain, people like you, Chandler, Jenkins, and the rest of the pro-impact gang spend no time on the very issues in the article you just posted. You spend no time telling us all the ways the official Pentagon story is false. You all focus on telling us the official impact scenario is true. Why don’t you follow your own advice? Who is it who is keeping this issue “divisive” all these years? CIT hasn’t even been active for a few years now, but that doesn’t stop Chandler from trying to “invalidate” all their work – with you chirping in here and there. Why don’t you lead by example instead of trying to peck away at the great research CIT has done?
Chandler’s repeated attacks on CIT have done nothing to invalidate CIT’s work, it has only served to invalidate Chandler’s reputation as a credible and sincere 9/11 truth advocate.
Couldn’t agree with you more, John. Could we add your name to our “No 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11” list? All we need is a city and state/country and you can join more than 830 truthers publicly taking this position.
Too bad the Pentagon’s hundreds of security cameras were somehow (all) inoperable at the precise time of the 9/11 event. This entire 16-year long debate over what really happened at the Pentagon would have been unnecessary; the whole progression of the event would have been recorded. But, at the rarest time when evidence was most needed, the Pentagon’s extensive camera installations became unavailable, perhaps because someone directed them turned off, or perhaps for some other reason.
One is embarrassed to admit not knowing the Pentagon’s explanation for security cameras not working that day, so we ask others here for clarification and details of that explanation. Thank you.
In any event, the highest-quality surveillance system equipment money can buy failed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
Especially when it comes to exchanges about contentious subjects like politics, conspiracies or disinformation and the like, we often overlook one very simple fact; that the person we are talking about or talking to is nothing more than just that… A person…
A wo/man of flesh and blood… someone with a past, a family, a childhood… a person with feelings, virtues, vices, strengths and weaknesses… a person like me… like you… like Chandler.. like McKee…
In a world where there are well meaning people who may unknowingly spread disinformation while sinister schemers actually spread truth, I feel it is important to first and foremost understand and decipher the person in order to be able to put their words and their deeds into the correct context.
For a group of well meaning people who are presumably working towards the same end goal, no matter how contentious the subject, there are always ways either come to an agreement, or ultimately agree to disagree and move on to trying to establish or discover aspects of the event in question that everybody can get behind.
Many here and elsewhere from both sides of the pentagon impact analysis have correctly diagnosed that a feud over if and what hit the pentagon is essentially serving as an extremely divisive exercise, and consequently as one of the major road blocks preventing progress in the so called “movement”.
Would it then be a fair assumption that one of the two parties is essentially creating and feeding this disagreement intentionally and purposefully in order to manufacture these road blocks? One could certainly jump to that conclusion and start dismissing the other side’s arguments. It is one of the easiest cop outs, and is the outcome desired by the deceivers. But, most importantly, it is a knee jerk reaction that ultimately prevents debate and possible resolution.
Since the pentagon “attack” is not a singular event within the larger context of the entirety of the 9/11 false flag, I am failing to understand the significance of knowing what exactly happened there, let alone this level of polarization between those who harp on the issue to no end, spending (wasting) valuable time, brain power and energy on an issue that can be easily resolved through asking the right questions and not trying to answer them, let alone insisting that you have the right answer and the “others” don’t…
As most people here, I have my issues with Chomsky’s attitude and approach towards 9/11. But, the man has written and said some damn smart words:
In this context, I speak to those of you who are not conscious agents and deceivers: Snap the fuck out of it!!!!! You are all fighting and racing to get to the end of a dead end street.
A few good points, thank you. Indeed, much energy has been spent over the proposition that F77 hit the Pentagon as advertised. It is unfortunate that the 9/11 analysts who argue either side of it spend little energy arguing the importance of drawing 9/11 activists to this truth. What problem are causing the 9/11 scholars who defend the erroneous position? Assuming the false belief they promote would be marginalized, what opportunity would appear? What would be its impact on 9/11 activism? On the world at large? Would there exist some other 9/11-related enigma that would be easier to solve and would carry a bigger impact? The answer to these questions would justify—or not—fanning the argument until the correct viewpoint would prevail.
Love,
As long as people, truthers, private citizens keep mistaking their main responsibility of demanding the truth with actually having to discover and prove the truth, especially when 99.9% of them are not trained in any of the required specialized subjects for proper scientific analyses, we shall always be “seeking” the truth and never finding it… Let alone ultimately using the said “truth” against the perps.
When, in the land of most advanced science and scientists and supercomputers, we’ve had to have a physics instructor to prove the towers’ free fall using a classroom physics “toolbox” to state what is obvious to anyone with eyes to see and a brain to think, I’d say our main problem as a society is not really not knowing what happened, but more like not wanting to know what happened.
As far as the impact of “knowing” on the 9/11 activism and the world at large.. I feel that these are false concerns and misplaced priorities, similar to the bizarre concern over being embarrassed should the government produce footage of a 757…. I’d say energies would be much better spent if we were to have a ‘movement” to demand this footage. Can’t speak for anyone else, but I would be thrilled if the truth finally came out even if I had a giant egg on my face. But I’m not holding my breath… we are light years away from such a thing happening.
“Conclusion to Section on Witnesses: The moral of this discussion is that, contrary to the view that witness testimony provides overwhelming support for the 757 theory, it does not, for two reasons: First, although many people did indeed claim to see a 757 hit the Pentagon, most of these were employees of the government or of news organizations known to support military views, and many of these employees were “elite insiders,” so their testimony, insofar as it is challenged by other points of view, should be regarded with skepticism. In the second place, the 757 claim has been challenged by other witnesses at the Pentagon—by people who witnessed the attack but gave different accounts, and by people who witnessed the Pentagon after the attack and saw no signs of a 757, whether inside or outside the Pentagon.”
“Therefore, the witness testimony cannot be said to supply overwhelming evidence for the 757 view. Whether it does provide some positive support will surely be a matter of perspective.” From David Griffin, 9/11 Ten Years Later.
It is CIT who is relying solely on eyewitness testimony. The yes-757-impact view is supported primarily by the physical evidence, all of which CIT sweeps under the rug. You’re saying all the physical evidence was staged. The point of my recent article is the CIT handling of testimony was either incompetent or fraudulent, so you’ve got nothing.
Mr. Chandler says: “The yes-757-impact view is supported primarily by the physical evidence…”
David Griffin says (in 9/11 Ten Years Later):
“Given the fact that the defenders of the 757 view rest their case primarily on eyewitness testimony, I will begin with a discussion of this….[See previous quote from Griffin above.]
“Summary [of “False Claims Supporting the 757 Theory”]: We must wonder: If the Pentagon was actually hit by AA 77, why were lies told—about two videos of an apparent plane, about Barbara Olson, and about the C Ring—to support that claim?…Some scientists, in support of the 757 theory, have stated very modest requirements for supporting this theory. Frank Legge, as we have seen, has said that “it cannot be conclusively proved that no 757 hit the Pentagon.”153 Perhaps not, but the evidence certainly suggests that it is unlikely.
“Summary [of the physical evidence] : Although the available physical evidence cannot strictly prove that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, some of the evidence fails to suggest the 757 hypothesis, and some of the evidence even counts against the truth of this hypothesis.”
Actually, CIT began their investigation regarding the Pentagon for the same reason that many other investigators did. Because the photographic physical evidence was extremely anomalous and strongly suggested that a plane had not crashed there. If the photographic evidence had shown wings, a fuselage, “two large steel and titanium engines, luggage, seats, bodies… Ranke and Marquis would have never felt any need to embark on an investigation. The Pentagon portion of Loose Change would have never come into being, and French author Thierry Meyssan would never have written his 2002 book in which he speculated about a missile. In fact, in National Security Alert, CIT’s first section of the film presents the “prima facie” case for a massive deception just based on analysis of the photographic physical evidence PRIOR to even delving into the eyewitnesses.
Again, false, David. You throw statements around recklessly. Their forum shows they have addressed all elements of the Pentagon deception. When you write “the physical evidence,” you only refer to the evidence presented as genuine by the government. You ignore or dismiss almost everything that challenges the government account.
I think David Chandler is either delusional or deliberately dishonest. I don’t think it’s worth wasting time debating him or engaging with his delusional arguments, it’s just a waste of time and energy, which is probably his mission. Whatever good he contributed to the truth movement with his original work has been completely eclipsed by his demented determination to derail the Pentagon study with illogical arguments and ad hominem attacks.
Mr Chandler, may I ask your take on the physical evidence from 77? Is any in your opinion proof of 77; serialnumbers or otherwise?
Eyewitness testimony is the only way we know there was a plane involved at the pentagon AT ALL. Aside from the government’s official narrative, of course. The physical evidence at the pentagon DOES NOT indicate any commercial jet liner crashed there.
That is the simple truth of the matter. Too many pictures and news video disprove the plane hit the building narrative.
D Chandler,
Your claim to fame has been presented as if you, as an isolated physics instructor, were able to get the government to admit to a certain free fall. Even Craig refers to your “valuable work” on the WTC. To some, you were a hero.
I wonder about that.
You leverage that “fame” with a persistence against CIT. You do not let it alone.
I wonder about that.
I’m not leveraging anything. Can you address the apparent dishonesty in the interview methodology that is the foundation for CIT’s work?
Dishonesty? Really David? Ranke showed no dishonesty in his interview with Hemphill. You are just pulling that out of thin air. It is a complete fabrication on your part. Hemphill chose the cemetery side (NOC) all on his own. He could have said anything in response to Ranke he is a big boy. In fact isn’t Hemphill a general? So you portraying him as an easily misled dupe is ridiculous. He tried to change his testimony with Hill only after he realized that his testimony to Ranke conflicted with the official lie (I mean story). It is quite obvious why he tried to change to a more southerly path, his career in the military was on the line. Even after changing to a more southerly path he still insists the plane flew over the navy annex and that is game, set, and match, for the official story. A plane over the annex could not maneuver to hit the light poles or create the directional damage. Period. You are done.
Come on, Mr. Chandler. This is evading in the extreme. Mr. McKee has written a full article rebutting your claim that Ranke employed dishonest interview methods. He shows in detail how Ranke did NOT engage in such tactics, but that Jeff Hill DID. And you have, in this comment section, dismissed the article as “contentious quibbling” without addressing a single point.
I have addressed your claim of “dishonesty,” and I have shown that it is you, and your boy Jeff Hill, who have been dishonest. The best example of this is your claim that Hemphill supports the official path because he says the plane was over his right shoulder.
By the way, I am not an “isolated” physics instructor. I worked in close collaboration with a number of people in AE911Truth. Everything I posted got internal peer review first.
“Fame” is irrelevant. I persist against CIT because I see it as a flawed and pernicious presence within the 9/11 Truth Movement. Have you really listened to the interviews I posted yourself, or are you coasting on this one? I have seen you as a scholar. So why are you focusing on irrelevant personal issues here instead of addressing the substance of the points I have raised?
AE911TRUTH stays completely out of the pentagon discussion so who inside A+E are you in collaboration with in regard to the pentagon nonsense you are putting out?
Again, David, I HAVE addressed the “substance” of the points you raised. And you just keep repeating your false claims. It is disingenuous of you to suggest that your points are not being responded to in detail. If anything, it is MY response that is being ignored by you.
Let’s BE honest then.
Plane:
https://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2007/10/23/7680.jpg
NO Plane:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Aerial_view_of_the_Pentagon_during_rescue_operations_post-September_11_attack.JPEG
Anyone with knowledge and experience of physical structures of things like planes and buildings could not honestly say a plane did this damage. Regardless of eyewitness testimony or interview style, the pictures tell us there was no plane that hit the building that day. The fire was put out with water, so it appears to indicate there was no jet fuel either. The most telling though is the lack of any plane pieces anywhere at the impact site. Honestly.
Would someone please explain how to put images in these blog posts?
I have figured out how to insert an image on my end (which I did with your photo) but I’m not sure how others can do this other than simply pasting in the URL. If that doesn’t do it, you can just include the URL to the photo and I will fix it from there.
Mr. Chandler: “The -757-impact view is supported primarily by the physical evidence..”
With respect…I am hesitant to ask for fear of having missed some quantum in the discussion
But.
What ‘physical’ – corporeal – evidence of #77/N644AA have you seen? Where? When?
Who has ascertained and corroborated the seen evidence as part of #77?
Where is the physical evidence stored? Who has record of provenance?
Where can it be accessed for contest by expert witness under protection and direction of Law?
It’s all out there. You just refuse to consider any of it as valid. You would reject the radar tracks, the FDR path (as corrected by Warren Stutt who you would label as some kind of agent), the missing rung on the VDOT camera pole, [I haven’t heard what you have to say about the notch on the tree on the overpass], the light poles, the real time hit on Lloyde England’s taxi, the security camera video frames showing the plane (made visible by blinking), the damage on the fence, the generator trailer (rotated toward the Pentagon), the notch on the low concrete wall from the left engine, the remnants of the tree by the Pentagon window torn from its stump and mixed with the rubble, the inward bending columns, the wide hole in the Pentagon, the markings on the surface of the Pentagon for the wing tips and tail, the evidence of the shredded interior indicating a flow of material inward, the photographs of plane parts and bodies inside the Pentagon, the presence of plane parts on the lawn, in the interior photos, and in the rubble spilled out the C-ring hole, and the perfect alignment of all of the above with the path of the incoming plane. And, oh yes, the testimony of the many witnesses who testify to the existence of a large plane, the path of the plane, the fact that it accelerated, came in on a dive, too low to lift over the Pentagon roof, and actually collided with the Pentagon, some describing the hits on the light poles and Pentagon wall in great detail.
Don’t bother refuting it all point by point. I’ve seen it all. Surely by now you have seen it all. It’s just that I don’t ascribe magical powers to government agents who would stage such an elaborate false crash scene and fake all the data for no good reason. You have yet to explain why they would bother with such a tricky project when they could simply achieve the same result, more reliably, by running a plane into the building.
All you have going for you is a small collection of staged interviews by an interviewer who demonstrably (in the case of Hemphill, as I have shown) deliberately extracts meanings from an interview that the interviewees reject as not speaking for them. Why are Hemphill’s testimony of the plane flying over the bridge, clipping a light post, and hitting the Pentagon considered bad data, whereas his grudging acceptance of the north path going from memory, while not looking at a diagram is the one piece of testimony considered valid, even though he repeatedly retracts that notion when shown a diagram, and insists repeatedly that the one thing he is most certain of is the plane hit the building.
And you wonder why I think this methodology is dishonest. You wonder why I don’t hang around having debates with you guys. I’ve documented the Hemphill interview for all to see who are interested in seeing. I’ve got better things to do. Bye.
Referring to the CIT interviews as “staged” shows that you have lost your grip on simple fairness. And your claim that the government would not stage something elaborate on a day when three skyscrapers were brought to the ground in one of the greatest deceptions of all time simply is not credible.
One thing that is clear is that you will never stop hammering away at this, no matter how much damage you do.
Your assessment of the Hemphill interviews has been completely discredited. If I were you, I wouldn’t stick around and debate either.
“No. I have seen no bona-fide and corporeal physical evidence of #77/N644AA,’ would do.
Chandler: “Bye”. Let’s hope he means it. He has lost this debate, bigly. The list of names of truthers who refuse to subscribe to the preposterous notion that an airliner hit the Pentagon will continue to grow.
The contributions of Chandler alone in this comments thread deserve extensive deconstruction as an exemplar of counterfeit argumentation.
In his first 45-word contribution to this comments thread Chandler employs six propaganda techniques (fake humility, bald assertion, name-calling, outright lying, dismissiveness and diversion).
His outright lie was: “There’s nothing to respond to.” Without even referring to this lie, let alone apologizing for it (thus employing the propaganda technique of omission) he then spectacularly contradicts his outright lie—by responding at length.
What follows, from him, is continuing string of further omissions: for instance not dealing with most of the criticisms of his latest article. He hunkers down by repeating earlier assertions that have already been shown faulty, and re-committing his strategic omissions.
Throughout he bobs and weaves, omitting, re-asserting. And then introduces a hodge-podge of questionable or worse new assertions in a sort of smokescreen of bullshit-baffles-brains. Just one example is his bringing in as credible the incredible nose-stretcher, “the real time hit on Lloyde England’s taxi.” This alone would fail the Malcolm Gladwell “one thin slice” test.
Along the way Chandler throws in more propaganda techniques, which he tries to pass as non-counterfeit comment. For instance:
“It is CIT who is relying solely on eyewitness testimony.” (Propaganda technique: exaggeration if not outright lying.) “The yes-757-impact view is supported primarily by the physical evidence,” (Propaganda technique: outright lying; the primary support for the yes-757-impact view is massive repetition of the lie of it in mainstream media and by Chandler and his cohorts) “all of which CIT sweeps under the rug.” (Propaganda technique: misrepresentation. Non-events can’t be swept under any rug.) “You’re saying all the physical evidence was staged. The point of my recent article is the CIT handling of testimony was either incompetent or fraudulent,” (Propaganda technique: non sequitur) “so you’ve got nothing.” (Propaganda technique: bald assertion, probably also projection.)
The most common characteristics of Chandler’s verbiage are dodging evidence (including evidence of his own dodging), strategic omissions, introducing hodge-podge and brazen repetition of all.
One outcome of counterfeit argumentation is to consume arguably what is everyone’s most important resource—time. This outcome may be one sought by the counterfeiter, in this case D. Chandler. But the primary effect, a gold standard in the disinformation field, is disruption, or as Chandler et al would project it, “divisiveness.”
Well said Barrie I agree with your assessment, particularly the last paragraph where you talk about the possible goal of Chandlers efforts, divisiveness itself. Divisiveness along with a big dose of time wasting of course. Personally I am writing off this charlatan David Chandler and moving on to bigger and better things.
Just a thought. The reason the standard story might be attractive to some is that it cannot by itself challenge the official story of 9/11. The alternative theory, that something besides a 757 hit the Pentagon, immediately and obviously challenges the official story.
As others here have asked, I am wondering too why at least three members of the 9/11 Consensus panel (Chandler, Cole, Deets) are trying so hard to support the OCT account of the Pentagon event, and who else among “truthers” agree with them. If this is not why Chandler et al. believe, why do they not then at least focus on what is false and incredible about the OCT account — which is the stated purpose of the “consensus”?
First, I apologize for not watching — until now — the Deets video posted above by Adam Syed here on Dec. 30. I have not been following details over the past years and have relied on the work of David Griffin, who obviously has, and since I have seen not even an inkling of a debate over the evidence that he so thoroughly gathers and presents and uses to form his conclusions — with which I also agree — I have seen no reason to deal with the details. This is why I say to people: Read Griffin and if you find anything to disagree with, then maybe we can discuss it, which means maybe I will get interested enough to discuss it. I have said much to the same effect here, and that is still my approach. Give me evidence and arguments specifically refuting Griffin on some point and then I might get interested. But don’t ask me to spend my life’s time reading stuff that I know Griffin has read and digested and (most likely) specifically addressed. No, I do not have to do that, thanks to Griffin (and others of course whose work Griffin relies on). How often do you have to reinvent the wheel? Once is enough, especially when it is a damn good wheel that works and that nobody has any serious complaints about. I have seen NO arguments here refuting anything Griffin has said.
Second, the Deets question, now that I have watched that 2010 video, is highly disturbing. He has not answered Adam Syed’s question above. What got to him? Why has he changed his opinion? In the video he very clearly endorses the CIT and agrees that Flight 77 and no 757 hit the Pentagon, and yet I do not see his name on Craig McKee’s list. This very strange, and if Deets cannot tell us (the public) why he has changed his mind so radically since making that video, there is only one explanation, and it is obvious what it is. Only two things can make people walk: a carrot or a stick. Either way, it’s ugly.
Suggestion for Craig McKee: Please add the date of publication of the articles at the top!
And if you can work out a table of contents/index/search function that would provide a better overview of articles, that would be great! For example, I just discovered Adam Syed’s article on the “Kevin Ryan paradox”
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/the-kevin-ryan-paradox-the-way-to-show-the-911-official-story-is-false-is-by-accepting-as-much-of-it-as-possible/
which seems to be relevant here (I haven’t read it yet but will) by googling his name + “9/11,” but I should have been able to find it here more easily, don’t you think?
Also, it would obviously be good to be able to use hyperlinks without having to paste in the whole URL.
These are NOT criticisms! This is the only 9/11 site I read. Just hoping to make constructive suggestions. Keep up the great work.
I have just read Adam Syed’s excellent review of Kevin Ryan’s book “Another 19” (link above) and I see his view of Ryan’s previous articles is much the same as mine, as published on OpEdNews in Jan 2009 https://www.opednews.com/Diary/Controlled-Demolition-as-a-by-Michael-David-Morr-091001-754.html
I note, too, that David Chandler was the first to review Ryan’s book on Amazon, giving it 5 stars (along with 78% of other reviewers, 88% 4-5 stars). Syed’s review (abridged) is also there under a pen name.
The one critically important point that “No plane hit the Pentagon” advocates keep ignoring is that ALL the witnessed that could see the pentagon, including Hemphill, said that THEY SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!
The claim that all these witnesses, many years later, accurately remembered where the plane flew but were mistaken about seeing the plane hit the Pentagon is positively Fruit Loops.
Sarns, do you have any clue about the concept of misdirection, or for that matter any clue about human psychology and the concept of suggestibility? Have you ever seen a single show by a skilled professional magician in your entire life?
This cannot be passed off as a misdirection or suggestion. That is simply absurd. The witnesses saw the plane hit the building. Hemphill had an excellent view and could not have missed the plane pulling up to fly over the Pentagon.
Terry Morin was just outside of the wings of the Naval annex. He saw the plane descend until all he could see was the top of the tail which puts the plane far south of the Citgo station (see Chandler’s graphic above). Furthermore, the plane could not have pulled up to fly over the Pentagon.
So where are the plane parts?
I cannot say for certain that there are a lot more plane parts than what we have seen but by the same token you cannot say for sure that there are none. However, some plane parts are scattered on the lawn and the heliport landing pad. There may be many more in front of the impact area but we have no up close photos of that area, just long shots from ground level that wouldn’t show them. There is also the approx. 20 foot wide gravel(?) drive area next to the Pentagon that could be strewn with small plane parts.
I see reason for doubt but not for a claim that there was no plane impact.
What happened to the wings, Chris? And the tail section? Why were the windows that would have been in the path of the tail not even broken? Why is there not a single large piece of wreckage outside?
Don’t you think the physical evidence, or lack thereof, is the most important record of what happened?
The tail section may have dropped some as the plane entered the building. I cannot say for certain that it did but you cannot say for certain that it didn’t.
The plane may have been smashed to small pieces and any large pieces went inside. I cannot say for certain that this is what happened but you cannot say for certain that that is not what happened.
The lack of evidence by no means constitutes proof, only doubt.
The plane at the Pentagon might have been hit by an invisible beam from an experimental government weapon that dematerialized it just as it got to the wall. It might have been beamed to a secret government facility in the desert. I can’t say for certain that this happened, but you cannot say for certain that it didn’t. Aliens from another planet may have taken human form to plant explosive devices in the towers. I cannot say for certain that this happened, but you cannot say for certain that it didn’t.
Seriously, this is pathetic.
You are correct. Your suggestions are pathetic.
The lack of evidence by no means constitutes proof, only doubt.
Yes, I can see that you’re in love with that phrase. But doesn’t the government need to be able to prove its official story? Isn’t the burden of proof on those who push that story – or parts of it?
My suggestions were hardly pathetic; they were tongue in cheek to show how absurd it is to argue that we can’t prove that an impact didn’t happen. How happy the perpetrators must be that there are people right inside the Truth Movement who shift the burden off of them and onto those in the movement. People like Chandler and his pro-impact cabal seem to want to push so much of that official story while attempting to shift the burden of proof away from the government.
Your tong-in-cheek response was pure sarcasm and therefore had no value.
The requirement for proof goes both ways. The government has not proven that a plane hit the Pentagon and the no-impact cabal has not proven that no plane hit the Pentagon. The issue is in doubt.
Why is it that it’s the plane-impact supporters like you who constantly want to shift the burden of proof onto the Truth Movement? Why do you want evidence we have against the official story to be IN DOUBT? And I find it incredible that you have the nerve to call the majority of the movement a “cabal.”
Perhaps broadening the discussion a bit would help us understand each other better.
Does Chris Sarns have the same agnostic opinion about Shanksville? How about JFK? Has it been proved that no plane went into the hole near Shanksville? Has it been proved that Oswald did not shoot JFK?
And for that matter, since Sarns has worked on the WTC “question,” has it been proved that the buildings did not collapse due to plane impacts?
Sarns’ contribution is apparently that some of what the govt agencies have said is “fraudulent.” But has he proved it? Has the govt responded? Can the imputed “fraud” not be due to simple human error? Can he prove that these errors were deliberate? Can he prove that these errors were not caused by individual carelessness, and therefore not indicative of a systematic effort? Can he prove that, even if it was a “systematic effort,” that the “system” was any more “systematic” than a tiny cabal within those govt agencies?
Even if he were able to prove any of this, can he prove that Osama bin Laden did not direct the putative tiny cabal that planted the bombs, or that that were not planted by Osama bin Laden and the Forty Thieves, I mean, the 18 hijackers, I mean, Mossad, I mean, Larry Silverstein, I mean, agents of the Illuminati?
Are not all of these issues “in doubt”? Can he prove that they are not in doubt?
Morrissey, your post was exactly what I was thinking to be my response, likely more eloquently written than I would have, and I agree completely. This idea that all propositions have to be “proven” (whatever that might mean), even the negatives, if true, would leave us in limbo, never being able to assert anything definite. Of course Oswald did not shoot JFK; who has “proven” that he didn’t? Who has proven that he did? And I was turning over in my mind the same response about the WTC and Shanksville that you wrote.
Thank you.
Just as I suspected. You do not have a clue about misdirection or human psychology and suggestibility.
David Bauer said:
“Just as I suspected. You do not have a clue about misdirection or human psychology and suggestibility”
Oh, yes he does ….. he’s engaging in it as we “speak”.
Eyewitness testimony is the weakest form of proof. Forensic evidence is much more reliable. There is virtually no actual verifiable physical evidence that supports the hypothesis that a large jet plane impacted at the Pentagon that day. The burden is on the proponents to provide the proof of the large jet plane impact; they have not done so.
Have you ever examined the actual testimonies of the purported witnesses? They couldn’t be more disparate. They contradict each other; some say the aircraft’s wing hit the ground and it cartwheeled into the building, others say the plane bounced off and crashed into the heliport, still others say it went into the building without leaving anything outside. And who are these supposed eyewitnesses? Who do they work for, where were their vantage points, and were their memories tainted? Have you ever looked into these issues?
I have read all the testimonies of the witnesses that CIT interviewed and some of the others. One person (not some) said that a wing hit the ground and one (not some) said that the plane cartwheeled into the Pentagon. I don’t recall any that said the plane bounced off and crashed into the heliport. It is reasonable to discount those but it is not reasonable, or even rational, to discount all the witnesses who saw the plane hit the pentagon because of those two (or possibly 3).
Correction: You were right in using the word “some’
Steve Anderson – drug it’s wing along the ground
Mary Ann Owens – the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area
Davis Marra – Cartwheeled into building
D S Khavkin – crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon.
Tim Timmerman – most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground,
Michael James it looked like it hit the helicopter pad and skipped up and went right into the first and second floors.
Rodney Washington – hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.
Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html
Revised statement:
It is reasonable to discount these but it is not reasonable, or even rational, to discount all the other ~120 witnesses who saw the plane hit the pentagon.
…who believe that what they saw was the plane hitting the Pentagon. You don’t know what they saw. Unless you read minds.
I used the word cabal sarcastically because you referred to Chandler and those who support his views a cabal. That is uncalled for and inappropriate. Such comments only serve to divide the TM into pro-impact and no-impact camps. THAT is the problem here, not the legitimate difference of opinion. Did you read DRGs plea to cut that shit out?
BTW You have no idea how many people believe which theory so stop saying that the majority agrees with you.
The concept that all these people were fooled by a magic trick is beyond absurd. They were there and you were not so you din’t have a right to just write them off as being “mistaken”.
If you don’t trust witness statements then you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE for your NoC/flyover theory. You can’t have it both ways.
The staggering hypocrisy from you, Chris, is breathtaking. As well as being staggering. YOU, of all people, are worried about dividing the movement? YOU are one of the architects of this division with your behind-the-scenes pressure on people like Richard Gage to reverse their mild support for CIT. You called CIT agents on 911blogger. And now you are here telling the majority of the movement (I have yet to encounter one person, including Chandler himself, who denies this) that their view on the Pentagon is “beyond absurd.” You and the Chandler cabal (yes, that’s that they are) are primary source of division in this movement. You should take DRG’s advice yourself.
Craig,
CIT and their supporters had been insulting, ridiculing and labeling anyone who disagreed with them as agents long before the one time I called Craig and Aldo “professional disinformation, defamation specialists”. THAT is what cause the division in the TM, not my one comment. And that was when I saw their despicable “Enemies” page where they ridicule and shame people who criticize NSA, even posting a photo of one guy in his underwear. Even the JREFers don’t stoop that low.
Here is the evolution of my initial support for CIT and what changed my mind.
Thank you CIT for your excellent work. The fact that it is being so vigorously opposed is testament to the devastating effect it has on the OCT.
Submitted by Chris Sarns on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 2:59am.
911blogger.com/node/20738#comment-212828
“Unfortunately CIT has totally spoiled this research by irrevocably linking it to a very premature “flyover” conclusion in all of their videos.”
Submitted by Chris Sarns on Thu, 07/30/2009 – 5:52pm.
911blogger.com/node/20738#comment-212897
I now see why people are having a problem with CIT. They specifically said there were NO witnesses who said the plane flew south of the Citco station but they interviewed several who did. So far; Stephen McGraw, Keith Wheelhouse and Vin Narayanan. Interviewing someone and then calling them an accomplice in a video is very bad form. Optimum would be to show all the witness statements and let the viewer decide. My opinion of CIT just went in the toilet. Keeping that in mind, let’s look at the all the witness statements.
Submitted by Chris Sarns on Sat, 08/01/2009 – 12:08am.
911blogger.com/node/20738#comment-213019
(This post awakened me to just how destructive CIT was)
“CIT’s Hit List” – Anyone think we should ignore this?
citwatch.blogspot.com/2009/08/cits-hit-list.html
Submitted by Jules on Sat, 08/08/2009 – 10:26am.
911blogger.com/node/20833#comment-213646
From the page referred to:
“The so-called Citizen Investigation Team is already well known for their vicious personal attacks both on their interview subjects and on their critics. Pentagon witnesses who didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear have been labelled “demon”, “devil”, “accomplice” and “plant”. Likewise, those who have criticized CIT’s methods, tactics or theories have been met with similar attacks and even threats and harassing phone calls. So it’s really no surprise that Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis would initiate a public hit list of their critics – encouraging their followers to compile photos and personal information about those who’ve dared to openly disagree with them.
The list starts out targeting an unsavory group of so-called “debunkers” but then quickly moves on to activists within the truth movement who CIT considers their enemies. Photos and personal information are posted along with a deluge of personal attacks and veiled threats, with CIT encouraging their followers to be as nasty as possible. Aldo Marquis, who apparently gets off on playing the heavy and calls himself an “investigangsta” on CIT’s site, at one point suggests kicking one of his detractors in the teeth. No one blinks an eye.
Is this what the 9/11 truth movement has become?
Thanks to CIT, unfortunately it is.”
Their ‘enemies’ list is despicable. They are not truthers! They make Mark Roberts look like a choir boy.
Stop making excuses for them. I admit that I was taken in by these @#$%^&* and it’s time for you to do the same.
Submitted by Chris Sarns on Sat, 08/08/2009 – 3:51pm.
911blogger.com/node/20833#comment-213673
I met Adam in DC and we talked at length about many things but not CIT.
Like most violinists, he is very high strung. As a cellist/bassist I am more mellow and low key. 😉
Seriously, I respect Adam for his passion and dedication to the Truth Movement. People of good conscience often disagree. My disagreement with Adam does not diminish my respect for him.
Chris Sarns on Mon, 08/10/2009 – 1:09pm.
(my respect eventually ended because of Adam’s subsequent relentless insults)
I have been trying to be diplomatic in my criticism of CIT but this is way over the top.
These guys are clearly professional disinformation, defamation specialists.
To post an ‘enemies’ list is indisputable proof of ill intent, a desire to discredit key members of the Truth Movement. It makes me sick and very angry.
Chris Sarns on Sat, 08/08/2009 – 6:44pm.
Create confusion with conflicting evidence and get investigators to disagree. Keep them busy with infighting and countless hours of trying to sort it all out. The downed light poles were completely unnecessary. They are a red herring IMO.
Look at the result. A successful split in the Truth Movement.
CIT has revealed itself with the ‘enemies’ page. That is the work of someone trying to harm the Truth Movement. Putting Jim Hoffman and Mark Roberts on the same list would be hilarious if it were not so repugnant.
Chris Sarns on Sat, 08/08/2009 – 10:12pm.
The flyover theory is totally dependent on eyewitness testimony about where the plane flew.
There is some evidence of plane debris on the lawn and the heliport. However, you are ignoring the fact that the lack of verifiable evidence of a plane is NOT proof that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.
Well, I disagree. I would absolutely assert that the “lack of verifiable evidence of a plane” IS proof that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. If a 757 had hit the building, there would be large pieces of the aircraft visible outside, such as the tail and wings. The pieces of the aircraft that you assert prove the impact are minuscule and do not come anywhere near comprising the 90 tons of material that made up the airplane.
OK, we disagree. You believe that there would be large pieces outside the Pentagon. Numerous witnessed said that the plane just disappeared into the building and that sounds reasonable to me. Based on my knowledge of construction I can see that the blast protection is designed to crumble and absorb an explosion or impact. It is not designed to repel.
[URL=http://s1300.photobucket.com/user/csarns/media/106-large_zpsfj6gnh3q.jpg.html][IMG]http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag84/csarns/106-large_zpsfj6gnh3q.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Craig, This from Photobucket – IMG – Other choices are HTML, Direct and Email & IM
Numerous witnessed said that the plane just disappeared into the building. Based on my knowledge of construction I find that reasonable. The new blast protection was designed to crumble and absorb a blast or impact. It was not designed to repel.
Craig, This is the IMG option from Photobucket. Other options are HTML and Direct
[URL=http://s1300.photobucket.com/user/csarns/media/106-large_zpsfj6gnh3q.jpg.html][IMG]http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag84/csarns/106-large_zpsfj6gnh3q.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Numerous witnesses said that the plane just disappeared into the building or words to that effect. Based on my knowledge of construction, that sounds reasonable to me. The added blast/impact protection was 10″ of non-reinforced concrete, 8″ of brick and 6″ of limestone. That combination is designed to absorb the force of a blast or impact by crumbling rather than repelling. To repel, they would ave used 24″ of reinforced concrete.
Ridiculous. That is one of the silliest things I have read on this thread. I work with concrete everyday. What is the psi of this ’10” of non-reinforced’ concrete? Even if there were no reinforcement steel in the concrete, it is still much harder than any commercial aircraft.
The following is damage from a bird:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/05/06/11/285EC31F00000578-3070051-image-a-37_1430908104776.jpg
A concrete slab absorbing that force would result in leaving a plane entirety impaled on it. Yet we witness a hole in the inner ring where that plane supposedly penetrated the several walls. Impossible.
Has anyone in your community tried to reconstruct this disappearing plane miracle on any scale? It’s like we are living in a cartoon world.
10″ of non reinforced concrete is no match for 100 tons traveling at 400 mph. Showing the composite nose of an airliner is very misleading. That part would not do any damage but the hardened aluminum fuselage frames, wing spar and tons of fuel, that act as a solid upon impact, would easily break thru the ‘designed to crumble’ blast/impact wall.
I find the hole in the C ring suspect, but not the hole in the impact zone.
BTW: there were no walls between the exterior wall and the C ring on the first floor.
I don’t know of any study on plane vs blast wall but I’ll check around. However, I have a feeling that no-plane advocates would find a reason to not accept the results.
How many square feet of impact is your 100 ton plane’s weight being distributed on?
Concrete weighs 150 pounds per cubic foot. That makes that 10 inch thick concrete wall weigh 125 pounds per square foot. That is merely its mass and doesn’t take into account material density or tensile strength. Without knowing the exact construction of the building in question and assuming no structural steel integral to the exterior layer and it self-supporting on the ground entirely, the concrete may indeed crack and crumble with such an impact and turbines could penetrate it, but the bulk of that plane and its contents would be what we would see all over the outside of that building.
That is how it works when commercial aircraft impact large buildings.
OK, You have your opinion and I have mine. Neither one of us can say for sure but I’m going with the 100+ witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. My explanation is consistent with what they saw and yours is not.
To claim that no plane hit the Pentagon you are saying that they are all government plants who are lying because there is no way they were all fooled by a magic trick.
It isn’t a matter of opinion whether concrete is denser than aluminum.
Neither am I taking witness testimony into account. At all.
I am looking at pictures of the damage and there is no 757 aircraft in the wreckage.
You are the one describing a magic trick.
100 tons of aluminum traveling at 400 mph will shatter 10″ of concrete.
There are very limited photos so just because you don’t see any large plane parts does not mean that they are not there. Large parts would travel further into the building. There are lots of small parts in the limited area that was photographed.
You are not qualified to say how much damage would result to the plane or the building. That would require a very expensive analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF_7h_Whcpc
Don’t put words in my mouth. I do not assert that the visible pieces prove impact. I just noted that there were small pieces on the lawn and the heliport landing pad. This indicates that there were more in front of the crash site that were not photographed. The vast majority of the plane would be inside the building.
“The flyover theory is totally dependent on eyewitness testimony about where the plane flew.” ~ Chris Sarns
Well, yes and no.
With regards to Pentagon eye-witnesses there was one that pretty much blew a hole in the official narrative all by himself:
Roosevelt Roberts
As you are well aware, this was the critical fly away witness CIT found and interviewed in 2008 shortly after they came across his November 2001 interview conducted by Jennifer Brennan and cataloged in the Library of Congress.
As I recall you spent significant amount of time and frustration in 2009 after CIT released their NSA video trying to decipher then debunk Mr. Roberts interview statements, finally throwing up your hands and declaring Roosevelt a “liar”.
Here’s a posting you made expressing your opinion on the P4T board:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18306
Unfortunately the link to the diagram you made trying to illustrate Roosevelt’s statements is no longer functional in that posting.
I found this one after a quick internet search. Alas, it’s only a youtube thumb nail pic:
(hope that works. I haven’t posted an image to a WordPress comment section before)
Even then, there were a number of problems with your illustration, the most obvious being, based on a general understanding of Roosevelt’s statements at the time, you had the aircraft Roosevelt said he saw reversing its direction executing the 180 degree turn, doing so well before he could have possibly have seen it happen, based on your diagram.
The problem wasn’t Roosevelt. It was your failure to pay attention to everything Roosevelt said. He was no a liar.
Your mistake, and I believe that of CIT as presented in their 2009 NSA video, was that you have Roosevelt positioned at the Pentagon South Loading Dock at the time of the explosion notwithstanding he clearly responded to Aldo Marquis’ first question in his 2008 interview as follows:
Aldo Marquis:
Okay, well you know what, let me, let me, let me just ask you a couple of quick questions, there was mainly a couple of specific things.
When you, you had mentioned, right as you hung up the phone, you ran outside..Which parking lot, which dock were you at?
Roosevelt Roberts:
I was in south parking, and I was at the east loading dock, when I ran outside and saw the low flying aircraft above the parking lot.
The East Loading Dock.
There were two operating loading docks at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001; the south dock and the east dock. That would be the one here:
http://i42.tinypic.com/js147b.jpg
Roosevelt clearly replied to Aldo that he was at the East Loading Dock when the explosion occurred at the Pentagon on the west side of the building next to the heliport. The east dock is almost directly across from the heliport on the opposite side of the building, on the Metro Station side at its northern end where it meets the River Entrance side of the building.
Roosevelt said he ran seven steps from a booth he had been in to the edge of the dock where he said he saw a commercial airliner, silver in color with jet engines, flying 50-100ft AGL over the light polls in the Pentagon south parking lot, “over lane 1”.
Where would “lane 1” be from the perspective of an observer at the edge of the East Loading Dock?
Would it not be the first lane on the east end of the south parking lot; the one directly in front of and closest to the east dock?
I’ve asked this question of pro-impact people before but have yet to receive a response, so I’ll pass it along to you. What plane do you believe Roosevelt Roberts saw on the east side of the Pentagon, on the Metro Station side, seconds after the explosion on the west side?
Well, the attempt to post the C Sarns illustration above with didn’t work.
Here’s a copy and past link: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JnboQNTHTYM/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEXCNACELwBSFryq4qpAwkIARUAAIhCGAE=&rs=AOn4CLB24vsefhAimtqjBn1WGLI38GmI-w
This is a quagmire because the interview is somewhat incoherent. For starters, Roberts could not be in the South Parking and the East Loading at the same time. They are two different locations. Second, South Parking lane 1 is clearly marked on the graphic you posted and it’s on the west end next the the 395/27 cloverleaf interchange. Roberts would know that.
A little further on, Roberts confirms that he was in the South Parking and the plane was headed southwest back across Hwy 27:
Aldo: Which direction it was heading?
Roberts: It was, . . it was heading, . . . back across 27 . . . and it looks like. . . it appeared to me, I was in the south, and that plane was heading . . . southwest. . . coming out.
Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around?
Roberts: Correct.
Aldo: Okay.
Roberts: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across.
Aldo: Did it look like it went out over the river, and and kind of turned around?
Roberts: It looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around … where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.
Aldo: Southwest away from the Pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?
Roberts: Right.
There is no ambiguity here. Wherever Roberts was he repeatedly said that the plane flew away to the southwest – back across hwy 27 – and Aldo acknowledged that.
From his original interview: Roberts was in the South Parking loading dock.
“So as I hung up the phone and I ran into the center of the dock loading dock and looked up, I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot … So I ran back into south loading and I started forcing people out of the building.”
http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr348a01.mp3
“From his original interview: Roberts was in the South Parking loading dock.” ~ Chris Sarns
See: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/cit/roosevelt-roberts-loc-interview-question-t1560.html
There’s an attempt at a transcript of the entire LOC interview at the bottom of the OP.
If you care to read it here’s a link to an mp3 recording of the interview.:
http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr348a01.mp3
It’s evident from listening to the recording and reading the transcript the LOC interview has been sliced, diced, and spliced back together again.
Why do you suppose they would do that?
“This is a quagmire because the interview is somewhat incoherent.” ~ Chris Sarns.
Actually, no, it’s not incoherent, not if you position Roosevelt where he said he was, at the East Loading Dock instead of the south dock like you pictured him.
“For starters, Roberts could not be in the South Parking and the East Loading at the same time. They are two different locations.” ~ Chris Sarns
Um, false. Roosevelt was not in two different places at the same time. He clearly said he was at the East Loading Dock at the time of the explosion. The east dock overlooks over half the Pentagon South Parking Lot, from approximately lane 16 through lane 36. You’re off to a bad start.
“Second, South Parking lane 1 is clearly marked on the graphic you posted and it’s on the west end next the the 395/27 cloverleaf interchange. Roberts would know that.” ~ Shris Sarns
You need to read those passages again, carefully.
Note:
For anyone keeping score in this exchange I’m pulling my quotes from this transcript here posted on 911Blogger by none other than Snowcrash, no friend of CIT or any of the regular posters on this board: http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-06/cit-transcript-roosevelt-roberts
Three times in his 2008 interview with the CIT boys he tells Aldo he saw the plane “over lane 1” when he ran seven steps to the edge of the dock. The exact quote from Roberts was,
Aldo Marquis:
Okay. Do you remember in which direction it was headed?
Roosevelt Roberts:
Coming from the 27 side 27 heading, uh… uh east towards DC, coming from that area ..uh.. was the highway. If you would have come out 395 North heading towards the Pentagon you got off in south parking. You were like right there, except 395 went right into 27.
That’s a pretty good description of where the official lane one is, all right, but if you’ll look closely he doesn’t mention “lane 1”. Three times he says he saw the plane over lane one but not here.
Roosevelt did not SEE the plane before he SAW the plane. Roosevelt clearly tells us he first SAW the plane “over lane 1”. At this section in his interview he’s telling Aldo where the plane came from. His references to where the plane came from are descriptions of where the plane was at a point in time and space BEFORE he SAW it. Deduction.
This isn’t the “lane 1” he’s talking about in this interview, notwithstanding the numbers on the Post-Incident map. He was at the East Loading Dock. He couldn’t even see the official lane one.
“A little further on, Roberts confirms that he was in the South Parking and the plane was headed southwest back across Hwy 27:” Chris Sarns
Roosevelt was “in” the South Parking Lot from his position at the East Loading Dock every bit as much as he would have been in South Parking if he had been at the South Loading Dock. He wasn’t saying he was physically “in” the parking lot. He was at a loading dock where he overlooked the South Parking Lot. Like the south dock, the east dock only overlooks a single parking lot, South Parking.
Yes, he said the plane was going back over Hwy 27. That we can agree on. The problem with your illustration, and apparently your position still, is you seem to treat Hwy 27 as if it only exists from I395 up until it reached the Pentagon. It goes much further north than the Pentagon heliport. That’s where Roosevelt said he thought the plane went back across Hwy 27, on the north side of the Pentagon, not right there in front of the South Loading Dock.
What else have we got.
Aldo Marquis:
Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this .. this second plane, do you remember which direction it was heading?
Roosevelt Roberts:
It was heading.. back across 27, and it looks like, it appeared to me I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh… south west.. coming out.
First of all, Roosevelt says he was “in the south”. In fact he says this more than once. It’s important to his description of what he saw. He was south.
South of what? NYC? Canada? He certainly was, but he wasn’t talking about NYC or Canada. He doesn’t mention them once. Similarly, he doesn’t mention the South Loading Dock or south side of the Pentagon either. He was just south of something. It would have helped if he’d identified what it was he was south of, but given the fact he was on his cell phone driving around he can be forgiven if he was a little distracted. That said, the fact he didn’t think it was important to identify what he was south of is a pretty clear indication he was saying he was south of the subject of the conversation.
At this point, where he’s describing which way the plane left the area after executing a 180 degree U-turn it’s pretty clear he was saying he was south of the plane at this point.
That would have put the plane north of his position. There is only one dock at the Pentagon where an observer can look north and see anything other than the inside loading dock area. Roosevelt had to have been at the east dock to see this plane now “facing west” (not heading west) and “coming out”. Roosevelt had to be at the East Loading Dock, exactly where he said he was.
Aldo Marquis:
So like banking around, turning back around?
Roosevelt Roberts:
Correct.
Aldo Marquis:
Okay.
Roosevelt Roberts:
Banking, banking around, coming back out turning south west and going straight across.
Aldo Marquis:
Okay, so.. did it look like it went out over the river and kinda turned around?
From his position at the East Loading Dock Roosevelt first saw a plane, “heading east, towards DC” a few seconds after the explosion on the west side of the building, over the light poles on the east end of the South Parking Lot, already starting to bank into a turn. It turned left, or north.
But the plane couldn’t simply head north because, like Roosevelt said, “because you’ve got the mall there…”. The National Mall. Restricted air space. Flying into that area would have called entirely too much attention to itself. No, once this plane turned left it had to come completely back around to where it was “facing west” and “coming out”.
That’s where Roosevelt would have lost sight of the plane, as it went around the River Entrance corner of the Pentagon. When he last saw it the plane was facing west and coming out of the hard banking left turn.
What direction do you suppose Roosevelt might estimate this plane would have been heading once it completed coming out of the left turn he witnessed? Southwest?
Yeah, me, too, and apparently so did Roosevelt.
Roosevelt Roberts:
It was heading.. back across 27, and it looks like, it appeared to me I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh… south west.. coming out.
“It looks like, it appeared to me”. He only estimated it flew away to the southwest. He didn’t actually see where it went once it straightened out around the corner of the River Entrance side of the building.
Again from Roosevelt –
Roosevelt Roberts:
It looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turning around because you got the mall there and then where I was was south, and the plane from the direction it was heading it was facing west so it went south west away from the pentagon.
Aldo Marquis:
south west away from the Pentagon, okay, so kinda doing a U-turn in a way?
Roosevelt Roberts:
Right.
This plane, facing west and coming out of a hard left turn, would very likely have passed over Hwy 27 again north of the Pentagon passing the building on a heading some what parallel to the facade of the Mall Entrance side of the building
It looked like it went over on the mall entrance side
And that’s exactly what Roosevelt described.
So what happened to the plane? No one on the west side of the building described a plane coming back across (well, maybe no one, but that’s another story). Where did it go?
I can only speculate here, but it’s really the only place the plane could have gone if it didn’t come back across Hwy 27 as Roosevelt estimated. Once the plane pulled out of the left banking turn it had to have veered off to the right, to the north or northwest.
If the plane went out as far as the Potomac when it flew by and executed the about face turn, turning north would very possibly have had it turning into the Up River departure route for planes taking off from Reagan National airport. After that, who knows.
The sight of a low flying plane leaving in that familiar flight pattern would have meant nothing to anyone on the ground.
You did not read my second post that establishes Roberts location in the South Loading Dock so I’ll post it again.
From his original interview in Dec. 2001:
“So as I hung up the phone and I ran into the center of the loading dock and looked up, I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot …
@ 2:08 So I ran back into south loading and I started forcing people out of the building.”
[audio src=”http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr348a01.mp3
BTW: His statement to CIT, six years later, while driving, puts him in two places at once. The East Loading dock is nowhere near the South Parking lot, it’s almost 900 feet away.
This is one of his incoherent statements.
“I was >>in south parking<<, and I was at the east loading dock"
“You did not read my second post that establishes Roberts location in the South Loading Dock so I’ll post it again” ~ Chris Sarns
Actually, I did read your second post, and responded to it this morning. For some reason, though my response seems to be stuck in moderation. Maybe it was the mp3 file link.
Anyway, I’ve got an email in to Mr. McKee asking him to check on it. I didn’t want to spam the board with a double post of the same item if it eventually showed up. If the issue isn’t resolved by later this evening I’ll re-post my response.
And no, the LOC interview does not establish Roosevelt’s location at the time the explosion occurred.
Unfortunately, comments with three or more links go to spam. But your comment has been approved now.
Thank you, Mr. McKee
I knew you would get around to looking at the problem.
Rumor has it you have a life outside moderating this forum. Only a rumor mind you, but ya never know.
That said, I still don’t see my post after what looks like almost a couple of hours after your response above.
I think I’m going to go with the re-post sans the mp3 file link.
I was aware of the 3 link issue with WordPress. My post only had 2 links. Whatever. I’ll try to recreate it. Not much to it, really. It wasn’t very long apart from the links. (there’s data and detail there)
Gracias, and be seein’ ya
Now I’m confused. Why do you have to recreate it? Are we not talking about the post I approved a few hours ago?
Rumors of my life outside 9/11 have, regrettably, been greatly exaggerated.
Your response has been posted.
I read the half baked attempt to deny the obvious. Just because he did not precisely articulate every detail does not invalidate the fact that he was at the South Loading dock area.
“he identified the loading dock as the south loading that he ran back in. [so that’s where he was] He didn’t really leave; just ran to the edge. And he didn’t call it out by name when he described running to the edge. Why now?”
So what? That does not change the fact that he was at South Loading dock area, not the East Dock Loading area. By “South loading” he no doubt meant the South Loading dock building area as people who work there would probably do. Furthermore, he never said anything about the East Loading dock in that interview.
Apparently you didn’t read or just ignored my last post.
“I was >>in south parking<<, and I was at the east loading dock"
He clearly said that he was IN south parking. The East Loading dock in NOT IN south parking. The first part agrees with his original statement and the second part does not. But you choose to ignore the first part and go with the second.
Getting a little testy are we, Chris?
When I scrolled through the recent posts and comment section on my computer after reading Mr. McKee’s post my original response was not visible.
So again, just for you –
900 ft away makes it impossible for Roosevelt to overlook the South Parking Lot? How about 800 ft? Is that okay? 700? 500? What distance have you calculated that makes it possible for Roosevelt to have been both at the East Loading Dock and overlooking the South Parking Lot? How thick do we have to slice the salami for you?
Roosevelt said in 2001 he saw a plane over the South Parking lot:
So uh, as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot…
Based on that statement the CIT boys contacted and asked him the following question right out of the gate:
Aldo Marquis:
Okay, well you know what, let me, let me, let me just ask you a couple of quick questions, there was mainly a couple of specific things. When you, you had mentioned, right as you hung up the phone, you ran outside..Which parking lot, which dock were you at?”
To which Roosevelt responded –
Roosevelt Roberts:
“I was in south parking, and I was at the east loading dock, when I ran outside and saw the low flying aircraft above the parking lot.”
Roosevelt was asked what parking lot and what loading dock he was at when he saw the plane he described in his 2001 interview. His response was succinct and responsive to the question.
“South Parking” and “East Loading”.
How far the first lane in the South Parking Lot was from the East Loading Dock is irrelevant with regards to Aldo’s question and Roosevelt’s response.
Next from Mr. Sarns, from his latest posting –
So what? That does not change the fact that he was at South Loading dock area, not the East Dock Loading area. By “South loading” he no doubt meant the South Loading dock building area as people who work there would probably do. Furthermore, he never said anything about the East Loading dock in that interview.” ~ Chris Sarns
Distort much, Chris?
The whole point of the analysis of the Roberts 2001 LOC interview was to point out inconsistencies in the chronology of his statements, as if some of them had been artificially cut and pasted together from different parts of the interview, never mind segments that sound like they’ve been cut out entirely.
His statement about running back in the South Loading Dock is consistent with the DPS re-entering the building after the all clear after the 2nd plane alert at the Pentagon around 10:30, after they had regrouped around the official lane 10 area of the south parking lot at South Rotary Drive and 395, directly across from the South Loading Dock.
Explain to us Chris, how is it Roosevelt went through the entire 2008 interview with CIT without mentioning the South Loading Dock even once? Unlike the LOC interview, the 2008 CIT interview is available without noticeable edits.
“He clearly said that he was IN south parking. The East Loading dock in NOT IN south parking. The first part agrees with his original statement and the second part does not. But you choose to ignore the first part and go with the second.” ~ Chris Sarns
I’m not ignoring anything, Chris. You are, and you’re starting to bore me.
You can stomp and snort about “The East Loading dock is NOT IN south parking” until the cows come home. The fact of the matter is Roosevelt said that was where he was when asked that specific question by Aldo Marquis in 2008.
Roosevelt clearly said in an unedited audio recording, that he was at the East Loading Dock at the time of the explosion at the Pentagon. The East Loading Dock overlooks the South Parking Lot, and no other parking lot. In that same and apparently unedited recording he made absolutely no reference to the South Loading Dock.
His statements from the 2001 LOC interview that mention only the South Loading Dock sound like, and read like, they’ve been edited. Exactly what was changed and what was omitted from the original recording will likely never be known. What is known is this LOC recording was in the hands of the U.S. government, certain members of which are prime suspects of the crimes of 9/11.
All right, let’s try this again, this time without the link to the mp3 file.
The mp3 file link was to the November 2001 LOC audio interview with Roosevelt Roberts. It is still available to anyone interested at the 3rd comment at the original 1st link below.
******************************************************************************
Original response (as I recall)
“From his original interview: Roberts was in the South Parking loading dock.
“So as I hung up the phone and I ran into the center of the dock loading dock and looked up, I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot … So I ran back into south loading and I started forcing people out of the building.” ~ Chris Sarns
See: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/cit/roosevelt-roberts-loc-interview-question-t1560.html
At the bottom of the OP there is an attempt to transcribe the LOC interview in it’s entirety. If you want to read the transcript check out the 3rd comment in the thread. There are links there to the audio file of the interview in mp3, wav, and Real Audio.
It is evident from the audio files and transcript the LOC interview has been sliced, diced, and spliced back together again.
Why do you suppose someone would want to do that?
/end of original response>
**********************************************************************************
Addendum – from your re-post
Chris, seriously?
“BTW: His statement to CIT, six years later, while driving, puts him in two places at once. The East Loading dock is nowhere near the South Parking lot, it’s almost 900 feet away.
This is one of his incoherent statements.” ~ Chris Sarns>/i>
900 ft away makes impossible for Roosevelt to overlook the South Parking Lot? How about 800 ft? Is that okay? 700? 500? What distance have you calculated that makes it possible for Roosevelt to have been both at the East Loading Dock and overlooking the South Parking Lot? How thick to we have to slice the salami for you?
Roosevelt said in 2001 he saw a plane over the South Parking lot:
Based on that statement the CIT boys contacted and asked him the following question right out of the gate:
Aldo Marquis:
Okay, well you know what, let me, let me, let me just ask you a couple of quick questions, there was mainly a couple of specific things. When you, you had mentioned, right as you hung up the phone, you ran outside..Which parking lot, which dock were you at?”
To which Roosevelt responded –
Roosevelt Roberts:
“I was in south parking, and I was at the east loading dock, when I ran outside and saw the low flying aircraft above the parking lot.”
Roosevelt was asked what parking lot and what loading dock he was at when he saw the plane he described in his 2001 interview. His response was succinct and responsive to the question.
“South Parking” and “East Loading”.
How far the first lane in the South Parking Lot was from the East Loading Dock is irrelevant with regards to Aldo’s question a Roosevelt’s response.
You’re digging a hole, Chris.
Pardon the formatting error. I’ve got a “>” above where I should have a “<"
As CIT noted, the interviews were edited to remove any names (to protect privacy). Other cuts may have been made to the Roberts interview for security reasons. There is a cut at 1:30 but there are no cuts from 1:40 to 2:13. That includes the critical statements about his running outside, seeing a plane over the south parking lot and running back into South Loading. So the suggestion that that part was edited is just a half baked attempt to write off his original statement that confirms he was at the South Loading area.
I am familiar with the question an answer but the answer is in conflict with itself.
I am aware that Roberts could have seen part of the south parking lot if he was at the east loading dock but that is not the question.
Do you understand the meaning of the word “in”?
in: Within the limits, bounds, or area of
The east loading dock is not within the limits, bounds, or area of the south parking area.
Pardon the delay, Chris. Hectic day yesterday.
“Do you understand the meaning of the word “in”?
in: Within the limits, bounds, or area of The east loading dock is not within the limits, bounds, or area of the south parking area.” ~ Chris Sarns
So that’s it? That’s your argument?
Roosevelt couldn’t be where he said he was, the East Loading Dock and South Parking, in response to Aldo’s direct question, because of your interpretation of what Roosevelt meant when he used the word “in” during this informal phone conversation?
Your position literally hangs by a single word; what Roosevelt meant by use of the word “in”.
Got it.
“So the suggestion that that part was edited is just a half baked attempt to write off his original statement that confirms he was at the South Loading area.” ~ Chris Sarns
Still missing the point, Chris?
Again, my questions about the LOC interview do not revolve around what may or may not have been edited out. The evidence the interview has been tampered with, including the section where he says he ran back in the south loading dock.
From the LOC interview:
Roosevelt
According to this bit of the interview Roosevelt just heard on TV the WTC had been bombed. Those were the early reports, shortly after the first plane hit WTC1. But next he says “I looked again and they said there was another plane coming on the television”.
Another plane? What network news station was Roosevelt watching? How did they know “another plane” was heading for WTC2? According to this interview he doesn’t even know about the 1st one yet. He’s mentioned a bomb, not a plane. This would have to be some time after WTC2 was hit, and newscasters speculating a 3rd plane was heading toward NYC.
Why doesn’t he say anything about the first two planes if he was supposed to be watching TV all this time?
Another example (including your excerpt:
At the end of the section ending at (2:08) he says, “So what I did was, I turned around and drew out my weapon. I didn’t know what was going on. I thought we was being invaded. I didn’t know what was happening”.
Then, at (2:08) and continuing through (2:59) we’ve got :
So I holstered up my weapon and I started running back towards where everybody else was going.
What!?
You mean to tell me Roosevelt was going room to room forcing people out of the building at gun point? No wonder those ladies ran so fast.
It sure would have been awkward if someone had walked in on him standing there with his gun in hand and a group of women scrambling to get their purses.
Roosevelt:
..if you don’t get your can out of here you’re going to die right here.”
You don’t suppose Roosevelt was threatening to shoot them, do you?
Roosevelt
So after evacuating all these rooms and jumping off the dock leading these people to safety, Roosevelt suddenly panics, gun still in hand after all that rescuing, and runs into the A&E drive where other officers are still “whooping and hollering” and showing them which way to run? I thought he was a rescuer.
No, Chris. This whole section is out of sequence. Roosevelt would have run back into the loading dock with his gun still drawn, where everyone in the area, including him, wood be confused and panicked. They ran into the A&E drive where the other officers were showing people, including Roosevelt, where to exit the building.
This rescuing section belongs right after the section where Roosevelt describes how the DPS regrouped in front of the South Loading Dock and re-entered the building in groups of 3. That would account for the several hour gap in his chronology there. They were going room to room evacuating people out through the south dock.
I’ve got to go. I’ll see if I can respond more tonight.
A little more on the problems with Roosevelt’s LOC interview. It doesn’t get as much attention as the 2008 CIT interview, so this is as good a time as any to look at this again.
Again, here’s the link to the thread that starts with the transcript at the bottom of the OP:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/cit/roosevelt-roberts-loc-interview-question-t1560.html
Roosevelt
So when we got out [ gap?] that area, the South Parking lot we ran across on the other side. Another call came across the radio, “We have, we have another aircraft en route to this location in 15 minutes”. So me and uh Lt Paige we ran up to South Rotary Rd on the army navy side, and we started evacuating people uh to come out on the other side. (4:55)
So after Roosevelt evacuates the building, guided by the officers whooping and hollering in the A&E drive he continued assisting people in the parking lot in the area he evacuated to. Then he says he and Lt. Page ran up South Rotary Drive, to the “other side”, the “Army Navy Side”.
Here’s another map of the Pentagon. This one labels the Army Navy side of the Pentagon. Its’ on the wedge 1 side, the side where the South Loading Dock is. So, that tells us Roosevelt had exited the building and went into the South Parking lot on the Metro Station side of the Pentagon, the section of the parking lot in front of the East Loading Dock. There are only two sides of the Pentagon bordered by the south lot. He ran from one of them to the Army Navy side.
Roosevelt is a pretty amazing guy, when you look at this timeline.
An explosion occurs at 9:37AM. He runs back in the loading dock and single handedly goes room to room evacuating employees, leading people out the loading dock and returning to get more. Who knows how many rooms he cleared. After returning from one such trip he suddenly decides he needs to get out of there and runs into the A&E drive where other officers show him where to run to get out of the building.
He makes his way to the east side of the south parking lot, where he begins assisting injured people in the parking lot. He then runs up South Rotary Drive to the Army Navy side of the building where he meets with other DPS officers. There they come up with a plan to re-enter the building and lead people out once the “all clear” signal comes (notwithstanding he had personally already evacuated who knows how many rooms).
And he did all this by ~10:30AM.
Bullshit.
This interview has been edited. It looks like it was manipulated to move the “I ran back into the south parking lot” section to the front of the interview.
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/buckwheat_bucket/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxOTk4NTc3Mw==/?ref=
I’m had trouble opening the link to the Pentagon map I just posted.
I’ve copied it a different way and tested it. It seems to work better. If anyone else has that same problem try this link if you’re interested:
http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/pentagon_navy_commandrings.jpg
“How far the first lane in the South Parking Lot was from the East Loading Dock is irrelevant with regards to Aldo’s question a Roosevelt’s response.”
It’s not a question of how far but the fact that Roberts could not see Lane 1 from the east loading dock. But he said the plane was “around the lane 1 area, and it was like banking just above the light poles”. So he could not have seen the plane from the east loading dock only the south loading dock.
Far be it from me to keep you waiting, Chris.
I’ve suddenly gotten swamped with work, but let me get this down.
“It’s not a question of how far but the fact that Roberts could not see Lane 1 from the east loading dock. But he said the plane was “around the lane 1 area, and it was like banking just above the light poles”. So he could not have seen the plane from the east loading dock only the south loading dock.” ~ Chris Sarns
Roberts could not see Lane 1 from the east loading dock.
Exactly!
Roosevelt could have only seen this plane over the first lane of the east end of the South Parking lot, (officially lane 36) from his position at the East Loading Dock. Roosevelt wasn’t talking about the official lane one area.
Aldo Marquis:
Like silver in color, but you saw it over the south parking lot.
Roosevelt Roberts:
Right, around the lane one area, and it was like banking, just above the light poles like.
Aldo Marquis:
Okay.
Roosevelt Roberts:
Had to been no more than, had to been no more than 50 feet less than a 100 feet.
Aldo Marquis:
Wow. And do you remember how many engines you saw on it?
Roosevelt Roberts:
Couldn’t count for the engines..
Aldo Marquis:
And it was.. Was it moving fast?
Roosevelt Roberts:
It was moving extremely fast. It was like maybe you saw that aircraft maybe for like a quick five seconds.
Aldo Marquis:
For a quick five seconds, but you definitely, you saw it over the south parking lot? Over lane one...
Roosevelt Roberts:
In the south, in the south parking lot over lane one.
At this point Aldo changes the subject from where Roosevelt saw the plane to which direction it was headed.
Roosevelt begins by telling Aldo where the plane came from. Roosevelt has already told Aldo where he first saw the airplane; over lane one over the South Parking lot. Again, where the plane came from is a reference to it’s position BEFORE he saw it. He would be deducing where it came from by the direction it was heading when he saw it.
Aldo Marquis:
Okay. Do you remember in which direction it was headed?
Roosevelt Roberts:
Coming from the 27 side 27 heading, uh… uh east towards DC, coming from that area ..uh.. was the highway. If you would have come out 395 North heading towards the Pentagon you got off in south parking. You were like right there, except 395 went right into 27.
Aldo Marquis:
So from where, from where then headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?
Roosevelt Roberts:
From the… uh.. can you repeat that one more time please?
Aldo Marquis:
Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this .. this second plane, do you remember which direction it was heading?
Roosevelt Roberts:
It was heading.. back across 27, and it looks like, it appeared to me I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh… south west.. coming out.
I will point out again. When Roosevelt describes where the plane came from, and describes the plane coming up 395 to Hwy 27 where you get off in south parking, close to the official lane one area, he does not mention “lane one”. He was estimating where the plane came from.
I suspect Roosevelt was surprised anyone was asking him about this plane. He had only mentioned it in passing in the LOC interview, and the interviewer moved on without comment. Given everything else going on this “second plane” was likely an unimportant oddity to him. I doubt he gave it much thought after the trauma he went through on 9/11 as evidenced by the rest of the LOC interview.
He’s seems to be refining his recollection of where the plane came from as the conversation goes on. From later in the CIT interview:
Craig Ranke:
Now where, where did it seem like it came from?
Roosevelt Roberts:
It seemed like [incomprehensible], by the time I got the dock it was already in the parking lot in lane one, and it was so large, you couldn’t miss from seeing it.
Craig Ranke:
Right, but from what direction did it seem like it came from?
Roosevelt Roberts:
It seemed like that it came from uh… it… hold on a second… it seem like it came from uh… south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm… fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction.
Craig Ranke:
So from the same direction as as as the f..
Aldo Marquis:
From the impact side basically, from that direction?
Roosevelt Roberts:
Everyth….right..exactly.
He’s moved the direction from where the “second plane” came from to the area where the first one “fell into the Pentagon”.
The plane he saw couldn’t both be at the official lane one area and come from where the first plane fell into the building.
Roosevelt didn’t see the plane approach the Pentagon. He couldn’t. He was at the East Loading Dock.
If eyewitness accounts are so trustworthy, what’s going on with these? They are all different. Some saw the wings dig up the ground, others saw nothing at all. Some heard the metal go through the building. Others saw the plane cartwheel, others saw it explode. One guy wondered why there were no aircraft parts or debris. This is just a small sampling.
This guy’s take is indicative of the mindset that wants so much to believe the storyline, but can’t locate the physical proof to support the belief:
“Actually, there’s considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E ring. It’s just not very visible.”
“my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building,” he said. “No tail. No wings. No nothing.” DeChiaro, Steve
”I thought, ‘This isn’t really happening. That is a big plane.’ Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,” Cissell said. While he remembers seeing the crash, Cissell remembers none of the sounds.
“Everything was calm,’ Bowman said. “Most people knew it was a bomb.
“I could actually hear the metal going through the building.”
“It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly.(…) I didn’t see the impact. (…) The sound itself sounded more like a thud rather than a bomb (…) rather than a loud bomb explosion it sounded muffled, heavy, very deep.
Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant, said he witnessed an explosion near the Pentagon. “It was a huge fireball, a huge, orange fireball,” he said in an interview on his mobile phone. He said another witness told him a helicopter exploded.
Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it’s wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.
“The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific.
“You could almost see the people in the windows,” he said as he watched the plane disappear behind a line of trees, followed by a tall plume of black smoke.
The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick.
The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground, clipping a light pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and an emergency generator before slicing into the building,
The plane penetrated three of the Pentagon’s five rings, but was probably stopped from going farther by hundreds of concrete columns.
The plane peeled back as it entered, leaving pieces of the front of the plane near the outside of the building and pieces from the rear of the aircraft farther inside, Evey said.
Amazingly, the plane pushed through the outermost “E Ring”, and drove deep into the interior, its nose coming to rest just inside the “C Ring.”
The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive.
QUESTION: One thing that’s confusing — if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet there’s apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E ring. EVEY: Actually, there’s considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E ring. It’s just not very visible.
On its way in, the wing clipped. Our guess is an engine clipped a generator. We had an emergency temporary generator to provide life-safety emergency electrical power, should the power go off in the building. The wing actually clipped that generator, and portions of it broke off. There are other parts of the plane that are scattered about outside the building. None of those parts are very large, however. You don’t see big pieces of the airplane sitting there extending up into the air. But there are many small pieces.
As I stepped onto the highway next to the triage area, I knelt down to tie my shoe and all over the highway were small pieces of aircraft skin, none bigger than a half-dollar.
Right before the plane hit the building, you could see the silhouettes of people in the back two rows. You couldn’t see if they were male or female, but you could tell there was a human being in there.”
The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building.
Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think.
“We saw a huge black cloud of smoke,” she said, saying it smelled like cordite, or gun smoke.
All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds. The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was “clean”, in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed.
I cannot understand how that plane hit where it did giving the direction the aircraft was taking at the time. As most know, the Pentagon lies at the bottom of two hills from the west with the east side being next to the river at 14th street bridge. One hill is at the Navy Annex and the other is Arlington Cemetery. The plane came up I-395 also known as Shirley Hwy. (most likely used as a reference point.) The plane had been seen making a lazy pattern in the no fly zone over the White House and US Cap. Why the plane did not hit incoming traffic coming down the river from the north to Reagan Nat’l. is beyond me
The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft. The entry point was so clean that the roof (shown in news photo) fell in on the wreckage.
Jarvis, who was around the corner from the disaster, tried but failed to see the plane when he left the building. “There was just nothing left. It was incinerated. We couldn’t see a tail or a wing or anything,” he says. “Just a big black hole in the building with smoke pouring out of it.”
The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere. . . . It was very sort of surreal.”
One of the aircraft’s engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon’s mall parking area between the main building and the new loading dock facility, said Charles H. Krohn, the Army’s deputy chief of public affairs. Those fleeing the building heard a loud secondary explosion about 10 min. after the initial impact.
“The plane went into the building like a toy into a birthday cake,” he said. “The aircraft went in between the second and third floors.”
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.
I saw the remains of the engines in the North parking lot of the Pentagon as well as melted aluminum and other debris left from the aircraft.
This is a hole in — there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn’t see any evidence of the aircraft down there. (…) This pile here is all Pentagon metal. None of that is aircraft
Aren’t these eyewitness accounts the end-all of this investigation? Don’t they just convince you without a doubt that a large jetliner impacted the building that day? Who cares if they mostly all contradict each other-one or two of them must be correct, right? And the ones that support the official story must be the ones that we can trust the most, right?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
I noted some of the comments that you just listed and agreed that they could be discounted.
It is necessary to take the eyewitness accounts as a whole and discount that ones that are demonstratively wrong like the the wing hitting the ground. The bulk of the accounts are consistent with each other and those are the ones that can be taken seriously.
Here is a list of plane parts at the Pentagon that I just found.
A .pdf download is at: https://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/911-pentagon-aircraft-parts.pdf
No chemtrails are involved.
I for one would like to see the photographic evidence presented here discussed. Or to put it in terms that some here seem to prefer, where is the evidence that what the Prager evidence alleges is NOT true? Can anyone PROVE that an A3 Sky Warrior did NOT hit the Pentagon?
Does anyone know the total number of pentagon witnesses interviewed and are made public? (including by. CIT, Hill, official and any other entity that might have engaged in witness interviews)
Here is a reasonably complete list: (approx 150) http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
So where are the plane parts?
I responded to that question in Jan 5. Scroll up to read it and reply there if you want to.
Chris Sarns is not a legitimate truther, he has been arguing impossible scenario’s at the pentagon for years. He just repeats his positions over and over and never actually responds with any substance to challenges. He is not engaging in legitimate debate at all, just look at how disconnected what he says is from what people questioned him about. Fake truther, shill, troll, whatever you want to call him you will never get a legitimate discussion with him. He uses disinformation techniques like he is passing out candy on Halloween.
@Chris Sarns
I hold the position that if and what hit the pentagon, or how the towers came down are irrelevant to determining whether or not 9/11 was a conspiracy. The truth is not in the actual event, but in the pudding we were served in the aftermath, and what people, from presidents to senators, from the military to the senate, from the local sherif to foreign governments and intelligence services, who were in positions of power and means to investigate, prosecute and uncover the truth did and did not do. Therefore, my main focus is usually not on who is right and who is wrong in discussions like the one here, but more on who is saying what, how, and most importantly, why!!!
In this context, as I read your commentary and exchanges, it always feels like you are talking from two sides of your mouth, and it is still not clear, at least to me, what your general view is about 9/11 “event” as a whole.
Even if just to allow me to put your many comments above in the right perspective, I was wondering if you would humor me and explain, once and for all, how you view 9/11 as not a criminal but a historical event. In other words, what is 9/11 to you? What does it mean? Who, in an extremely broad sense, dunnit? Why they “dunnit”?
Thanks.
I don’t mean to derail the ongoing discussion here, but I would be quite interested in the answer if anyone else cares to share their own general perception of 9/11, as well as 9/12 to today…)
Good questions, David.
Just pls answer his question.
I prefer to stay on topic which is the location of officer Roberts when he saw a plane flying at less than 100 feet over lane 1 of the south parking lot. I’m waiting for an answer to my last post in which I note that he could not have seen the plane from the east loading dock.
And then what?
David Hazan, what is your answer to the questions you pose above? Mine is in two books: Looking for the Enemy and The Transparent Conspiracy.
Mr. Morrissey, I haven’t written any, but read many… I feel one could write a thousand books, and read a million more about this issue and still might not be able to fully get to the bottom of these seemingly simple questions. We, as humans are imperfect creatures, and I, by no means, claim to have the answers. I can only share where I’ve got with all this at the current stage of my life.
My own perspective is generally from the ‘human condition’ angle, and I try to zoom out as far back as possible to try to observe the patterns that make up the big picture. Of course, only and only as wide as my knowledge, experience and intellect allow me to do so.
Through this wide angle lens, it is looking like the dynamics, the forces, the interactions within the ‘western civilization’ (a.k.a. Rome 3.0) that brought about the 9/11 false flag are, and have always been the same ever since humans had to fight other humans for sustenance, resources or protection and survival of their own bloodline(s), in its core, a pack formation with the alphas leading the pack.
But, as humans, we have this tremendous ability to fool ourselves and trick ourselves… Like steak lovers who can’t stomach watching an animal getting slaughtered, or like fish who curse the water in which they swim, we seem to tend to mentally remove ourselves from the very pack/tribe/belief system we so firmly belong to and depend on, and we start referring to them as “they”. It is exactly at that moment that the deception, as well as the splintering of ‘truth’ begins. It is exactly then that the so called ‘truth’ starts getting twisted in knots, and ‘truth’, as perceived by the human brain, splits into many seemingly irreconcilable, onion-like layers. Ring, within ring, within ring…
One layer, depending on its position within the concentric rings, receives a ‘story’ that it is willing to accept as truth, but passes on a slightly different ‘truth’ to the next layer. One that this layer feels is suitable for that layer’s social status, intellectual capabilities and belief systems. No matter how much the story changes and morphs as it goes down the structure, any two adjacent layer’s stories are always pretty compatible, and, everyone in every layer always feels they have the right ‘story’. This is how, in the span of a few hundred years, the story of a poor, idealist young man preaching love and peace in the holy land can turn in to some old men sitting on gold thrones in palaces, wearing red velvet shoes, telling billions of people not to masturbate! And those same billions of people are seemingly fine with all this.
Going back to 9/11 in the context I tried to paint above:
The American onion that has been built over centuries cracked a little after an abrupt and traumatic event like 9/11… and, with the spreading of the internet as a means to communicate, certain deep layers and their ‘stories’ got exposed as not matching our own once the distant layers started communicating with each other. We, the people, well at least some of us, felt that this was unacceptable. We flooded the internet demanding ‘truth’, overlooking the fact that there is no such thing, and that truth is in the eyes of the beholder. Our (truthers’) moral code, the stringent rules we apply to ‘honesty’, the notion of fairness we demand from human interactions, and all the ‘values’ we feel we go by are essentially not based on truth to begin with… We are part of the same exact onion as the one that gave us 9/11, but mostly not aware of it as we all go about our lives and try to navigate this harsh reality and survive in some shape or form, provide for and protect our children.
While there is no one ‘truth’, there are always ‘facts’… For example, what are the simple facts about pentagon? There was an explosion at the pentagon, on the same day WTC was hit, which allowed us to go and kill millions of people in far away lands, take their resources. Truther or not, is there anyone anymore who is not aware of this? This is what empires do.. are we really surprised that governments who send millions to kill and die would sacrifice a few thousand of their own to advance their plans? But, here we are, 16 years later, arguing about which lane Roosevelt could see, or about what exactly hit the pentagon instead of taking to the streets and demanding the damn footage from eighty-plus cameras directed towards the explosion. Are we capable of doing that? Of course we are! But it is apparent that all of us, in our respective personal corners, make a conscious or subconscious calculation and decide not to do that for some obvious and some not so obvious reasons.
The onion empire has to grow, or it will die. But when it has grown too much and is breaking apart, it will also die but not before it gives out a new shoot, which comes out of not the outer layers where ‘we’ reside, but from the heart of the onion. It is at this very stage in history that we live… The new shoot is growing whether we like it or not. Our options are not many. We can either sit and discuss part numbers of a phantom plane, moan about how bad things are and moan about our rotting environment and events of the past, or we can try to push to take a place within the DNA of the new onion…
Technically speaking, we could produce our own competing shoot… Get organized, get energized, motivated, have a realistic road map for actions to be taken, etcetera, etcetera… But, what are the chances of that happening while all this bickering going on about the most minute details of a single day’s worth of destruction and death, while we seemingly ignore our own place and our own responsibilities, our own culpability for allowing things to get where they got, our own severe lack of purpose, lack of intellectual honesty, lack of courage, our own ignorance and gullibility for having fallen for the stories we were fed before this one, and the one before, and the one before that…?
—————-
(Please note that my usage of ‘we’ and ‘they’ are extreme generalizations at civilization and humanity scales, and I am fully aware there are countless wise, smart, aware people, thinkers, researchers, intellectuals and scientists everywhere, including right here at T&S… they just can’t seem to get organized enough to form a layer or a shoot of their own… Also, please accept my apologies for the extensive (over)use of the Chauncey Gardeneresque onion analogy… )
Thank you, Mr. Hazan, for your reply, to which you have obviously given much thought. But do you really think things are so complex? What, in your opinion, is David Ray Griffin’s opinion of who was behind 9/11 and why? (I think virtually any of his books make it quite clear.)
Perhaps you are conflating two different questions. One is who did it and why, to which DRG has a very clear answers (and others have other, different but equally clear, answers). The other is why so many people still don’t get it. This is answered, again, very clearly by DRG, and at great length by the Frances Shure series on the AE911T website and that Barrie Zwicker has reviewed here.
I ask because I beginning to wonder if the work of DRG comes through as clearly to you (and others) as it does to me presuming of course that it is being read at all.
But do you really think things are so complex? – mdmorissey
On quite the contrary. “Things” are as simple as 1+1=2…
Perhaps you are conflating two different questions – mdmorissey
I don’t believe I am, Mr Morrissey. The answer to the two questions of why we (not they) did it and why we still don’t get it is one of the same. It is a schizophrenic duality that our brains are unable to process
And, as much as I like and respect DRG and his work, or you, or McKee, or myself, we, also, are part of the same we.
I understand what you’re saying, and in fact that’s how I ended my first book, Looking for the Enemy: “It is us.” But it is true only on a level of abstraction that renders it feckless. We might as well blame Original Sin. As DRG puts it in Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, evil does exist and it must be fought. I think DRG got it 100% right.
But it is true only on a level of abstraction that renders it feckless – mdmorrissey
I feel that the true “level of abstraction” comes more from using abstract terms like “evil” to define human actions, which, in essence, implies that we, ourselves, are “good”. These types of self-serving definitions, at least in principle, are no different than defining the perps as lizard people, which conveniently relieves us, the non-lizards, from any responsibility even by association.
By “evil” DRG refers to the evil in human nature, rather, which manifests in some human natures (e.g., Cheney, Bush, and others he is not afraid to mention). This is undeniable, not a bit abstract or “self-serving.” Your use of the word “lizards” brings to mind that British fellow whose name I don’t recall and who I suspect uses “lizards” as a code word for “Jews.” There is no lack of people who agree with him there — also among the readers of this site. I am not one of them.
Neither Cheney nor Bush are any more ‘evil’ than your next door neighbor, the douchebag bully in high school, or the selfish and predatory businessman down the block. The only difference is that they are in positions of power that we allow them to have, which, in turn, allows them to exercise what their true nature dictates at a scale that affects other people in an exponentially larger way, and is amplified by the numbers of people they can harm.
This so called ‘evil’ is inherent to human nature, and there is no indication that it can be removed, cleansed, cured or eliminated. Therefore, what is necessary is not to combat evil, but to remove the circumstances, the structure of governance, the financial system, and I am afraid also the religious dogmas and belief systems of the past that, altogether, allow our ‘evil’ side to manifest itself at such a scale.
(disclaimer: I do not know where you live, or who your next door neighbor is :-}])
Of course many things have to change, but it is equally clear that some people are more “evil” than others. Call them psychopaths if you like, it amounts to the same thing. There is such a thing as morality, and all the major religions agree on certain fundamental moral principles (unlike governments and politicians). DRG deals with these questions in Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11. Have you read it?
No, sir. I have not read that one.
And, since I haven’t read it, I don’t want to make any assumptions about what Mr Griffin’s theological take might be from the Christian Faith angle. But, in general, I feel faith (whether christian or any other), which serves as a distortion lens trough with we view and (mis)interpret the world around us, should come into play when analyzing 9/11 or any other human behavior.
Chris Sarns “Roberts could not see Lane 1 from the east loading dock.”
Hadmatter “Exactly!”
Hadmatter “Roosevelt wasn’t talking about the official lane one area.”
Yes he was. He confirmed it when Aldo asked again. He obviously knows that the lanes are numbered and would not refer to lane 36 as lane 1.
Aldo Marquis:
Like silver in color, but you saw it over the south parking lot.
Roosevelt Roberts:
Right, around the lane one area, and it was like banking, just above the light poles like.
Aldo Marquis:
For a quick five seconds, but you definitely, you saw it over the south parking lot? Over lane one…
Roosevelt Roberts:
In the south, in the south parking lot over lane one.
Hadmatter “He would be deducing where it came from by the direction it was heading when he saw it.”
Correct
Roosevelt Roberts:
Coming from the 27 side 27 heading, uh… uh east towards DC, coming from that area ..uh.. was the highway. If you would have come out 395 North heading towards the Pentagon you got off in south parking. You were like right there, except 395 went right into 27.
This is one of the incoherent statements that confuses the issue. He is describing where hwy 27 is, not where the pane was coming from.
Soon after that he said the plane flew back over 27 to the southwest. It could not do a 180 degree turn over the parking lot so the statement about 395 is NOT saying that the plane came up 395.
Roberts said the plane flew away to the southwest several times.
Aldo Marquis:
Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this .. this second plane, do you remember which direction it was heading?
Roosevelt Roberts:
It was heading.. back across 27, and it looks like, it appeared to me I was in the south, and that plane was heading like south west. coming out.
Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around?
Roosevelt: Correct.
Aldo: Okay.
Roberts: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across.
Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around … where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.
Aldo: Sou- southwest away from the Pentagon, okay; so kind of doing a U-turn, in a way?
Roosevelt: Right
The following is another incoherent rambling. Roberts has a habit of “thinking out loud” as he reconstructs what happened. So this cannot be taken literally.
Roberts: It seemed like that it came from a… it… hold on a second… it seem like it came from uh… south west lookin, the same way it came in, or appeared that it came in, it seemed like in the southw(cut) it came in almost right where that first plane had uhm… fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction.
Aldo: Oh, like- so it was headed towards the airport, it looked like.
Roosevelt: Well, no, not heading towards the airport
hadmatter “Roosevelt didn’t see the plane approach the Pentagon. He couldn’t. He was at the East Loading Dock.”
He didn’t see the plane because he was inside south loading looking at a TV.
I found several photos of the east loading ramp. It isn’t on the east side. It’s on the Mall side.
https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/pentagon.jpg
Correction: East loading is on the north east side, not the Mall side or the south east side as it has been depicted.
“Correction: East loading is on the north east side, not the Mall side or the south east side as it has been depicted.” ~ Chris Sarns
By “north east side” are you suggesting the River Entrance side?
There were only two loading docks at the Pentagon on 9/11; the south dock and the east dock. Again, per the Pentagon Post-Incident parking lot map the East Loading Dock was on the Metro Station side of the building, at its northern most point where that side met the River Entrance side:
https://i1.wp.com/i42.tinypic.com/js147b.jpg
Roosevelt clearly describes the plane over the South Parking lot. You couldn’t miss from seeing it.
The River Entrance side of the building doesn’t overlook the South Parking lot.
Here is how the East Loading Dock appeared in May 2001:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/cit/imageproxy.php?url=http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/EastLoadingLabel.jpg
You’re starting to make things up as you go along, Chris. Anything to muddy the water.
Roosevelt’s description of the plane he saw is consistent with his very clear statement that he was at the east dock at 9:37AM when the explosion occurred.
The timing – he ran seven steps to the edge of the loading dock. How long does it take you to run seven steps. How long does it take anyone? That’s the time frame we’re talking about from the moment of the explosion until when he saw it over the east end of the parking lot on the opposite side of the building.
He describes it making a U-turn; an east bound plane reversing direction to where it was “facing west” and “coming out”, then mentioning the “mall” and the Mall Entrance side of the Pentagon as to where he believes the plane was heading when it finally pulled out of the left banking turn.
Unlike your illustration from 2009, this scenario is consistent with him saying he witnessed the plane make the U-turn. That would have been impossible with the diagram you put together.
Once again, it would not be unreasonable to estimate that a plane “facing west” and “coming out” of a left turn as one lost sight of it, would straighten out heading southwest.
From the LOC interview we know Roosevelt exited the building, perhaps on the Metro Station side of River Entrance side. He followed the crowed coming out of the A&E drive into the South Parking lot on the Metro Station side of the building. (He said he and Lt Paige ran to the “other side” of the Pentagon up South Rotary Drive, to the “Army Navy” side later.)
I think we’ve wasted about enough bandwidth on mister McKee’s blog with this subject. I suspect we’re starting to bore people with this topic and these long posts.
As a rule I don’t feed trolls. However, I may use them from time to time to post information in a thread, much like I’ve taken advantage of your arrival here to post these details about both Roosevelt’s CIT 2008 interview and his November 2001 LOC interview.
I suspect there are people who read and follow T&S who are not that familiar with Roosevelt’s interviews, especially the LOC one. It has been a while since there’s been much discussion.
He’s an extremely important witness who blows the official 9/11 story at the Pentagon out of the water all by himself. He saw a very low flying commercial airliner, silver in color with jet engines heading east on the opposite side of the Pentagon just seconds after the explosion on the west side.
So back to my original question.
What plane do you believe Roosevelt saw over the South Parking lot seconds after the explosion on the west side of the building?
I have done some more research and you are correct about east loading. The photos without east loading are from several years after 2001.
As for your verbose and insulting post;
hadmatter: “Roosevelt’s description of the plane he saw is consistent with his very clear statement that he was at the east dock at 9:37AM when the explosion occurred.”
False. It is not at all clear since if taken literally, the statement puts him in two places at once.
Roberts: “I was in south parking, and I was at the east loading dock …”
The only explanation of his statement that makes it make sense is: Since the south loading dock was over 300 feet long, there was a designated east loading dock and west loading dock in the south parking lot loading dock.
hadmatter: “he saw it over the east end of the parking lot on the opposite side of the building.
No, he saw it over lane 1 at the west end of the south parking lot. He knew that the lanes were numbered so he knew where lane 1 was.
hadmatter: “He describes it making a U-turn; an east bound plane reversing direction to where it was “facing west” and “coming out”, then mentioning the “mall” and the [B]Mall Entrance side[/B] of the Pentagon as to where he believes the plane was heading when it finally pulled out of the left banking turn.”
Correct – the Mall Entrance side (hwy 27), not the Mall Entrance
Roberts: [B]It looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around[/B] … where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; [B]so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon[/B].
hadmatter: “this scenario is consistent with him saying he witnessed the plane make the U-turn”
Wrong. He saw the plane for about 5 seconds. Do you really think a 757 can make a U turn in 5 seconds?
Furthermore, Roberts said: “It seemed like, uh- when I saw it, by the time I got to the dock, it was already in the parking lot at lane one.”
hadmatter: “it would not be unreasonable to estimate that a plane “facing west” and “coming out” of a left turn as one lost sight of it, would straighten out heading southwest.’
He clearly said that the plane was over lane 1 headed [B]back[/B] across hwy 27 to the south west. He repeated ‘south west’ several times. Hwy 27 is west of the south parking lot so Roberts was not confused about the direction.
Roberts: “It was heading . . . [B]back across 27[/B] . . . I was in the south (he means parking lot, not Dixie), [B]and that plane was heading. . . like,. . . southwest[/B] . . . coming out.”
Roberts: “banking around, coming back out, turning southwest.”
was facing west; so [B]it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.[/B]
Roberts: “I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, was facing west; [B]so it went . . . southwest away from the Pentagon.[/B]”
Aldo: Southwest away from the Pentagon, okay
hadmatter: “He saw a very low flying commercial airliner, silver in color with jet engines heading east on the opposite side of the Pentagon just seconds after the explosion on the west side.”
Wrong! He repeatedly said that the plane flew away to the south west.
As to your last question; I don’t know what plane he saw flying away to the south west but no one else saw it.
:facepalm:
The bottom line is: Roberts said the plane flew away from the Pentagon, back over 27 to the south west. Hwy 27 is to the west of the south parking lot so Roberts was not confused about the direction.
With apologies to Upton Sinclair,
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salarycontinued stubborn adherence to a long held (but now debunked) position about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 depends upon his not understanding it.”You’ve done good work when it comes to WTC7, Chris. I’ve know I’ve cited your observations in conversations and online debates more than once. But when it comes to the Pentagon, especially Roosevelt Roberts, I have to shake my head.
The Mall Entrance side of the Pentagon. That’s where Roosevelt said it looked like the plane he saw heading back over hwy 27 after executing the U-turn. It was on the north side of the building.
It’s possible for an aircraft on the north side of the Pentagon to travel southwest, too.
Back to work.
Roberts saw the plane in the south parking lot over lane one. It was facing west headed back over 27.
He surmised that it had flown over the Mall side based on the way it was banking.
Roberts: it was heading, . . . back across 27 . . . I was in the south, and that plane was heading . . . southwest. . . coming out.
Roberts: It looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around; … where I was, was south; and the plane,. . . from the direction it was sitting, >was facing west<; so it went. . . southwest away from the Pentagon.
Ha! You guys are all still going at it!!! I love it. The mental gymnastics I see here from Chandler and co is astonishing.
David, are you saying Craig and I are operatives? Or are you saying the north side witnesses are operatives?
So you know, the majority of this was my research. I brought Craig on and I let him take the reins on a bulk of the interviews. So maybe I’m the mastermind intelligence operative behind this honeypot. *cue spooky music.
If you’d like to talk on the phone sometime so I can help talk you down from the ledge I’d be glad to give you some insight.
Better yet, call lagasse and the rest of the north side witnesses and tell them they are all mistaken.
PS. If the plane was over the navy annex or even over the citgo as Hemphill stated – that still destroys the official flight/damage path!
I’ll leave you with this quote from an ANC worker named Erik Dihle – it demonstrates how some witnessed the fly-by/flyover and others were fooled. The likely scenario is that everyone would eventually go along with the idea that the plane hit the pentagon either due to groupthink, the fact that buildings were being hit by planes that day, or good old fashioned fear as to what they actually saw:
“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building.”
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3
Ha! You guys are all still going at it!!! I love it. The mental gymnastics I see here from Chandler and co is nothing short of astonishing.
David, are you saying Craig and I are operatives? Or are you saying the north side witnesses are operatives?
So you know, the majority of this was my research. I brought Craig on and I let him take the reins on a bulk of the interviews. So maybe I’m the mastermind intelligence operative behind this honeypot. *cue spooky music.
If you’d like to talk on the phone sometime so I can help talk you down from the ledge I’d be glad to give you some insight.
Better yet, call lagasse and the rest of the north side witnesses and tell them they are all mistaken or lying operatives causing a distraction in the truth movement.
PS. If the plane was over the navy annex or even over the citgo as Hemphill stated – that still destroys the official flight/damage path!
I’ll leave you with this quote from an ANC worker named Erik Dihle – it demonstrates how some witnessed the fly-by/flyover and others were fooled. The likely scenario is that everyone would eventually go along with the idea that the plane hit the pentagon either due to groupthink, the fact that buildings were being hit by planes that day, or good old fashioned fear as to what they actually saw:
“The first few seconds it was very confusing, we couldn’t even tell . . . some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going . . . somebody else was yelling no, no, no, the jet ran into the building.”
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit426.mp3
Hi Aldo!
For the record, it is Chandler who made all this about CIT with his recent hit piece. Given the timing, he clearly did this in response to Craig McKee’s new Facebook group “No 757 Hit the Pentagon on 9/11,” and the associated statement that has received hundreds of signatures. The whole idea behind this was to “unite” behind the premise that the official account (physical damage wise) is false, without promoting any conclusions.
Chandler tries, and fails, to seize upon ONE interview that was conducted AFTER all CIT’s presentations had been published, and use it to throw under the bus EVERYTHING you’ve ever done and claim that a plane hit the Pentagon. Even though Craig M’s statement never mentions CIT or the flight path. Obviously your research has hit some real nerves.
Furthermore, if I recall correctly, the phone call to Hemphill was made BECAUSE people like Adam Larson were claiming him as a SoC witness thanks to the “right shoulder” bit. Ranke’s phone call resulted in an interview which ended up refuting SoC rather than confirming it. It was a perfect example of real field journalism proving wrong the assumptions of armchair bloggers.
At any rate, any division or wasted time is Chandler’s fault for his nonsense attack on CIT’s findings.
I wanted to share an email that Willy Whitten has penned and sent to John D. Wyndham from ScentificMethod.org in regards to Pentagon.
Hopefully to be continued..
I hope he gets a response from Wyndham.
Hi Craig… I don’t wanna say his name here, but this friend of mine, whose name rhymes with silly mitten, would very much like you to check your T&S emails, and/or to just contact him in regards to Wyndham. Thank you in advance.
(please feel free to delete this comment after reading it)
Yes, haven’t checked in a couple of days. Will do that.
Great work Mr. McKee! What is missing for most folks thought is that, in order to understand 9-11, we have to understand why Americans do not understand 9-11. Here’s the answer. https://youtu.be/PbUBRzHN1v8
Ken,
First, thank you. But your point, and your video, have nothing to do with the topic of the post. I take the position that the method used to bring all three towers down is secondary to the fact that they were indeed demolished. Your video implies some kind of willful deception on the part of proponents of controlled demolition, which I do not agree with. The video also implies that a controlled demolition should look like other controlled demolitions even though the one involving the Twin Towers was not supposed to look like a demolition. In any case, this discussion belongs on another thread, not one about the Pentagon.
Often overlooked at the Pentagon are the decades of effort put into protecting the building from threats of any kind. From Russian to Chinese to No. Korean to rogue Madmen to whatever, was not this building – the headquarters of the United States Military – the most protected on earth? Well, from what, you ask? A Boeing jetliner meandering in P-56 airspace, somehow avoiding detection for over an hour and dodging ack-ack which was never deployed (for some strange reason.) What’s worse is that someone must have forgotten to turn on the many CIWS (Close-in Weapons System) defenses that not even a missile can penetrate. Well, at least someone was probably reprimanded for screwing up.
Ms, I still wonder about the northwest corner of the heliport and the stuff dumped there.
Hope this will not be construed as “Off Topic”, but, having stumbled upon this site and the comments concerning this topic, I have to say that the level command of the English language, as well as the intelligence of the analysis of the key issues involved, have left me amazed that I had not discovered the site much sooner.
With a few regrettable exceptions regarding suspicious axes to grind, I must admit to feeling profound gratitude towards those who are here arguing the case against the “official version”, which, after so many years, has now become a hilarious, if also tragic joke.
Why do we believe the things we do? We justify bizarre belief with “science” and “sacred” and “degrees” and “witness” and carefully reasoned argument.
No answers to this, only better questions. Isn’t it certain that AA 77, that particular plane, did not hit the Pentagon?