Related posts

144 thoughts on “PENTAGON FLIGHT PATH”

  1. I think the path in your illustration above is probably very close to the actual flight path taken by the plane that flew over the Pentagon.

    Adam Ruff

    Reply

    • Thanks Adam,

      I finally figured out how to get you guys comments to show…I didn’t realize everything is automatically on moderation here.

      So I will have to check back from time to time and pass things through.

      I found some other comments on other threads that have just been sitting there unattended…bad on me.

      Reply

  2. My proposed flight path on the map is the solid red line.

    The yellow line is the flight path of the official story.

    NORTH APPROACH IMPACT ANALYSIS

    “Conclusion – It is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to cause the directional physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the Pentagon leading to the C-ring hole approaching from directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station. The flight paths illustrated by the witnesses would require G forces beyond the physical limitations of any aircraft for it to transition to an approach that lines up with the physical damage. Additionally, a hypothetical least challenging scenario at low speed would require bank angles that are irreconcilable with the physical damage, as well as the witness statements, and require an instantaneously performed roll that is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft.”~Rob Balsamo

    See the analysis here:

    Click to access NoCImpactPaper.pdf

    \\][//

    Reply

  5. That looks pretty close to what I understand the path to be, but I would move it a little south more towards the middle. I say that based on Morin’s statement to CIT that the plane passed right over the top of him while he was between the wedges, about ~10 ft from the southern edge. Plus the fact he also said it would have hit the Air Force Memorial had it been built at the time. The Memorial is more towards the southern edge of the Annex.

    Based on his statements I would imagine the plane a little south of the sidewalk running down the middle of the Annex when it passed him.

    Also, Hemphill has consistently described the plane as “over his right shoulder” when it came into view. Based on his position confirmed in the CIT interview that would seem it cleared the building more towards the center.

    Other than that your estimate is close to what I think the witnesses described.

    Reply

    • Thanks Hadmatter,

      For visiting here and for your input.

      I explain to OSS in my comment to him that I can’t adjust this at this time…but I agree with both of you that the plane would have been more in the middle of the Navy Annex…

      I will get back to my friend for adjustments…but he is a super busy guy.

      At least we have something in the ball park. I’m surprised no one had attempted this before.

      And thanks for turning me on to the need to moderate…duh…

      \\][//

      Reply

  6. Excellent job Willy!

    I would suggest, having almost visualized the path from all conceivable angles, that the aircraft (fuselage) was a little closer to the middle of the Navy Annex and passed the midway point between Citgo and the ANC buildings.

    The markers for me personally were

    1. Ed Paik — the fuselage was at some point between his carpark and Columbia Pike.

    2. Terry Morin — “over my head” at the edge of the Navy Annex

    3. Albert Hemphill — “over my head”, 8 windows along the north face of the Navy Annex, closest to the cemetery (I delineated a path between Morin and Hemphill)

    4. The ANC witnesses described the wingtip as passing over the edge of the carpark. William Middleton in particular had a particular view where he could only have seen the aircraft along the NOC path.

    5. Turcios pinpoints a particular tree to the north of the Citgo that he claims the aircraft flew over.

    6. Some of the Route 27 witnesses corroborate Sean Boger (in the heliport) and Turcios in mentioning the road signs.

    – Turcios mentions the aircraft having to “pull up” to clear them, and points to the signs further north beyond the bridge (official path).

    – Boger seems to remember the aircraft wingtip clipping a sign (remember he was almost directly in line with the ANC witnesses) as the aircraft was executing a “right bank” from north of Citgo

    – Naraynan was on Route 27 and claimed that it “clipped the sign” and that “no lightpoles” were hit. He claims to have been directly below this sign and his description of the flightpath has him at this same sign Turcios pointed out.

    There’s more but those were the main markers for me. Hope that helps.

    OSS

    Reply

    • Thanks for your input.
      If I had my own Photoshop system set up I would take your positioning and adjust. Unfortunately I had to rely on a friend in CA. I got pretty close to what I wanted, and I went with it.

      \\][//

      Reply

  8. The following is by Onesliceshort, as collected from his commentary on Truth and Shadows at:
    https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-barbara-honegger-show-dc-911-conference-spun-as-new-consensus/

    All alleged and verified eyewitness testimony on record within the area has been collected:

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863

    There are 239 alleged recorded witnesses:

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008854

    A breakdown:

    239 alleged witnesses

    48 of which were inside the Pentagon during the event

    35 of which arrived after the event or weren’t there at all

    Total of people listed on various sites who neither witnessed the aircraft, it’s flightpath nor alleged impact:

    = 83

    239 – 83

    = 156

    31 of which could not physically see Pentagon at all

    156 – 31

    = 125

    20 of which are on record as saying that they didn’t/couldn’t see alleged impact:

    125 – 20

    = 105

    7 of which are anonymous:

    105 – 7 (1 of which is “Skarlet”)

    = 98

    7 of which are completely second/third hand accounts:

    98 – 7

    = 91

    9 of which inferred that they didn’t/couldn’t see, are totally void of detail regarding or described “feeling/hearing” the alleged impact or seeing “fireball/smoke”:

    91 – 9

    = 82

    20 of which are void of detail on, don’t mention or the media is guilty of embellishing/falsifying details of, alleged impact “testimonies” (6 of which are completely irrelevant phrases that the media has built its own story around):

    82 – 20

    = 62

    21 of which were allegedly within view of the Pentagon, but not the alleged impact area, whose POVs aren’t known or alleged witnesses who have never had their alleged testimony verified independently:

    62 – 21

    = 41 alleged impact accounts.

    To be contd…

    Reply

  9. Contd…

    A breakdown of these 41 alleged witnesses

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008855

    Overall contradictions to the official impact scenario

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008856

    17 confirmed NOC witnesses

    – Aman
    – Boger
    – Brooks
    – Carter
    – Elgas
    – Hemphill
    – Lagasse
    – Leonard
    – Middleton
    – Morin
    – Prather
    – Paik
    – Riskus
    – Turcios
    – Stafford
    – Sepulveda
    – Stephens

    There are also multiple examples of contradictory accounts that need to be confirmed at that link.

    Nobody describes the official path in any way whatsoever.

    To be contd…

    Reply

  10. Physical reaction described by witnesses and a reality check

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008858

    Physical Reaction

    Reality Check

    The official speed:

    540-580mph

    The blastwave was allegedly felt up to 3.5km away:

    The fireball (fire report):

    Click to access presentat…%20Scenario.pdf

    The fireball allegedly lasted “5 seconds” and reached “200ft in diameter”

    The Pentagon lawn is 400ft in length:

    Route 27 is just over 400ft from the Pentagon facade.

    34 alleged witnesses who described “ducking/diving/physical reaction to the blast” (from within immediate area)

    – Anlauf, Deb and Jeff (“the whole hotel shook”)

    – Battle (“everything was shaking”)

    – Bauer (blast “rocked all of our cars”)

    – Bease (“felt a large crash”)

    – Boger (“I fell to the ground and covered my head”)

    – Bouchoux (“the car moved about a foot to the right”)

    – Cohen (“we were outside in a little construction trailer…the building shook, the ceiling tiles fell out of the ceiling”)

    – Cook (“the glass rattled and a dull boom shook the room”)

    – Donley (“it (the aircraft) got so loud I ducked”)

    – Hemphill (“I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up” and “”felt the shockwave…knocking me against the desk”)

    – Hammond (“We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running.”)

    – Mitch Mitchell (“We felt the intense heat of the fireball and felt the car shudder as we heard the thud of the impact.”)

    – Morin (“For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off roughly 1/2 mile in front of you.”)

    – McGraw (“There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact.”)

    – McAdams couple (second hand) (” they heard a big boom and felt the doors and windows of their three-story building shake”)

    – Munsey (“a ground shaking whomp”)

    – Owens (“I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head….Still gripping the wheel, I could feel both the car and my heart jolt at the moment of impact.”)

    – Peterson (“The car shook as the plane flew over”)

    – Probst (“I dove towards the ground”)

    – Plaisted (“Books on my shelves started tumbling to the floor”)

    – Perry (“windows shook”)

    – Renzi (Claims that the blast was so severe that “it kept all of us on the bridge down underneath our cars” (ducked))

    – Rains (“I jumped so hard I strained against the seat belt and shoulder harness and was thrown back into my seat”)

    – Sepulveda (“They (medics) said with the wallop I received, there’s no way that I wouldn’t have at least lost consciousness for a brief moment,”)

    – Scott (“felt and heard a terrible explosion”)

    – Snavel (“the truck rocked back and forth”)

    – Terronez (“- it is amazing how instinct takes over because I will never know how it is I kept my foot on the brake when I ducked at the same time.”)

    – Philip Thompson (“the blast hit us in a wave”)

    – Trapasso (“heard the loud explosion and felt the ground shaking.”)

    – Velasquez (“it was like an earthquake”)

    – Winslow (“it rattled my windows. I thought they were going to blow out”)

    – Alan Wallace (“dove underneath a van”)

    – Zakhem (“I fell to the ground…I was crying and scared”)

    Others interviewed by the Library of Congress

    Wagstaff, Reed — Navy Annex (“Everything rattled..we actually felt the pressure wave of the explosion…
    we found out later that the plane missed the Navy Annex by 10-15 feet”)

    Turner, Rob — Navy Annex (“but when I hear people say they were on the other side of the building and they didn’t even know what happened or that they didn’t hear anything I find it hard to believe…I felt the crash at the Navy Annex…it amazes me”)

    Most notably for me, some of those who are painted as the strongest alleged impact witnesses, also describe a physical reaction just before or just after the event. Most of which had between 0.5-1 second to assiimilate what was happening, yet give lucid descriptions of what they allegedly saw.

    — Donley (0.5 seconds)
    — Owens (0.5 seconds)
    — McGraw (0.5 seconds)
    — Probst (0.4 seconds max.)
    — Bouchoux (1 second)
    — Sepulveda (1 second)

    What’s ridiculous is the suggestion that those within the area closest to the explosion didn’t physically flinch during an event which took seconds. In some cases, a fraction of a second.

    And that some people don’t differentiate between sitting looking at a computer screen at Google streetview in the comfort of their own homes, focussed on a specific area with an unobstructed view through a still image taken from 1 meter above a vehicle to sitting in a car, in heavy traffic, unaware of what was about to unfold.

    We’re talking about a large aircraft bearing down on a basin of land, in an area where aircraft land and take off at regular intervals.

    To be contd….

    Reply

  11. (contd)

    “Connections and control”

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008859

    Connections and Control

    No, this isn’t a section claiming that all of these people were “in on it”, although embellishment, peer pressure and cognitive dissonance play a major part.

    There have been cases of proven dishonesty and of obvious meshing of the official account with what many alleged witnesses are on record as witnessing that day. What stands out to me personally is the alleged witness pool.

    Whether by design or by connection (or both), what we have are the alleged testimonies of entire organizations and individuals blindly loyal to the government and/or their careers.

    Military brass and contractors.
    The media.
    People who actually influence foreign policy.
    People with connections to the “secret service”.
    People actually involved in government.
    People who were part and parcel of bolstering up the official story and the lies we were fed.

    The event did occur within a military zone, close to the Capitol, and the USA Today buildings were within driving distance. But, the overwhelming majority of alleged witnesses (on public record) are solely drawn from within the aforementioned areas.

    These witness media quotemines are controlled sources of information open to bias and a subtle form of manipulation. The lack of detail in questioning, unsourced quotes (read Patterson account), and second hand embellishment are more concerned with journalistic “license” and “headlines” rather than breaking down what was actually described in a methodical, investigative manner.

    The use of these media quotemines by some to determine what happened that day is flawed.

    Only when CIT asked the relevant questions from without the controlled public witness pool, did a different story start to emerge.

    Robert Turcios (a gas station attendant), 2 DPS Policemen and cemetery workers whose stories were buried and censored by the Center of Military History and ignored by “investigative journalists” corroboratively painted a different picture when asked details of what they saw. Details that the media lapdogs have no interest in.

    How about Roosevelt Roberts’ claim of seeing a “second aircraft” in the parking lot?

    How were alleged, ambiguous, unsourced snippets given precedence over witnesses with incredible vantage points underneath the path of the plane?

    What’s been unearthed so far points to a complete contradiction of the official narrative on all levels because CIT asked the questions that the media avoided.

    Even at first glance, before any one on one interviews were carried out, there is an apparent recurring theme among these alleged witness testimonies when details were actually given.

    1) Nobody describes the directional damage path

    2) The aircraft is repeatedly described as having been seen over Washington, contradicting the official “loop” shown by the RADES data and alleged (and proven manipulated) FDR data.

    Of those who actually claimed to witness the aircraft with connections to military/media or government

    Those who work for or have connections to the media

    – 19

    – Steve Anderson (USA Today)
    – Benedetto (Founding member of USA Today)
    – Carroll (media commentator)
    – Cissell (photojournalist working for institution founded by USAToday chief)
    – Donley (Gannett connections)
    – Dubill (Executive Editor USA Today)
    – Hernandez (AP video journalist)
    – Gaskins (National Editor USA Today)
    – Kopf (Director of Information Technology, USA Today)
    – Mitch Mitchell (CBS Military Consultant/Army Colonel)
    – Munsey (Navy Times reporter)
    – Narayanan (USA Today)
    – O’Keefe (Managing Editor American Lawyer Media)
    – Owens (Gannett News Service)
    – Sucherman (USA Today)
    – Van Sustern (CNN Legal Analyst and Anchor)
    – Walter (USA Today)
    – Winslow (AP Reporter)
    – Wright (USA Today)

    The media was and still is, guilty of proven embellishment, invention and manipulation of alleged witness testimonies (Cissell, Elgas, Campos, Winslow) through to journalists who were allegedly there actually lying themselves (Walter)

    The media censored information on the E4B witnessed over Washington and the C130 witnessed over Arlington, so the claim that the media as a whole doesn’t goosestep under the banner of “national security” doesn’t hold any water. A corporation is a corporation.

    Many of the alleged testimonies contradicted the official version, yet the same media stopped right there.

    Another factor to be weighed is that those journalists allegedly along Route 27 may very well have embellished their accounts for their own newspapers and publications (which has been proven). Some of their initial accounts of mayhem, confusion, seeing a “fireball”, etc, morphed into concise testimonies based on after the fact information in the days and weeks that followed.

    Those who are connected to the military/security forces

    – 31

    – Artman (Lt. Col)
    – Bouchoux (Retired Naval Officer)
    – Boger (Pentagon Tower Chief)
    – Brooks (DPS – Pentagon Police)
    – Bright (DPS – Pentagon Police)
    – Dobbs (Marine Corps officer)
    – Elliott (Col.)
    – Flyler (Navy contractor)
    – Hemphill (Missile Defence Agency Assistant Director for Agency Operations)
    – James (Navy Info Technician)
    – Kelly (Retired Commander US Navy)
    – Liebner (Executive Support Officer for Donald Rumsfeld)
    – Lagasse (DPS – Pentagon Police)
    – Mason (military contractor/Ex USAF)
    – Morin (Ex USMC Aviator)
    – Probst (Military Contractor/Ex Army Lieutenant Colonel)
    – O’Brien (USAF)
    – Ramey (DPS – Pentagon Police)
    – Roberts (DPS – Pentagon Police)
    – Darb Ryan (Vice Admiral Chief of Naval personnel)
    – Stanley (DPS – Pentagon Police)
    – Sheuerman (Associate General Counsel for the U.S. Air Force)
    – Sepulveda (Navy Master Sergeant)
    – Smith (Military Contractor/Ex Marine)
    – Snaman (Military Contractor for Lockheed Martin)
    – Snavel (Army Sergeant)
    – Thompson (ex Marine)
    – Turner (Deputy Chief Information Officer US Navy)
    – Vaughan (US Army Brigadier General)
    – Wallace (Hospital Corps/VietNam veteran)
    – Wheelhouse (US Army)

    The same standards can be set for military personnel as for the media, but from a different angle. Many alleged testimonies are from serving or former military personnel who weren’t even at the Pentagon that day but happened to be in the area.

    The military, particulary the brass, are trained to take orders and to conform.

    Again, I’m not targetting individuals as being complicit to what happened that day, but trying to demonstrate how the witness pool appears to be selective.

    Those who work for or have connections (in many cases highly connected) to the government

    – 16

    – Bauer (PNAC signatory)
    – Clem (Chief Information Officer/Deputy Director of Defence Intelligence Agency)
    – Eberle (GOPUSA founder)
    – Elgas (FDIC on Banking Committee)
    – Gerson (George Bush speechwriter)
    – Hey (Congressional Staff Attorney)
    – Lyman (Washington lobbyist)
    – McCusker (co-chair of the Coalition for National Security Research)
    – Pak (Russian Munitions Agency Director)
    – Rains (Director of Communications for Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems)
    – Regnery (Right Wing Publisher and American Foreign Policy Council)
    – Renzi (corrupt politician with connections to ManTech Corporation)
    – Robbins (Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council and National Review Online Editor)
    – Smiley (works in terrorist intelligence for the Federal Aviation Administration)
    – Taylor (Defence Intelligence Agency)
    – Trapasso (Political Appointee to the Clinton Administration)

    There are a lot of strange bedfellows mentioned above. Who among most of these people is not going to “do their bit” in the name of “national security”? How many of those listed would dare contradict their peers? Fear, blind loyalty and cognitive dissonance are major factors.

    Remember that 9/11 occurred just after a decade in which witnesses to the TWA800 shoot down and the Oklahoma Bombing created major problems for the state. What better way to control information than by letting the media puppets control the flow of that information? Or that the witness pool consists of people whose ambitions, careers and loyalty depend on the government?

    Last but not least “Media disinformation”:

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863&view=findpost&p=22008857

    Cheers

    OSS

    Reply

  12. Further Information by Onesliceshort:

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392

    NOC witnesses

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809504

    Sean Boger

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809601

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809640

    The white plane

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809712

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809715

    “Millions of pieces of aircraft debris”

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809488

    “The helicopter that destroyed the plane”

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22392&view=findpost&p=10809487

    “I should also add that my study of Barbara Honegger’s theories regarding the operational side of the Pentagon event aren’t just kneejerk wholesale rejections but are sourced and very detailed. And I try to lay out means of further investigation (esp the alleged time of the exterior explosion and the “white plane”).”~OSS

    Reply

  13. “Rob,
    If you want to be able to discuss things frankly with people, they need to be able to trust you. This includes trusting that if you tell them something in confidence, they won’t see it
    blabbed on the Internet within a few days.

    And now you claim that I’ve lost my fight – I who shortly after almost dying worked night and day to get a book ready for the 10th anniversary.

    I have tried to defend you against your detractors. You are the reason why Pilots for 9/11 Truth is not respected by most of the other 9/11 organizations. The main complaint against you is that you lash out at people with little evidence. And now you lash out at me with no evidence, simply because I pointed out that you should learn to keep confidences. I’m afraid that I will not be able to defend you any more.”~ David Ray Griffin (9/2/11) to Rob Balsamo
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Rob Balsamo is a big so-what. An insecure egotistical asshole. He’s lucky his technical work will outlast what has been revealed of his ‘personality’.

    \\][//

    Reply

  14. Cheers Willy

    These links show evidence of internal explosives and a lack of aircraft penetration:

    “Left wing” damage

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807808

    Evidence of explosives

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807816

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807824

    Internal “directional damage” was really the product of heat and an unsupported four story block of building:

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22279&view=findpost&p=10807817

    Deets wants to actually paper over the ASCE Report admission that it can’t explain the lack of damage to the facade via the extremities of an aircraft:

    We’re talking about this:

    And there is precedent as per the WTC2 impact hole showing the lower section of the vertical stabilizer marking the building:

    Not to mention the visual proof that the facade wasn’t damaged as per the ASCE Report:

    ~Onesliceshort

    Reply

  15. Barbara Honegger – OCTOBER 31, 2013 – 7:48 AM
    >“I will be responding to this latest post of Craig’s,
    of which I’ve just been made aware, and to this
    comments thread in the near future.”~Barbara Honegger
    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-barbara-honegger-show-dc-911-conference-spun-as-new-consensus/
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    It is now November 12, 2013, and not a single word from Honegger.

    I think it is clear that Ms Honegger is standing-up the forum.

    Why do we have Deets there in lieu of Honegger?
    My answer is that he is running interference – and has been since the conference was conceived.

    >“It’s incredible how obvious his and Barbara Honegger’s arguments interlock. Completely contradictory but complementary in their attitude towards the NOC witnesses. And an insult to our intelligence.”~OSS
    . . . . . . .
    I think this is the crux of the matter, as the two positions – that of Honegger and Deets, creates the classic dialectical: Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis.
    It is this synthesis that is a blunt instrument to disparage the NOC.

    And again I must assert that this is the entire agenda that was established in the Pentagon portion of the 2013 DC Conference.

    \\][//

    Reply

  16. On MO, ‘Persona’ and Ad Hominem:

    Intent is one of the most difficult aspects to discover in any situation. Without a full confession of intent, it can only be surmised indirectly. Circumstantial evidence may be all there is for indications thereof.

    As a long time student of classical argumentation, I have noticed some subtle misunderstandings when it comes to the ‘rules’ of critical analysis. One of these is the confusion over ‘ad hominem’ and the lack of recognition that there is a distinction drawn between ‘False Ad Hominem’ and ‘Justified Ad Hominem’.

    It is also well to understand the term ‘person’ as it relates to modern language and the term’s roots to ancient Greece. ‘Person’ is in fact separate from “the man” or hominem. The ‘Persona’ the proximate etymological term, has to do with the ‘social construction’ of the civil personality of the human being.

    Now, when dealing with and attempting discovery of Modus Operandi, it is entirely valid to investigate the make-up of the persona in an attempt at understanding Motive. This is where ‘ad hominem’ becomes justified – not as a substitute of substantive argumentation, but as an adjunct in understanding what motives may drive what is seen as spurious argument from a particular person.
    . . . . .
    It is my firm conviction that Barbara Honegger is an agent of agitprop, having been sheep-dipped during the Iran-Contra Affair, doing a load of “expose’s” that amount to a modified limited hangout; and that these “expose’s” had utterly no effect whatsoever on the activities of the perps. Her background is in Intelligence as a PR operative, this is part of her open curriculum vitae.

    As this is exactly the kind of situation where close attention to the circumstantial evidence is the only mode of investigation, it remains in the realm of speculation. However I feel that such speculation is perfectly reasonable in this instance.

    \\][//

    Reply

  17. Wait….wait, let’s deconstruct what Mr Deets actually says in his comment to Mr Ruff on NOVEMBER 12, 2013 – 9:03 PM

    Because Deets had a pleasant exchange with Mr Wright, and they are both gentlemen, he is going to dock a certain number of points to NOC on his statistical scale.
    Then he adds that since Mr Ruff “hollered” at him, he is going to dock several more points from that statistical scale.

    What?!?!

    What kind of “logic” is that? That it is illogical as clear as an azure lake in spring.

    A person is liable to ridicule when that person makes ridiculous claims or statements. And Mr Deets claims and statements are ridiculous.

    \\][//

    Reply

    • “Going Fetzal: Refers to the process whereby a subtle disinfo shill “comes out” as a shill by becoming a blatant disinfo shill. Named after Prof. Jim Fetzer of the University of Minnesota who was perceived as an eccentric but intelligent academic until he began to promote the work of Clemson Professor Judy Wood, another eccentric whose research included claims of space based directed energy weapons “dustifying” [sic] steel and concrete and “toasting cars” [sic]. Some erstwhile truthers who have gone Fetzal are Mike Ruppert (the first to actually go Fetzal, before the phenomenon was named, by declaring the truth movement dead and moving to Venezuela), David Shayler (who declared himself the messiah before making a lifestyle change to transvestism,) arguably Webster Tarpley, just to name a few.”~gretavo
      \\][//

      Reply

  18. “a consensus on that central point. isn’t that a good thing? could there be any more incriminating evidence that whatever really happened at the pentagon was an inside job?”~Dennis

    Well. yes and no. How do you make that point, of explosives used to blow up the Pentagon, unless there is a narrative – or context within which to place that assertion?

    Now with this single “consensus point”, it is set within a complex multifaceted narrative, which has to present all of the conflicting theories as alternative contextual regimes as an honest representation of where this single consensus point derives.

    This is one of the reasons I am opposed to this partial gambit of ‘consensus’ declaration.
    What should be sought is not ‘consensus’ but ‘truth’, ONE truth expressed with a single cohesive narrative that makes a case beyond reasonable doubt.

    \\][//

    Reply

  19. 9/11 Pentagon Smokescreen – Stage Magic

    In stage Magic, each trick has three parts:

    [1] The Pledge, where the audience is presented with an ordinary object;
    [2] The Turn, where the object is turned into something extraordinary;
    [3] The Prestige, where the object is brought back.

    If the third element of a magic act is missing, doesn’t occur, it results in dissatisfaction and disappointment, as well as uncertainty.

    The event at the Pentagon is analogous to a Magic Act: [1]The plane, a seemingly normal commercial aircraft. [2] Quickly becomes something extraordinary as it flies so low over the terrain.[3] the Prestige; an explosion and smoke pouring from the Pentagon as if the plane had struck it.

    But all 3 of these elements are part of the trick (1) a decoy aircraft painted in commercial livery. (2) A flightpath that will not actually come to the point where the explosion occurs. (3) A phony Prestige appearing as though the explosions were caused by an air-crash. Whereas the smokescreen was a medium that the plane had flown through and over the building.

    So now, when it is discovered that the actual flightpath of the craft seen could not have caused the damage, because of the conflict of vector, and angle of damage; this lack of the Prestige creates the dissatisfaction and disappointment, as well as uncertainty. This is emotionally upsetting to any who are first introduced to the concept, and is therefore resisted.

    “Then what happened to the plane?” is the first question to be exclaimed in perplexity. “Why didn’t anyone see it fly away?” The answer to that is simple, those who thought they had seen the “crash” weren’t looking for a plane flying away. Those who didn’t see the “crash” would have no reason to suspect there was anything unusual for a plane flying low so near an airport. The chances are strong that many people at other POVs saw the plane and didn’t even acknowledge doing so, as they were fixed on the smoking building. That is how a magic act works; ‘distraction’.

    We are asserting that this event was staged as an analog to a stage magic act. That the plane flew in towards the Pentagon, and just as it was reaching the facade, bombs went off, possibly set by a beacon broadcast from the aircraft itself. The first to go off were large flash bang smoke bombs – creating a smoke screen that the plane could fly through and over, giving the impression to the audience that it had hit the building. the real percussive bombs inside went off as the plane cleared the building…all of this in the matter of a split second.

    This would have worked successfully for most of the angles it was witnessed from on the east/south side of the Pentagon. Most of the rest of the witnesses were in spots where there were obstructions for portions of the event, and many were at distances where they were ‘projecting’ much of what they thought they were seeing.

    So it is not in ‘rejecting’ the witnesses, it is in ‘assessing’ what they saw relative to what they likely ‘projected into’ what they saw.

    \\][//

    Reply

  20. A.Wright on November 17, 2013 – 7:28 PM – above in the thread, says this:

    >”Starting with a foregone conclusion and working through the evidence to arrive back – at the foregone conclusion. And on the way dispensing insults and derogatory remarks to people who point it out.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    I did not start with a “foregone conclusion” Wright. I arrived at this conclusion only after analyzing all of the available data, going through it as you might read herein on this very blog for long months. But you won’t read all of it Wright, you take it in little pieces and argue with the piece, not knowing how it fits in with all the other pieces – Because Wright, YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE FOREGONE CONCLUSION, the one fed to you by the spinjive Public Relations Regime.

    You haven’t been able to argue a single point on this issue in any specificity whatsoever.
    You have had the opportunity this whole time to grasp the points of controversy, and have failed to do so. Then you claim that pointing this out is “dispensing insults and derogatory remarks.”

    You are the one who insults yourself. I have but held up the mirror before you.

    \\][//

    Reply

  21. What follows is actually a take off from OSS’ remarks of:
    JUNE 14, 2014 AT 11:12 PM on:
    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/

    The suppositions are mine alone and not necessarily shared by OSS or anyone else on this blog.

    An important addition to that OSS, is Norman Mineta during his testimony to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003., it squashes any assertion that they were unaware of an incoming plane.

    It is known that Cheney oversaw high command of the operation. As such he was linked to the whole network of military radar systems – he was tracking every one of the planes. He didn’t have to be present to have given orders to the team “the young man” was reporting from as Mineta looked on taking in the exchange.

    Supposition:
    The story of Cheney being physically picked up and hustled to the bunker area – the Situation Room, if true was simply theater. And another likelyhood is that it was just part of a script and didn’t need to be “acted out” at all. All that mattered is that Cheney had an alibi by being in his office and the upper areas of the WH. But his full attention was necessary for the final acts, the Pentagon magic act, and the taking down of 93, which quite possibly had the people from the three other flights that were expendable and not part of the operation.

    Like all the other planes, flt’s 77 and 93 were likely drones for the “attack leg” of their flights. The claimed termination sight for substitute 93 was predetermined as a theatrical dressing of an old mine shaft. The plane was wired with explosives for self-destruct on command. It was blown up in flight and rained debris for several miles.

    flight 77 choreography is well enough known, the pass-off point in the dark spot of the public radar; bringing 77 down at the same time as sending off the substitute 77 drone. Of course this is the ‘Turn’ [in stage magic terminology] ‘something ordinary that suddenly becomes something remarkable’. The ‘Prestige’ is another prop entirely, it is the supposed fragments of flt 77, and the set created by explosives. The sub 77 drone vanished during the distraction [slight of hand] of the illusion of an airplane crash.

    And all of this was staged as prologue to the Main Event, the TV Show; AMERICA UNDER ATTACK {and various versions of this for the several major TV channels}

    So in the Main Event the pre-scripted passion play is acted out by talking heads and media presentations. Perhaps the most elaborate hoax ever played on humankind. An epochal event, a shift of paradigm to the newest edition of ‘The Forever War’.
    \\][//

    Reply

  22. Photoscan dome camera

    Here is a page with images of the dome camera sans mount:

    http://www.cctv-surveillance-products.com/dome-camera.html

    Item Code:DOME420CMOS
    With a feature of 24 hour surveillance function this product is a highly useful tool for the purpose of keeping a security check. This Sensor Dome Camera of ours has a smart light control which provides high quality image in low or no light. This product has a sturdy plastic construct suitable for indoor use. This product is procured by us from highly reliable vendors who believe in providing high quality products. We offer this product at a very competitive price.
    Features:
    24 hour surveillance
    Increases security
    Strong construct
    Specifications:420 TVL CMOS camera 3.6 mm lens
    . . . . . . . . . .
    Same as seen mounted at Pentagon by CIT:

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=14873

    \\][//

    Reply

    • My first comment to Adam Taylor at his blog:
      . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      Hello Mr Taylor,

      You make some mighty tall charges here concerning the article by Craig McKee, yet only give very sketchy rebuttal and general critique. Simply saying things like:

      “it does not take into consideration the work produced by others in the Truth Movement which shows that a Boeing 757 did impact the building.”

      But worse you offer the utterly bogus video clip “Flight 77 frame analysis” which is not at all a presentation of original pristine cam footage, but an “enhancement” with obvious manipulations, of not only format, but color, presenting a “leading argument”, while presenting a blur as an aircraft by suggestion.

      Having had a long and grueling email discussion with the lead author of “the work produced by others”, and having the opportunity to critique his PDF in progress through several revisions, I am of the opinion that the final product is simply bunk, and in no way ‘proves’ the assertion of an actual air crash at the Pentagon.
      He misrepresented witness testimony in gross and flagrant manner, plus includes witnesses in his witness pool who could not have even seen the impact from the POV they had.
      He even disputes the claims of eyewitnesses that were in the perfect position to identify the actual flightpath of the aircraft which place it north of the Citgo station. Claiming one, that they were mistaken about their place and perceptions when seeing the aircraft, and then claiming that they were witness to the impact – which is actually not possible from these witnesses at Citgo, specifically the two police officers. From their vantage point at that time they could only see the top story and roof-line of the Pentagon due to a rise in the hill between them and the building.

      These witness testimonies have been picked apart with great care on several articles on Pilots for 9/11Truth, showing why many of the most celebrated “impact witnesses” simply could not possibly have witnessed an impact. There is more, much more to say in criticism of those who claim that the essence of the official story is true.

      But I will say this much now at this juncture, you have shown bias in your current argument by relying on the faulty account given by the parties you site [Legge et al] as giving Mazzucco “advice” to reconsider his Pentagon portion of the film.

      ~W. Whitten
      \\][//

      Reply

  23. adamtaylor911 — JUNE 14, 2014 AT 12:24 PM
    http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/06/contra-craig-mckee-boeing-757-did.html
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    hybridrogue1 – JUNE 16, 2014 AT 7:16 AM
    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/doctored-pentagon-video-proves-911-cover-up-and-inside-job/

    “The frame in question is the one pictured below, which according to Mr. Mckee and the film shows only the tip of the incoming plane, rather than the main body of the plane.”~Adam Taylor

    This is not McKee’s opinion at all. His, mine and the rest of the forum on T&S do not believe there is any plane in the video whatsoever. This white shape is an artifact of tampering with that frame – a portion of an insertion of animated “smoke”.

    You have misapprehended the discussion in the film and our blog about the analysis by Fourier Transformation, which highlights a group of pixels in this frame as an anomaly mismatching the pixel grade of the rest of the frame.
    . . . . . .
    What is really flabbergasting is that this frame that Taylor reproduces as a tiny jpg in the body of his ‘article’ shows absolutely NO PLANE. While claiming that the white smear is “smoke” and claiming it is from this clearly nonexistent plane… WTF?

    I asked Mr Taylor in a comment on his blog if he believes the tale of the box-cutter wielding “terrorists” – because he says that he believes the planes that hit the towers and the Pentagon were the actual commercial flights. As of just a few minutes ago he has not answered that there.

    It is “bold” of him to post a URL link on this page and not make any comment whatsoever. I am beginning to wonder what it is that distinguishes Mr Taylor’s beliefs from that of the official narrative.

    At any rate, I am not going to attend his blog anymore. If he hasn’t the balls to engage us here, there is no reason to promote his nonsense here anymore either.
    . . . . . .
    – “they {P4T} only conclude that two of the three impacts were genuine. Why? If the planes that hit the Towers were modified to allow them to do what was done, why couldn’t that be the case for the plane at the Pentagon? Why do for one and not the other? This is really the big problem with this whole “no-plane at the Pentagon” idea; what’s the point? What sense does it make to fake..”~Adam Taylor [his blog – June 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM]
    …….
    Again, TRAJECTORY. Until you grasp this simple concept you will spin in circles about the Pentagon event.
    …….

    Taylor continues with:

    -The plane hitting the building [non sequitur – cart before the horse]

    -The lightpoles being knocked down [staged]

    -Eyewitness testimony [this is gone over in detail here – the testimony of merit proves NOC. NOC means wrong trajectory]

    -Plane debris [staged, no serial numbers, no chain of possession]

    -Jet fuel residue [from fuel depot at helecopter port]

    -Damage to the building consistent with a plane impact [simply false]

    -DNA from victims on the plane [zero chain of possession = hearsay]
    . . . . . . .
    This is all explained in detail on this blog, CIT web page, P4T blog…
    Much of this has leads right on this page. Pay attention, drop your bias.
    \\][//

    Reply

  24. JUNE 17, 2014 AT 1:32 PM

    Mr Taylor,

    The issues of 9/11 are not Chinese cuisine and I find it deplorable to be passed the ‘Poopoo Platter’ in discussions about it. And this is precisely what your article in response to Mr McKee’s article is; ‘boolcheat’.

    You have now stopped posting here, and apparently have either banned me or shut down comments on the page of your jabberwacked article. This shows a disingenuous cowardice on your part. You have been given adequate responses to your dubious propositions here and at your home base. Now if you are going to turn your back on this discussion, one that has proximate cause in your spurious attack on McKee and this blog, I just want this to be made clear:

    You sir, are making the scoundrel’s move.
    Have no doubt that this is clear.
    \\][//

    Reply

    • This account repeated at Adam Taylors Blog:

      “According to Matt Hahr, Kirlin’s senior project manager at the Pentagon, the employee “was thrown about 80 ft down the hall through the air. As he was traveling through the air, he says the ceiling was coming down from the concussion. He got thrown into a closet, the door slammed shut and the fireball went past him,” recounts Hahr. “Jet fuel was on him and it irritated his eyes, but he didn’t get burned.” (http://web.archive.org/web/20040404074145/http:/www.designbuildmag.com/oct2001/pentagon1001.asp)

      Jet Fuel Source:

      Posting to September 11th Message Board Greg A. Lohr Staff Reporter, / © 2001 American City Business Journals Inc / Sept 14.
      Anderson Ted Lt. Col. Ted Anderson : “We ran to the end of our building, turned left and saw nothing but huge, billowing black smoke, and a brilliant, brilliant explosion of fire.” (…) One of the Pentagon’s two fire trucks was parked only 50 feet from the crash site, and it was “totally engulfed in flames,” Anderson says. Nearby, tanks full of propane and aviation fuel had begun igniting, and they soon began exploding, one by one. (…) Back in the building again, Anderson said he began “screaming and hollering for people as secondary and third-order explosions started going off. One of them was a fire department car exploding-I think my right eardrum exploded at the same time, and it unequivocally scared the heck out of me.” http://www.msnbc.com/news/635293.asp

      \\][//

      Reply

  25. Norman Mineta during his testimony to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003., squashes any assertion that they were unaware of an incoming plane.

    It is known that Cheney oversaw high command of the operation. As such he was linked to the whole network of military radar systems – he was tracking every one of the planes. He didn’t have to be present to have given orders to the team “the young man” was reporting from as Mineta looked on taking in the exchange.

    Supposition:
    The story of Cheney being physically picked up and hustled to the bunker area – the Situation Room, if true was simply theater. And another likelyhood is that it was just part of a script and didn’t need to be “acted out” at all. All that mattered is that Cheney had an alibi by being in his office and the upper areas of the WH. But his full attention was necessary for the final acts, the Pentagon magic act, and the taking down of 93, which quite possibly had the people from the three other flights that were expendable and not part of the operation.

    Like all the other planes, flt’s 77 and 93 were likely drones for the “attack leg” of their flights. The claimed termination sight for substitute 93 was predetermined as a theatrical dressing of an old mine shaft. The plane was wired with explosives for self-destruct on command.

    flight 77 choreography is well enough known, the pass-off point in the dark spot of the public radar; bringing 77 down at the same time as sending off the substitute 77 drone. Of course this is the ‘Turn’ [in stage magic terminology] ‘something ordinary that suddenly becomes something remarkable’. The ‘Prestige’ is another prop entirely, it is the supposed fragments of flt 77, and the set created by explosives. The sub 77 drone vanished during the distraction [slight of hand] of the illusion of an airplane crash.

    And all of this was staged as prologue to the Main Event, the TV Show;
    AMERICA UNDER ATTACK

    So in the Main Event the pre-scripted passion play is acted out by talking heads and media presentations. Perhaps the most elaborate hoax ever played on humankind. An epochal event, a shift of paradigm to the newest edition of ‘The Forever War’.

    \\][//

    Reply

  26. I mean afterall chillens, think about the term; “staging a false flag operation”.

    Yes, “staging”.

    So it just seems bizarre to me that those who have accepted a certain amount of staging as being done to pull off this psyop, would balk at the idea of simple staging of fake crime scenes at what are obviously locations that the perpetrators controlled?

    Why the doublethink when it comes to the Pentagon event? Why buying so much of the story “because the government says so”? And yes indeed that is exactly what it comes down to when one accepts items into evidence said to come from a crime scene controlled by those who committed the crime.

    We scoff at the idea of finding a ‘hijacker’s’ ID in the rubble of WTC with a slight singe, or a red bandanna that survived a “fiery jet crash that obliterated an entire jetliner in a field.”

    But when it comes to the Pentagon event, all the sudden the goal posts are moved to giving credence to the word of authority. I do not understand, nor do I accept this double standard for investigation. I rebuke this as simpleton bullshit.
    \\][//

    Reply

  27. Extrapolated interpretation of extremely fast motion in visual perception is a known fact of human consciousness. Watching movies would be impossible without this extrapolation ability, and this is why a certain speed of frames is necessary for “moving pictures” to become viable to the human perceptions.

    This same phenomena is what gives success to many stage magic tricks reliant on “slight of hand”, this mixed with distraction techniques and controlled POV is the mainstay of stage magic.

    If the Pentagon event is considered with these facts in mind, the staged event, and the resulting confused and conflicting testimonials of the people who witnessed this magic act becomes very clear to researchers.
    \\][//

    Reply

  30. The item pictured in the image at the link below is the subject of this short analysis – comment.

    The first thing one notices is the picture perfect pose of this item, and the way it perfectly frames the white ‘text/numeral tag’ stuck to it.
    The second thing to note is that this is a hand lettered with a fine point permanent marker {such as Sharpie makes}
    The tag itself is the same general material as the stick-on tags for automobile license plate to show the current year of registration.

    It is the first thing that leads me to the conclusion that this is a planted prop in a staged crime scene. This conclusion doesn’t stand alone, but this item simply reinforces what is already established.

    As a prop, it is a very simple matter to produce this piece. A part from a real Boeing jet, a blank American Airlines ‘Model Number/Serial Number’ sticky tag, a black marker, and plausible numbers to write into the spaces. A Boeing part could be crinkled and given the character of an accident part with just a couple hours of careful manipulation – the prepared tag was likely added at a midway point, just before the final curling of the “frame” around the tag.

    This is a very nice job, But it has one problem, it is too artsy fartsy, too much an obvious display piece. This is something I learned to avoid in prop making for special effects cinematography. Achieving ‘realism’ in prop making for film is a very subtle art-form – it is even more difficult for props to be scrutinized forensically.

    This point standing alone cannot be made the overall point however, as the case of a Jet Crash at the Pentagon is already proven false beyond a reasonable doubt as surely as the WTC complex was destroyed by explosive demolition. Explosive demolition is the mechanism in both cases, WTC and the Pentagon.

    See image here:
    http://vault.fbi.gov/9-11-attacks-investigation-and-related-materials/Image/9-11-pentagon-debris-1

    \\][//

    Reply

    • Having a “trained-eye” is not some empty boast as some non-artists will sometimes assume. It is an aptitude as well as practiced art. That some people have advanced aptitude in certain aspects may be begrudged by those who do not have such talents, but the fact of a great range of aptitudes is simply a fact of life.
      One must literally learn to “See”, and those with natural aptitude will learn quicker and more thoroughly

      Hand-Eye Coordination is certainly another important aspect of creating art. But it is the eye that is in the driver’s seat and directs the hand – the feedback of the two systems, tactile and visual is the key. But for assessment of existing physical things, it is a talented eye that is the most important.
      \\][//

      Reply

  31. ” It’s extremely telling that you take their word for it when they say they saw the plane north of the citgo, but not when they say they saw it hit the building.”~Taylor

    It is extremely telling that you do not understand the ‘solid sense of place’ compared to visual perception of fast moving quick events. Again: ‘Extrapolated interpretation of extremely fast motion in visual perception is a known fact of human consciousness’, this is in no way supposition it is a physical fact at extreme speeds object will appear as indistinct blurs, and the natural neural ability to extrapolate will tend to try to make sense of such. This is not something that you aren’t experienced in as well, whether you recognized what was going on mentally or not.

    You can be at a fairly familiar location and have a complete sense of place. However if an event takes place at extreme speed, and you catch a glimpse of this event, you are not going to be anywhere near as certain of what you just saw compared to the certainty of where you are when you saw it.
    Now if you are going to argue with this you are being willfully obtuse.
    . . . . . .
    As to the Double Tree footage:
    Same phenomena as above; ‘controlled POV’.

    Consider that the hotel footage did not show a plane approach the Pentagon either.
    From the POV of that camera the plane would have reached the smoke screen made by the explosion at a fraction of a second after the explosion took place. The plane lifting just over the height of the roof-line of the Pentagon would have taken place within the smoke screen, thus the flyover was hidden by the smoke screen. Simple reasonable explanation.

    The main problem you have is in accepting the witnesses of the NOC, while dismissing the physics of trajectory and vector. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the plane to have cause the damage in the vector path from entry to exit.

    You say “talk to the witnesses” myself. I don’t have to, their testimony is in the record. Whether they are willing or unwilling to grasp the significance to the NOC approach or not is insignificant, just as your unwillingness to grasp the significance is.
    Your only choice is then to dismiss these witnesses in toto, because the NOC path cannot have caused the known physical damage to the building.

    Now more to visual perception and sense of place. Sean Boger was the witness in the helipad tower. His testimony clearly claims he saw the plane come overt he middle of the Navy Annex, over the north side of the Citgo and directly towards him. This is all solid ‘sense of place’ testimony. As it dawned on Boger that the plane indeed was heading right towards him, split seconds became panic moments. The cringe response will cause anyone in that situation to duck. That he hit the deck a split second before the explosion is clear. He heard and felt the explosion and assumed the plane must have hit the building. But again – it could NOT have; Trajectory – damage path proves it could not have hit the building by the NOC approach.

    Hemphill, same thing, he insists over and again that the plane went over the top of him and continued over the Citgo station. He thinks he saw it hit the Pentagon at the instant of the explosion – again, IMPOSSIBLE because of the physical damage path.

    So the things I have said about perception of fast moving events and extrapolation, whether actually visual or in “instant replay” to make sense of what one just saw, is not simple supposition on my part.
    \\][//

    Reply

  32. “You have no evidence for any of that. At least I’m trying to work with what we actually have, not blind speculation.”~Taylor

    I dispute both aspects of this assertion you have made here.

    First of all your claim of ” trying to work with what we actually have”. This is not so, as has been explained repeatedly; because what we have is verified NOC, and the issue of trajectory – that belies the damage path of the physical evidence.

    My evidence of the fact of the item discussed that was supposedly “found” in the grass of the Pentagon lawn is not the explanation of how it was likely produced, as I said in my closing lines to that comment:

    -‘This point standing alone cannot be made the overall point however, as the case of a Jet Crash at the Pentagon is already proven false beyond a reasonable doubt as surely as the WTC complex was destroyed by explosive demolition. Explosive demolition is the mechanism in both cases, WTC and the Pentagon.’

    Please pay closer attention to the whole of what I am saying here, because the bottom line is and will continue to be Trajectory and NOC = no plane crash.

    You must successfully dispute NOC to come up with a plane crash. This is an impossible task as it is already proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    \\][//

    Reply

  33. “You clearly don’t understand that you can just make up anything you want, but that still doesn’t make it true.”~Adam Taylor

    Hahahaha… what jejune nonsense. Of course I understand that elementary concept.
    Here is a guy that cannot grasp the simple concept of trajectory, vector, and damage path; laying this on me. Everything this duped novice says is ‘making things up’ that do not address the issue of Trajectory/Damage Path.

    I recall the arguments I had with Frank Legge on simple logic like this. A tenured “professor” he is. But utterly biased in his assumptions. Of course Legge is one of the people cited by Taylor – so it runs in the mindset. Legge rejected the argument to do with the ‘prime sense of place vs perception of split second events’, just like Taylor does. To accept the obvious logic of my argument crushes their entire construct. Legge couldn’t grasp the central issue of Trajectory either, and this is why both diddle around with the witness testimony proving NOC, denying the NOC significance by denying the impossibility of seeing the impact from the NOC.

    They refuse to take one step beyond their biases because it will strip them of their complete construction of the event. So the rhetorical gyre spins on and on.

    Sheeeeeeeeeeeeze!
    \\][//

    Reply

  34. -“One ad hoc assertion after another. Good luck proving any of that.”~Adam Taylor

    In argumentation, an ad hoc argument is one that is hastily constructed to support or explain something without any underlying logical framework. Because of this haste and lack of a consistent frame-work, such an explanation likely contradicts other existing thoughts or arguments.

    But my logical framework is already existent and given before I constructed my analysis of the item: “AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC – MOD S537 – S/N 944**?”.

    You are taking my argument backwards. I am not saying that my analysis proves an airplane didn’t crash at the Pentagon. I am saying that since it is already proven that an airplane didn’t crash at the Pentagon, mine would be an explanation for a particular planted piece of evidence.

    If you read the comment with my analysis again, you will see that I do not use my analysis as a proof of no airplane crash, and say such plainly in my final remarks.
    \\][//

    Reply

  35. Some people seem to claim that these witnesses are idiots that do not know exactly where they were, nor what the familiar landmarks in their area are, and where the plane flew in relation to such landmarks and their own position — BUT they can be trusted to have seen the impact.

    I find this proposition remarkably absurd, and most certainly liable to ridicule.
    \\][//

    Reply

  36. The significance of what the trajectory of the aircraft actually was did not occur to ANY of the witnesses or reporters at the time of the event at the Pentagon. That significance would only come to light later when the damage path within the building was revealed.

    This is why the witnesses who were in a position to tell, and saw the plane fly north of Citgo, and over the Naval Annex did not grasp the significance of what they were revealing in their testimony. This is why, regardless of how convinced they were that they witness an impact, it is in conflict with the majority of their testimony.

    So their testimony has a glaring and critical self-contradiction. One which obviously causes cognitive dissonance to these witnesses, so convinced that they actually saw an impact, and yet proving that the plane could not have caused the damage as discovered. Now their conundrum has become ours – most of all those who try to claim that these witnesses actually saw an impact; they are suffering the same cognitive dissonance as the witnesses themselves.

    And it has become ours who grasp this as well, because of the difficulty in convincing true believers that they are wrong.

    \\][//

    Reply

  37. “Talk to any of the first responders who pulled debris and body parts out of the building. You’ll never do any of this.”~Adam Taylor

    But really Adam, no one disputes that people were killed in the conflagration at the Pentagon. The area that was blown up was occupied. And this comment you just made is inching towards the emotionally charged mantra of the official story apologists’ concern for the “family of the victims”, meant to shut down debate out of “respect for the victims”.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
    \\][//

    Reply

  38. adamtaylor911 — JUNE 17, 2014 AT 8:54 PM [T&S]
    “Deny, deny, deny, that’s the strategy you’re going with. Show me evidence of any of that. I already know you believe all of this was faked. The point is there is absolutely no reason to fake any of it. The conspirators could have just flown the plane into the building to do all of that, and they did.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . .
    My reply JUNE 18, 2014 AT 5:32 PM:

    WTF Taylor? This page is stacked to the gills with evidence. You want it hand fed to you? You’re the one that is in denial bucko.

    You obviously haven’t read a single exposition by OSS, and there are enough links to his work to convince anyone with half a brain that it is impossible for a plane to have hit the Pentagon.

    You are not a sincere researcher Taylor, you are a punk kid playing at being a grown-up and failing miserably.

    If you do not comprehend that a north of Citgo approach means no airplane crash by now, if you don’t understand the concept of trajectory, and crash physics then you need to go back to ‘See Spot Run’, and get out of the adult’s business here.

    With your ignorant rant of an article you wrote a check that your ass can’t cash. You’re washed up, wasted and down for the count stooge.

    \\][//

    Reply

    • The concept of trajectory, and crash physics – it is simple ballistics. The forensic evidence based on the witness testimony of the direction the plane approached from, proves it could not be the source of the damage path in the Pentagon.

      The eye witnesses who claimed to see impact prove by their own account that they could not have.
      \\][//

      Reply

  39. Dewitt Roseborough – Pentagon south parking lot – witnesses plane flyover very low from the top of the building toward highway. Next moment he sees the huge fireball above the building. He is definitely a fly over witness, but refuses to talk about what he saw now.

    It was as he was leaving the Pentagon that the world Roseborough knew changed forever. “I got out into the parking lot, just walking along, and all of a sudden, I hear what I would describe as a ‘lion’s roar’ above my head,” Roseborough said.

    “It caught my attention, and as I looked up, I heard another roar and I saw this airplane flying low. I thought, ‘Oh, my God, this thing is really low.’ “I thought it was going to crash onto the highway,” recalled Roseborough. “Just as I thought that, I saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon. I was just standing there dumbfounded, thinking, ‘What just happened?'”
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBQ/is_/ai_93449441

    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449

    \\][//

    Reply

  40. http://www.scientificmethod911.org/pentagon.html

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    The website this is from is called ‘Scientific Method 9/11’, however this is a misrepresentation; ‘Rhetorical Method 9/11’ would be a more accurate name for this site.

    –“While the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) members have endeavored to uncover the truth about 9/11 in order to bring the perpetrators to justice, their methods and arguments are inferior and inadequate for the task. Their attempts to lead a witness and even distort the witness testimony have been well documented, as in the case of Craig Ranke’s interview of Albert Hemphill. This behavior not only lacks scientific integrity, it is
    unethical by any standards. However, CIT’s treatment (see video – times quoted below
    relate to the video referenced here) of the taxi driver, Lloyde England, goes well beyond a lack of ethics to the libelous persecution of an inoffensive man.”~John D. Wyndham
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Having read the Wyndham, Legge papers {and of course debated Legge via email}, I have to note that in none of these published works do they directly address the core issue we attend to here: The trajectory issue of a north of Citgo plane approach as incompatible with the damage path in the Pentagon.

    As early as the time we were communicating by email – before his paper:
    “The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus,” June, 2012, was published {we were discussing this very paper as our conversation went on} — nowhere in this or any subsequent papers is the issue mentioned.
    I have to conclude that this issue is purposely avoided by this clique [Legge et al], because this was my central point during our email exchange – and the point that he hand-waved then as well.

    So far, from that time [and earlier] up until even now, there has been no honest rebuttal, or mention of what is the central question of NOC.

    As we have noted with Adam Taylor, a student of the Legge clique; he will not address the issue, or even acknowledge it consciously.

    This is a blind-spot for our detractors at the very least … and agitprop at the worst.
    \\][//

    Reply

  41. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21840&hl=Addendum

    This page takes apart Legge’s attempt to make up his own “NOC” path…which is bogus in the first place; plus it STILL wouldn’t cause the damage path at the Pentagon.
    . . . . . . . . . .. … .. .. ..
    http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1704&view=findpost&p=2464894

    QUOTE
    06:50

    “MORIN: When the plane went right over the top of me I was within ten feet of the edge of the wing (of the Annex)

    CRAIG : So you were kinda in between them? (the wings of the Annex)

    (…)

    MORIN: I was inside..flew over the top of me.

    MORIN: He wasn’t flying 500 knots…oh no, no, no..he was flying 350

    (…)

    MORIN: It took 13 – 18 seconds (between the Navy Annex and the explosion)

    CRAIG: What are the chances the plane flew on the south side, south of columbia Pike?

    MORIN: No frickin way, it flew over the top of me.

    (…)

    CRAIG: Were you outside the edge

    MORIN: No, I was inside..flew over the top of me

    (…)

    MORIN: I ran to the outside and that’s when I watched the airplane and
    got into a position where I could see it.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    \\][//

    Reply

  43. I call on Adam Taylor to make a public apology for his baseless and spurious hit piece on Craig McKee and Truth and Shadows.
    \\][//

    Reply

  45. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/PentWitnesses.xls

    A Mark Roberts creation.

    “Morin was clearly a straight south side witness though claimed as north side.”~PentWitnesses spreadsheet

    Just one instance to point out how spurious the list itself is.
    As we all know Morin was in a walkway in the Navy Annex and testified that plane went right over him. How it can be claimed that he is a “south side witness” in this doc is truly amazing as a flat out lie.

    Sean Boger as per PentWitnesses spreadsheet:
    “I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building.” “It exploded. I could actually hear the metal going through the building”.
    The whole first portion of his testimony describing the approach over the Navy Annex and just north of Citgo is missing entirely from the doc.

    \\][//

    Reply

  47. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=266965&page=2

    Quite a remarkable load of bullshit from the fruity pseudo-skeptics at JREF on the Massimo Mazzucco film.

    The circular reasoning of these clever idiots is remarkable, ie; “the plane hit the building so any doctoring of the video is irrelevant,” … Lol
    No seriously this is that blithermaster Beachnut’s oinkastrah.

    These guys are like ‘Fire Sign Theater’ but they aren’t kidding.

    There is no wondering why none of these clowns has the rocks to try their bullshit out at Truth and Shadows.
    \\][//

    Reply

  48. For those who don’t know, Mark Roberts is the guy that produced those videos “comparing real demolitions” to WTC 7. He would boost the sound on the “real demolitions” and then compare those with silent videos of WTC 7, and make spurious commentary through these disinformation presentations.

    Mark Roberts a.k.a ‘Gravy” on JREF is really just a New York tour guide. He as admitted that he has “no specific expertise” in 9-11 matters but became interested in 2006 when he heard some of the “conspiracy theories” and found them “suspect.”

    Of course this is the reason Frank Legge didn’t want anyone to know where the Pentagon witness spreadsheet that he was using came from. Because almost everyone in 9/11 research knows that Roberts is an infamous “debunker” and shill for the official story.

    \\][//

    Reply

  50. Adam Taylor on Saturday,June 14, 2014 posted an article titled ‘Contra Craig McKee: A Boeing 757 Did Strike the Pentagon’
    Available at:
    http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/2014/06/contra-craig-mckee-boeing-757-did.html

    Since this article was published he has been confronted with counter arguments and evidence against his article both at his own blog and Craig McKee’s blog, Truth and Shadows. Taylor has made a few tepid attempts to counter these criticisms of his shoddy work at both blog sites. However he has since given up such attempts, although he has posted a couple more comments at his blog criticizing his article and weak responses.

    I have called for Adam Taylor to make a PUBLIC APOLOGY to both Craig McKee and his blog Truth and Shadows. I have yet to see a response of any kind to this. All we have now is silence from Mr Taylor.

    If Mr Taylor believes that the excuses he has made so far for his baseless attack on Mr McKee and his website are going to be the last word on this incident he is sorely mistaken. It is hereby demanded that Mr Taylor stand and deliver, either a public apology in no uncertain terms, or a reasonable response to the counter arguments he has been given.

    \\][//

    Reply

  51. It’s too late to fall in love with Sharon Tate, and it’s too late for the government to “come clean” — because they are rotten to the core and that cannot be passed off as clean anymore….
    \\][//

    Reply

  52. Willy Whitten – June 19, 2014 at 7:52 PM
    I call on Adam Taylor to make a public apology for his baseless and spurious hit piece on Craig McKee and Truth and Shadows.
    \\][//

    Reply:

    Adam Taylor – June 20, 2014 at 2:51 PM
    “Yeah, good luck with that. I don’t have much incentive to apologize to nutcases.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . .

    And this is the level of his argument all the way through the comments section of this page. Well, Mr Taylor is going to have to live with this, unless he gains the sense to take the article down.
    \\][//

    Reply

    • Now Taylor may claim that my calling him a ‘punk kid playing at being a grown-up and failing miserably’, and a “stooge” – but I added firm reasoning to those allegations. On the other hand Taylor has not even attempted to make an argument on some 80% of the criticisms he has received in the comments section of his blog.

      Aside from one point about “ground effect” that he “corrected” me on he has made no rational arguments that have stood scrutiny. I gave him the point on ‘ground effect’ with a caveat; citing an article by Balsamo on P4T that explained that there were more dramatic and critical effects, although ‘ground effect’ is not one of them.

      Anyone can visit his blog and the web page for themselves to see that the rest of his arguments were mostly snarky retorts, such as “ask the witnesses yourself…” [as if he has] as if the mass of testimony in the public record is not enough, as if we weren’t addressing that testimony and parsing it with a fine tooth comb.

      That he cannot acknowledge what the overwhelming evidence of a north of Citgo approach NECESSARILY means due to TRAJECTORY is his fatal error, and one he will not address at all. I call that the actions of a punk kid playing at being grown-up.
      Taylor is a stooge – someone duped by charlatans such as Legge and his clique. I have made the case that shows this to be the case. I did not simply “call him names” with no rationale behind it. And his final comment about “nut cases” proves my point exquisitely.
      \\][//

      Reply

  53. My reasoning as per the Pentagon event is straightforward.

    First is lack of verifiable evidence due to lack of documented chain of possession of evidence. The obvious ignoring of crime scene protocol in broad daylight of the sweep by the team of men in shirts and ties, that were simply picking up pieces of “debris” as quickly as possible, not tagging, not photographing. A modus operendi that is reasonably enough surmised to extend to ‘sight unseen’ portions of the crime scene.
    The bottom line to such an arc of reasoning would be that the entire scene is staged, and there is simply no proof that this is not so.

    As those who controlled the crime scene, the onus is on the government to prove its case.
    At this point in the argument we can only say we don’t know either way from such claimed evidence.

    But the next point is that of the witness testimony, which once parsed out proves conclusively that the plane approaching the Pentagon came from a NOC direction.
    And it has been stressed time and again, and will be until this fact is grasped, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the plane to have created the damage path. And this answers the first point, the crime scene was staged, just like the magic act that fooled so many eyes.

    Of course this is a bear bones summation based on all the evidence discussed and analyzed on T&S, CIT, P4T and here on my own blog.

    The circumstantial evidence bulges the case’s files – the best evidence in this case is the NOC witness testimonies and the only rational conclusion that they lead to:
    NO PLANE CRASH.
    \\][//

    Reply

  54. Now, as far as the argument that it gets Cheney off the hook if the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon; this is more spurious reasoning. Cheney was responsible for the plane being allowed into the Pentagon airspace {see: Norman Mineta} – the plane was necessary as a distraction to blame the explosives on. Cheney is running the whole show from the situation room in the White House. He can’t be let off the hook for anything, this was at the core of things his operation. Bush was obviously left out of the loop on purpose, because he would have likely spilled the beans right off the bat, he is such a goofball. But Bush is liable as the top chief executive nevertheless, and as culpable as anyone else privy to the plot. RICO applies to this case in no uncertain terms.
    \\][//

    Reply

  55. Adam Taylor – June 21, 2014 at 7:30 AM
    “Oh dear me, how will I ever live with what I’ve done? How will I ever sleep at night knowing I’ve pissed off some random crackpots online?”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    That’s one technique of an ignorant pussyboy who can’t make a intelligible counter argument to criticism – he compensates with wise-assed bullshit like the above.

    Meanwhile he hasn’t noticed there isn’t a single comment in favor of his article on the page.
    \\][//

    Reply

    • Craig McKee — June 20, 2014 at 5:02 PM
      -“Adam, are you calling me a nutcase? Really?”

      Reply

      Adam Taylor — June 21, 2014 at 7:25 AM
      –“Guess so. Deal with it.”
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
      You swallow. Don’t you pussyboy.

      “Guess so.. gulp.”

      You don’t even have the balls to make a strong affirmative.
      \\][//

      Reply

  56. Click to access Mazzucco_letter_Oct2013.pdf

    “In conclusion, rather than point out here the many other problems with the film’s Pentagon segment, we offer to work with you to bring the Pentagon segment into a state where it can receive the respect of other scientists. We invite your thoughtful response. ”

    Sincerely yours,

    David Chandler, B.S. (Physics), MS (Mathematics) Email: davidchaler@gmail.com
    Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) Email: flegge@iinet.net.au
    John D. Wyndham, PhD (Physics) Email: jcwyndham@myfairpoint.net
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    \\][//

    Reply

  57. To be crystal clear here, what I am saying is that the ONLY evidence that was not controlled by the government is the individual witness testimonies gathered by individual researchers.

    That witness testimony is Best Evidence in light of the MO of the government as a lying, murdering syndicate, well known for staging false flag events and corrupting crime scenes.

    This Best Evidence contradicts the government story of a plane crash at the Pentagon.

    These “scientists”, Legge, Wyndham, and Chandler have dismissed with prejudice, the clear and rational conclusion that a north of Citgo trajectory of the witnessed plane cannot have caused the known damage path through the Pentagon.
    \\][//

    Reply

  58. Frank Legge’s Spreadsheet:
    https://dc1.safesync.com/LMGxbsCs/Conspiracy%20911/My%20contributions/Papers/Pentagon%20witnesses/PentWitnesses120416.xls?a=BSNFLFuZHZI

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I am sure that it would be Frank Legge’s story that I turned hostile against him during the last portion of our email exchange. Not so, I became hostile to his lack of rational assessment of the witness testimonies we were discussing.

    That he was ‘stretching’ rhetorically to dismiss the clear testimony of NOC, while maintaining the claims of ‘impact’ became too obvious to me to ignore or leave unmentioned in our discussion.

    He in fact was the one who became hostile in the first instance by claiming “any child could see his point”. Did that piss me off a little bit? Did I consider Frank ‘fair game’ for insulting retorts because of that? You bet your squirting bippy I did. Am I well versed in cutting insult? Do any here doubt that?

    He’s the one who flipped the switch on ‘decorum’ in our conversation. He is the one who became hysterically irrational by the end of it.
    \\][//

    Reply

  59. . . . . . . .. . . . ..
    As has already been discussed, it is well known that the origin of this spreadsheet is, Mark Roberts aka ‘Gravy’ on the JREF forums.

    As I pointed out Legge wouldn’t cop to me where this spreadsheet came from that he was using for the article at the time of our email exchange.

    And now as late as this letter being written to Mazzucco he is still mum on that fact and taking credit for it as, “Frank Legge’s Spreadsheet”.

    This is not only dishonest as to the known history of this item, it is also a clear case of plagiarism to take credit for another’s work… unless of course, Mark Roberts aka ‘Gravy’ has been Legge all along.
    I think there are reasons to doubt that last point, and would say that it is actually plagiarism and dishonesty we are dealing with in Legge.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~“
    Other links within the Muzzucco letter from Legge et al:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

    http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

    \\][//

    Reply

  61. thejumblies – June 21, 2014 at 11:49 AM
    “@Adam Taylor
    A good critique of Mr. McKee’s article, and Mr. Mazzucco’s film dealing with the videos of the plane at the Pentagon….”~A.Wright

    Hahahaha!! Isn’t that precious? Taylor’s one positive comment is from Mr Stooge himself!!!
    Too funny.
    \\][//

    Reply

  62. “And I HAVE “made an effort to examine it.” I’ve seen the “analysis” of the pixely zoom-in, and where Taylor wishes for us to see a 757. What utter nonsense. There’s clearly no plane visible and you only discredit yourself further with every additional minute you attempt to defend this nonsense with a straight face.”

    Says Adam Syed. And then Agent Wright answers:

    “So you are not even arguing, just dismissing it and ridiculing the idea having tried not very hard to see anything there.”

    When Mr Syed just got through saying he DID indeed make the effort to examine it.

    WTF Wright? You continue to repeat this bullshit here over and over, but you won’t address a single thing brought forward on this forum by the rest of us; ‘just dismissing it and ridiculing’ the information without acknowledgement or examination. Your head must be a Jack’o’lantern – an empty pumpkin with a face carved on it.
    \\][//

    Reply

  63. Agent Wright clings to these little fragments of bullshit, when in fact the whole case of 9/11 has been blown wide open for years.

    This is why he focuses on one little matter obsessively and will not account for the entire case of evidence. Repetition-Repetition is the PR game, The Big Lie attended by legions of small lies as bodyguards. The psychological operation of 9/11 continues from Mr Jumble/Wright’s corner like an old scratchy 33-rpm record.
    . . . . . . .
    Propaganda by Edward Bernays

    Carroll Quigley on the Bank for International Settlements

    Aldous Huxley: The Ultimate Revolution

    How Darwin, Huxley, and the Esalen Institute launched the 2012 and psychedelic revolutions

    B.F. Skinner’s Shaping Experiment (“Skinner’s Box”)

    José Delgado stops a bull in its tracks with electromagnetic mind control

    “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” by Étienne de La Boétie

    Etc, etc…

    http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-906-social-engineering-101-with-james-corbett/
    \\][//

    Reply

    • Government is a racket.

      Tolerating governance by others is voluntary servitude; a game of fools.
      \\][//

      Reply

  64. –“Quote HR1 : “This is why he focuses on one little matter obsessively and will not account for the entire case of evidence.”
    It seems that discussing the ‘single frame’ is only ok if you don’t discuss it.”~Wright
    . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Agent Wright, we HAVE discussed the single frame exhaustively. But what we are also pointing out that this frame, and the entire video must be put in the context of the entire body of evidence of the Pentagon event.

    Urge as we may, you refuse to do so. The single prescient point in the analysis of the video is that there was digital manipulation. That is the single point to be drawn from the article. Beyond that are the penumbra of proofs of a NOC approach by the aircraft, and the impossibility of that trajectory causing the damage path through the building.

    You will not address this but “obsess” on the video frames exclusively. Now you say we are saying it’s “only ok if you don’t discuss it.” And this Agent Wright is spurious rhetorical bullshit, as much of this page is clearly a discussion of the video frames.
    Again, it is your refusal to place the argument in context which belies your disingenuous argumentation.

    These points in general have been made to you for some 2 and a half years on this blog.
    The fact that you do not accept that you have been outed as a rank apologist for illegitimate authority simply does not sink into your thick skull.

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

    Reply

  65. Mark Roberts Pentagon Witness Spreadsheet:
    forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=244359

    aneta.org/theories/Pentagon/witnesses/PentWitnessesJREFGravy.xls

    \\][//

    Reply

  66. 9/11 RODENTS
    Moles, Rats, and Milkey Mouse cartoon characters.

    > Moles, Fetzer, Legge, Morgan Reynolds – double agents – trojan horses within the movement
    > Rats, Assbury Smith, A. Wright – open stooges for the regime
    > Milkey Mouse cartoon characters – dupes and silly ‘researchers’ like Max Bridges, Simon Shack, Judy Wood, and other goofball nut jobs running in circles and wild-goose chases.

    \\][//

    Reply

  67. Willy Whitten May 13,2012
    to Frank_Legge
    Just one more note Frank,
    Consider Deb Anlauf, at the Sheraton Hotel. If the plane went right over her position as per her testimony – She is north of the official path as well. But you seem to site her as a south path witness. How can this be? Like the Annex and Citgo and cemetery witnesses, she is north of the official path.
    The helipad tower witness also says the plane came over the Annex straight at the Pentagon. If the plane witnessed went over the Annex, it is north of the official path.
    You and I have both looked at the Google Earth view with the line showing the official path as compared to the witness POVs, ALL of these are north of the official flight path. The Sheraton is just west of the Annex…a straight line to the Annex – on over the Citgo and straight at the Pentagon. At that angle the official damage to the Pentagon is impossible – the only way to posit that it could be is for the extreme banking maneuvers, which would end with the plane banked so hard left that the wing would be perpendicular to the ground and the right wing pointing up at the sky.
    And this has been your question; “did any witness report such an extreme bank, “pitch, roll”? And of course the answer is no, none of them did.
    That should be all that is needed to be pointed out.

    You know Frank, when one compiles your multiple versions of the ‘Debunking’ papers on the Pentagon, plus the dialog we have had in these email conversations, and then add in some of the commentary on blogs by you and ‘snowcrash’; it all comes to a load of horseshit.
    Just recently you told me you are not relying on official government data, that all you are relying on is the witness testimony. You want to go back and compare that statement with your Pentagon articles? Go ahead Frank compare, and see if this most recent admonition from you doesn’t sound like a load of bullshit. Your commentary seems to come in two flavors, horseshit or bullshit – and they both stink.
    And so now, like so many others, I am wondering just what your game is. What could be your motivation in all of this? What caused this U-turn into the field of weeds? You are obviously not a stupid person, but you have made a lot of contradictory statements just in our email exchanges. And this latest one is a fucking doozie – after going through all this for weeks, reading your papers – arguing tight points…Now you tell me that all you are relying on is the witness testimonies? Jesus man, WTF?
    I can think of only two choices in trying to figure you out – you are loosing your mental facilities, or you are a mole and your earlier work was your ingratiating period.
    I don’t see how you can escape seeing how bad this makes you look.
    Are you el Topo Frank?
    Deb Anlauf, Sheraton—–>plane traveling due east —>> Hemphill, Annex>>—–due east—>> Lagasse, Turcios, Brooks,>>–Williams, Stafford and Prather ——->> due east >>———–>>Helipad tower “straight in from Annex” >>— due east—>> straight in at Pentagon…
    >>——-{ due east path }——>> straight into Pentagon?
    Bells ringing in your head yet Frank? They should be, that would mean the damage path in the Pentagon would have been straight in — same due east damage pattern.
    We all know the official damage angle Frank, don’t we?

    “If you look upward out through a south facing window your gaze will go both outward and upward.”~Legge

    No shit Sherlock. How FAR outward is the question. Isn’t it? – why yes it is.

    If I look down from my second story window I see about five feet beyond that wall of my place. If I look upward out that window I am restricted from about the same five foot view. If a 757 flew diagonally along my roof line, 20ft above, I would see the entire wing, engine and part of the fuselage [L or R depending on flight direction]

    “Ask a child” – kiss my ass Legge. ~ww – 5/16/2012
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Willy Whitten 12:32 PM May 16, 2012 – 12:32 PM

    to Frank_Legge
    Frank,

    No matter how you play it, you do not have the angular damage path of the official story

    Grimoire el Topo Flambe

    – CASE CLOSED –
    \\][//

    Reply

  69. –“One has to ask whether the traumatic image of the plane hitting the Pentagon, or the image of the prior path of the plane, would be more reliably held in memory.”~Frank Legge – Jan. 2011 ‘New FDR Analysis’

    My Reply:

    Well let us reframe this situation in a more reasonable manner:

    These witnesses have hours – days – in some cases months to have established their own bearings {other than those traveling in traffic}. These people know exactly where they are in relation to their surroundings. This is set. For them to have this wrong would be to assert that they are lacking any lucidity at all.

    The incident is however a matter of split seconds. So the question of what “would be more reliably held in memory,” is clearly the first; their awareness of place and bearings. This is such a natural and self evident conclusion that the assertion made above is an obvious attempt to present the ambiguous as certain, and a certainty as ambiguous.~ww – 5/15/2012
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~“
    Willy Whitten May 11,2012
    to Frank_Legge
    Why won’t you accept what actual pilots and aeronautical engineers have to say?
    You are using 10th grade Physics, not aerodynamics.
    Does that last sentence sound familiar?
    Why can’t you get a single pilot or expert in aerodynamics to sign on to your work?
    Do you have an adequate answer for those simple questions Frank?

    Frank’s Reply:
    If you want to know what real pilots think about Balsamo’s math, read:
    http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/446123-roll-rate.html

    http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/463565-altimeter-calibration.html

    Balsamo’s ID is A320Slave. You will see the deceptive, damaging nature of Balsamo as he tries to undermine my argument by saying that I support the view that explosives were used at the WTC. He thus jeopardizes our whole 9/11 campaign in the hope of persuading the reader on a single point. He is a threat to society.
    Regards, Frank

    [NOTE: none of these exchanges with these pilots at PPR ever came to addressing Balsamo’s math… The only direct answer was a pilot who gave a “psychological profile of “conspiracy theorists” .. Lol ww]
    ~~~~~~~~
    Willy Whitten May 11, 2012
    to Frank_Legge
    Dewdney was Balsamo’s math consultant on his paper North Approach* – along with: Jeff Latas, Aeronautical Engineer, Core Member, Pilots For 9/11 Truth. “dMole”, Engineer, Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum Moderator. Craig Ranke, Citizen Investigation Team.
    *Why don’t you already know this about Dewdney if you are so up on Balsamo’s work?
    ~~~~~~~~
    Willy Whitten May 12,2012
    to Frank_Legge
    “gravity32
    I wouldn’t worry too much what a few borderline psychos have concocted. Reasoning, thinking, men can hear these stories and discard them. Those that embrace these strange theories have an emotional need. That is their problem. All you need to do is firmly state, “That is BullSh*t,” to indicate you do not want to play their game.”~Machinbird

    Ah so…Pilots giving you psychological information, as they have no clear aeronautical answers for you.
    Gotta love it Frank…
    . . . . .
    And so it went for page after page of emails…
    \\][//

    Reply

  70. PENTAGON 9/11

    In my view the research by CIT on the Pentagon 9/11 event is just as important and ground breaking as Professor Jones’ work on the WTC 9/11 event. The combined efforts of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Citizen’s Investigation Team brings a clear and concise picture into focus as to what happened at the Pentagon that morning.

    I find it distressful that there seems to have formed a biased clique of PhD’s who are seemingly loath to give up their arrogance towards what they obvious see as a laity, when it comes to research into the events of 9/11. These particular ‘scientists’ make claims to “scientific thinking’ that in the main is nothing but “rhetorical thinking’ and in many instances blatantly irrational. They end up making false arguments to authority; their own. This is pure hubris and must be condemned as surely as the condemnation of the spurious ‘official story’ – which in fact is what is basically being offered by this group of “scientists” from their lofty perches in academia.

    Just by chance I happened to get in touch with the person who is the ‘ringleader’ of this clique of PhD’s in May of 2012. At that time he was writing a new paper on the Pentagon event, and I was offered several versions of this paper as it was being produced.
    Criticism was invited by this gentleman and I began to offer a few suggestions as time went on. At some point I began to see and read some very strange ‘reason’ being put forth in this person’s arguments, and I began to challenge him at the core of those.
    Conflict arose. His final paper came to me as a PDF and I couldn’t help but be brutally frank in my assessment of it. Things ended badly in this affair. But I came away with a good lesson by seeing academic arrogance developing first hand.

    [a prologue to a new thread on HR1blog]

    \\][//

    Reply

  71. –”One has to ask whether the traumatic image of the plane hitting the Pentagon, or the image of the prior path of the plane, would be more reliably held in memory.”
    ~Frank Legge – Jan. 2011 ‘New FDR Analysis’

    This is a key assertion here from Legge. This has to be one of the most spurious statements I have ever heard from a so-called “leader of the Truth Movement”. This is so because as Frank would have it “the traumatic image of the plane hitting the Pentagon” is his answer to his own question. And that is the height of absurdity.
    \\][//

    Reply

  72. The sense of place and surroundings is at the very core of cognitive awareness in a human being.

    The assertion by Legge above denies this very obvious fact of consciousness.

    These witnesses have hours – days – months in some cases years to have established their own bearings {other than those traveling in traffic}. These people know exactly where they are in relation to their surroundings. This is set. For them to have this wrong would be to assert that they are lacking any lucidity at all.

    The incident is however a matter of split seconds. So the question of what “would be more reliably held in memory,” is clearly the first; their awareness of place and bearings. This is such a natural and self evident conclusion that the assertion made above is an obvious attempt to present the ambiguous as certain, and a certainty as ambiguous.

    \\][//

    Reply

    • –Sean Boger – Physical Reaction:

      “In fact, visual stimuli, transduced by the rods and cones in the eyes, and sent by electro-chemical signals to the central nerous system via the optic nerves does not go directly to the occipetal cortex which is the primary region responsible for processing information. Instead, it first goes to the lateral geniculate nucleus of the Thalamus, another region of the brain that is a part of the lymbic system and important to emotional arousal.
      To put this in simpler terms, this means that you can experience an emotional reaction to something before you are consciously aware that you have even seen it.”~Laurie Manwell, University of Guelph

      Amygdala hijack is a term coined by Daniel Goleman in his 1996 book … From the thalamus, … which causes our bodies to go into a ‘fight or flight’ response.”
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala_hijack

      Processing fear is a chain reaction in the brain triggered by stressful or threatening stimuli and resulting in physical symptoms of the fight-or-flight response. They include rapid heart beat, increased adrenaline and quickened breathing. Specific areas in the brain play major roles in the automatic fight-or-flight response, which follows two simultaneous paths once prompted: the low road, which progresses from thalamus to amygdala then to hypothalamus; and the high road, which takes longer and follows the path of thalamus through hippocampus, sensory cortex and amygdala to hypothalamus.
      http://www.ehow.com/list_6907783_parts-brain-involved-fight-flight.html

      \\][//

      Reply

  73. This also shows that even with this crack pilot, how wide the turning radius is to get back around for another pass, giving a good perspective on how the trajectory from the Citgo could not have been adjusted to make the damage path. Nor able to hit the light poles.
    \\][//

    Reply

  74. “This testimony, besides throwing into doubt the testimony of Don Mason and the other people who claimed to have seen the light poles clipped, suggests something even more important: that the five light poles were staged to provide evidence for the official story. If so, then we must suspect that other evidence for the official story was also planted. If any of the evidence is demonstrably planted, in fact, we must doubt the truth of the entire story.”~DRG [David Ray Griffith]

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22364

    The Flight Data Recorder was found in the Pentagon. How can it be too high?

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum…showtopic=7322

    Can the Govt Get Their Story Straight? – Location of FDR
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html

    Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up’s
    Location of American 77 Flight Data Recorder – Part II
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/location_2.html

    \\][//

    Reply

  75. Claim –
    New Paper At The Journal Of 9/11 Studies – FDR Analysis Performed By Frank Legge and Warren Stutt

    Warren Stutt Decode Shows Altitude too high to Impact Pentagon
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10778240

    Vertical and Lateral Acceleration do not shows signs of “impact”, proving Longitudinal Deceleration was not due to “impact” as speculated by Legge/Stutt
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10794146

    Warren Stutt’s admitted lack of expertise with respect to FDR Investigation
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10799563

    RA – PA Correlation, proving the “Altitude Divergence” calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10794074

    If Legge/Stutt “Altitude Divergence” calculations were correct, Aircraft would be slamming into the ground. IAD ILS RWY 01R Approach Analysis, Instruments required for IFR Flight Based on Regulation.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10793490

    Calculations based on Stutt Theory with respect to RA Tracking Capability, proving Stutt’s theory false.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10794159

    More confirmation supporting RA Tracking Capability referenced is in fact a longitudinal velocity, and not the vertical velocity as speculated by Legge/Stutt
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10803407

    Explains Lack Of Attention To Detail in the very first paragraph of the Legge/Stutt “Paper”
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10793061

    Proof of Legge trying to weasel his way out of mis/disinformation he has presented
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10793501

    A Response To Frank Legge And Warren Stutt, P4T rebuttal to Legge/Stutt “Paper” and “Rebuttal”
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21025

    Warren Stutt Refuses to Address the tough questions
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10803075

    Legge/Stutt Admit to Leaving Erroneous References in their paper as a “Honey Pot” trap for readers
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10803456

    More statements from FDR Expert Dennis Ciminio
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10803408
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10803429

    Cit Publishes Response To David Chandler & Jonathan Cole’s Joint Statement About The 9/11 Pentagon Attack
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21054

    \\][//

    Reply

  77. J’ACCUSE

    The question arises as per Legge, Wyndham, Cole, and Chandler et al:

    When does “misinformation” sink to the point of “disinformation”?

    INTENT, is the key. And repetition of misinformation in light of serious criticisms thereof, indicates such intent. And this is especially so when such valid criticisms are left on the table unanswered for years now.

    Human fallibility is a universal aspect. This is why serious discussion is demanded, and why open back and forth dialog is essential in arriving at the truth.

    This is why, at this late date it is fully within our rights as critical commentators to declare that Legge et al have crossed that threshold of purveyors of misinformation, and can be fairly charged with propagating disinformation.

    \\][//

    Reply

  78. “Therefore the Pentagon is a dead-end for research. The puzzle of the Pentagon might be fascinating or intriguing, but as an avenue to determining the truth, it seems doomed to failure. The ones who want it covered up literally hold all the cards.”
    ~Joint Statement by David Chandler and Jonathan Cole , 2011
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    This is false.

    Those who want it covered up do NOT hold all the cards. The cards in our hands are the Witness Testimony, and especially the Best Evidence witness testimony, which is the “NOC witnesses” {those with the proper POV to determine the flight path} and in particular the testimony of Sean Boger, and Hemphill, who bookend each other’s POV from Hemphill’s POV to Boger’s. These would be the gold star witnesses in my view, although backed up with all of the relevant witnesses.

    That the cards that “the ones who want it covered up” are all from a marked deck, makes those cards illegitimate. All there is to the Pentagon case that has any bearing is the witness testimony gathered by private investigation entirely out of the purview of the authorities that hold all of these illegitimate cards. Ours are the ONLY cards that matter in this case.

    \\][//

    Reply

  79. Because of the original works of the Legge League that were so well conceived and worthy of praise I truly despise this deplorable situation that the Legge contingent have promulgated, wherein they say that the Pentagon issue is a distraction and should be ignored; but then spend so much time and energy on vast verbiage on the very subject they claim should be dismissed. It is these very clowns themselves who have put up the big-top for the circus they say should not be attended. And they continue to this day with their tepid acts with colored hot air balloons.

    Such hypocrisy is repugnant enough in itself, aside from the absolutely asinine argumentation put to these ongoing series of insults to intelligence and continued blog banter amounting to flaccid stand-up comedy.

    There is in fact no controversy but the one these disingenuous pretenders have engineered themselves.
    \\][//

    Reply

  80. Here is a particularly disturbing recording of Jeff Hill harassing WTC attack witness Jay Maisel at 1:00 in the morning with his no plane theories:

    [audio src="http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/1/CC/jeff-hill-pump-it-out-harrasses-maisel.mp3" /]

    This is the person that Chandler and Cole are promoting right after expressing their concern that “the 9/11 Truth Movement will be seen as vicious, mean spirited, crazy, and ultimately discredited” and also their view that NPT was and is basically disinformation “designed” to discredit “the Movement”.

    \\][//

    Reply

  81. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1036&view=findpost&p=2376511

    –“In the case of the Pentagon paper I have not made a positive hypothesis. Instead the hypothesis contains two negatives. I contend that this is still a scientific exercise. I have looked for evidence that a Boeing 757 could not have hit the Pentagon and have not been able to find any that stood up to scrutiny. I further contend that this hypothesis still stands.”~Frank Legge – ‘What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on
    the Credibility of 9/11 Truth’ – Version 8 -15 February 2010 [Version 1, July 2009]
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    “I contend that this is still a scientific exercise.”~Legge

    And I contend it is an exercise in rhetorical bullshit. In fact “misinformation” in the first versions and now by version eight complete ‘disinformation’. I further contend that his “hypothesis” was never a hypothesis at all in the technical sense of the term; so it cannot ‘still stand’ as it never stood in the first place. This is not science we get from Legge, it is hysteria driven agitprop.
    \\][//

    Reply

    • Dig it: Legge spent 7 months dicking around with this supposedly “peer reviewed” piece of bullshit, and it still amounts to nothing but bullshit.
      \\][//

      Reply

  83. http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/2006/10/daryl-donleys-pentagon-fireballs-at.html

    http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html

    Quite a few people were tricked by the magic act at the Pentagon, and thought they saw the plane impact – even the witnesses who had the best view to tell the flight path. Many of these swear to this day that they “saw the plane hit” … but the bulk of their testimony proves it could not have. A north of Citgo – over the Navy Annex approach cannot have caused the damage path in the Pentagon. Case Closed.
    \\][//

    Reply

  84. An audience at a stage magic show KNOW they are at a show to see tricks, they assume they are tricks no matter how deceived their eyes may be and no matter how “real” the effect was to them.

    But take such an audience and put them in normal surroundings, in broad daylight and present a sophisticated magic act as the performance at the Pentagon on 9/11, and such a people aren’t going to make the same assumptions as attending a show. When their eyes are deceived they will not automatically assume that it must have been a trick. They are in an entirely different mindset, and will assume the opposite, that what they saw was real.
    \\][//

    Reply

  85. http://s1067.photobucket.com/user/cademartatu/media/3cd4299b9b6ae79ee4cffba62d8af3d3.jpg.html

    URL above, photo of view from room 1404 Sheraton Hotel

    “Watching from floor 14 window of her hotel room in the Sheraton Hotel”
    Deb Anlauf:
    QUOTE
    “Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. Then it shot straight across from where we are..”
    “It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon).”

    \\][//

    Reply

    • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      From this portion of her quote; “Then it shot straight across from where we are..”; I can’t help but conclude she means what she said, it went straight from where she was to the Pentagon, which would obviously be right over the Navy Annex – by that token the Citgo beyond…

      Legge interpreted Anlauf as looking out of a south facing window. The shot from this room faces east. This gives an entirely different slant to her testimony than that Legge tries to promote.
      \\][//

      Reply

      • Sheraton Pentagon City Hotel
        3207 Columbia Pike, Arlington, Arlington, VA 22204-4305 United States.
        Room 1404 faces east, looking over the top of the Navy Annex.

        \\][//

  86. “I’m seeking the truth no matter where it takes me. Nothing more, nothing less. If we never get a new investigation, it will be because of people like you. Proud of that?”
    ~Adam Taylor – June 21, 2014 at 7:58 PM [last comment before closing comments]

    What a naive and childish twit. If “we” never get a new investigation? Who the fuck is “we” monkeyboy?
    There will never be a new investigation because the authorities have moved on beyond the questions of 9/11 – because the bulk of the Amerikan people don’t give a shit about 9/11 – because the psyop worked and the case is closed in their minds.

    As far as this jejune punk’s claim of; “I’m seeking the truth no matter where it takes me.” This is just rhetorical bullshit. He has been offered more than enough evidence that it is impossible for the aircraft observed to have hit the Pentagon due to the trajectory being in conflict with the damage path. Taylor has hand-waved this evidence without due consideration or counterargument. This indicates that Taylor will not follow “the truth no matter where it takes”…him, but in fact has closed his mind prematurely based on the misdirection of charlatans that he follows mindlessly.

    The fact the Adam Taylor was incapable of counterargument to defend his spurious attack piece on Truth and Shadows, and found it necessary to shut down the comments section on his page to save himself further embarrassment, makes all of this perfectly clear.

    PS
    Amerikans won’t do shit about anything until their toys are taken away.
    \\][//

    Reply

  87. “If the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can ‘seize’ and ‘search’ him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.”—U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

    \\][//

    Reply

  88. Willy Whitten – email to David Chandler
    6:51 PM on June 25, 2014

    to David

    Well Mr Chandler,

    It is hard, a very unpleasant situation for me here because of the great respect I have for your earlier efforts. And the same goes for others you are still involved with who have taken this strange stance in alignment with the official story to do with the Pentagon event.

    Yes, I have tried to taunt you into some sort of response, even though I know you are infamous for not responding to the “plebes” of the 9/11 Movement.

    I won’t plead with you again to come to your senses on this matter.
    But, I won’t refrain from my public rebukes either.

    Sad…. \\][//

    Reply

  89. AN OPEN CHALLENGE TO COWARDS

    Our case is elegant in its simplicity. NOC has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    NOC proves a trajectory that is incompatible with the damage path of the Pentagon.
    Therefore a plane did not crash into the Pentagon.

    Our opponents will not address this very simple equation. They refuse to debate the issue in a fair and open dialog.

    This in itself says much.

    Just like Adam Taylor tucking his tail between his legs and shutting down the comments on his hit piece against T&S.
    There is no valid argument against our case. This has been shown time and again for years, since the very first papers by Frank Legge were published.

    Legge, Chandler, Cole, and Wyndham have been publicly challenged herein. They have been challenged over and again in other venues. It is time to make an open charge of COWARDICE against them. That is the only conclusion a reasonable person can come to in such obvious circumstances.

    \\][//

    Reply

  90. Shelton Lankford
    SEPTEMBER 25, 2011 AT 10:53 PM
    “The Consensus Process has, in practice, served to neutralize arguably the most significant evidence that elements of the military faked a plane crash at the Pentagon. The stakes for getting this right could not be higher.

    We ask “cui bono” in other connections when evaluating actions and events around 9/11, so I believe it is proper to ask it here. Who benefits from the attacks directed at Pilots for 911Truth and CIT? In whose interests do those act who write “scholarly” papers that attempt in somewhat desperate tones to defend the idea of a plane passing north of the Citgo gas station, then doing the impossible – crashing into the Pentagon while creating directional damage consistent with a straight line path much further south. Who benefits from the controversy generated when unfair attacks on CIT are levelled from alleged truthers, who lobby truth community leaders urging them to withdraw support, but who absolutely refuse to engage in debating the issues?

    The obvious answer is that the only beneficiaries of these actions are those propagandists working to preserve the marginalization of the truth community and whose interests are advanced by division and dissention within the ranks. Cass Sunstein’s purpose is served. None in the Truth movement who are really interested in arriving at the truth would engage in the blatant attempts to discredit honest researchers that we have seen.

    The leaders who aired the consensus panel’s timid offerings, should follow it up with a disciplined, exhaustive, and fair look at the Pentagon evidence with a view toward answering the question “Did elements of the U. S. Government fake a plane crash at the Pentagon and attempt to cover it up?”
    They should invite the best research relevant to this question and do so in a transparent process.”
    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/griffin%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98no-plane-hit-the-pentagon%E2%80%99-arguments-eclipse-%E2%80%98consensus-approach%E2%80%99/

    \\][//

    Reply

  91. Interesting to note that on the T&S thread above, the Señor entity is bouncing the Simon Shack disinfo bullshit with some stooge called “911NewsCentral.com” – Likely Shack himself… and this dialog totally splinters the topic of the thread – in the very same manner Señor continued to do all through the dialogs on T&S, even up to a couple weeks ago.

    Now, I am of the firm conviction that the Señor entity is a deep-cover shill playing double agent in the 9/11 game. Every fucking screwball ‘theory’ that has come along to pull real and valid research into 9/11 off into the weeds becomes the entity’s calling card for a period of time.

    Perhaps the asshole has finally faded away and won’t haunt T&S with his wacky woowoo anymore … maybe. I have certainly had enough of this idiot.
    \\][//

    Reply

    • Perhaps the asshole has finally faded away and won’t haunt T&S with his wacky woowoo anymore … maybe. I have certainly had enough of this idiot….

      Obviously the anonymous idiot is still haunting this blog, because he just took what I said above as a challenge, and posted another agitprop rant on the current T&S thread about the Doctored Pentagon Video. A comment that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual subject itself, but is another commercial interuption for his Nookiedoodoo crap and a swipe at Mr Ruff and myself again.

      The stench of Señora’s twat still wafts through T&S. It needs to be flushed with chlorine bleach.
      \\][//

      Reply

  92. The activity on this blog is certainly ramped up for the last few hours!

    No doubt a few of these visitors are from “outer space” – various extraterrestrial bots and government dupes… And Maxine’s hotdog scented twat leaves that stench where ever she goes. Lol!
    \\][//

    Reply

  93. Subject: 9-11
    Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
    From: “Lagasse, William”
    To: “‘apfn@apfn.org’”

    Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path. It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down, it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris is…well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen photos of other aircraft accident photos…there usually isnt huge amounts of debris left…how much did you see from the WTC?…are those fake aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a diffrent sort of thinker.
    The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse AFPN; June 24, 2003
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    This is from Victoria Ashely’s hit piece ‘To Con A Movement’.

    All of those who have seen the original CIT interviews and the hand drawn NOC paths drawn by the witnesses themselves KNOW beyond a doubt that Lagasse is “misremembering” at best, and lying his ass off at worst.

    His view of the Pentagon that day was such that he could not have seen the actual impact, as he could not see the building but for the top floor and roofline. He couldn’t possibly have witnessed the plane striking the downed light poles from his vantage point. He is angry because his testimony proves the NOC, and frustrated because he knows damn well by now the implications of that trajectory.

    Ashley herself has written a classic Argumentum Verbosium in this hit piece, one that is so long and complex, and full of contradictions hidden in the length that it is simply useless. We have seen this technique used on this very forum addressed to various issues. She speaks to “science” as a rhetorician – because she is not a scientist.

    I would say that along with Legge, the now Victoria Hoffman is a prime candidate for being agitprop and a Mata Hari honeypot set to lure Jim Hoffman from his quest for the full truth of 9/11.
    \\][//

    Reply

    • What is most obvious about Lagasse’s statement is that he is melding his own perceptions of that day with what he has subsequently learned as the Official Line as per the Pentagon. Yes indeed, we can “rest assured” that this is the case.

      It seems that his partner that day, Brooks is more careful than to step on his own tongue.
      \\][//

      Reply

  95. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, the dogcatcher comes and takes it away.
    \\][//

    Reply

  96. The jingo jangled demented fascist mind-set of agent Wright is so obviously deplored on T&S. And yet he harasses on, spewing anal hurlant and corporatist sludge.
    When asked what his impetus for such a constant and persistent campaign, he can give no rational answer.

    I can think of the most reasonable answer of all that someone would put up with being utterly reviled and constantly come back for more; MONEY.

    If Wright isn’t a paid agent, he’s a masochist.
    \\][//

    Reply

  97. hurlant: (Fr) screaming, baying, yelling, howling, yowling, squalling, roaring, blaring, screeching

    anal hurlant: screaming anus

    foule hurlante: howling mob

    \\][//

    Reply

  98. EL TOPO
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “One has to ask whether the traumatic image of the plane hitting the Pentagon, or the image of the prior path of the plane, would be more reliably held in memory.”~Frank Legge – Jan. 2011 ‘New FDR Analysis’

    This is a trick question that is counter to logic and psychology. Trauma is more likely to effect towards laps of memory or overemotional excitement that taints memory. Trauma as well leaves a victim liable to suggestion and prompts.

    Consider as well that these witnesses have hours – days – in some cases months to have established their own bearings {other than those traveling in traffic}. These people know exactly where they are in relation to their surroundings. This is set. For them to have this wrong would be to assert that they are lacking any lucidity at all.

    The incident is however a matter of split seconds. So the question of what “would be more reliably held in memory,” is clearly the first; their awareness of place and bearings. This is such a natural and self evident conclusion that the assertion made above is an obvious attempt to present the ambiguous as certain, and a certainty as ambiguous.
    ~ww – May 2012
    \\][//

    Reply

  99. I am saying additionally that Anlauf was indeed as much under the plane as it was in front of her and is not exaggerating that much to say she could almost reach out an touch it. Which attaches to Hemphill;

    But this must be coupled with Hemphill’s view on the cemetery side of the Annex, where he witnessed the plane go overhead -visible over his right shoulder – which means nothing as to how you interpret it, as he was far left of center of building, and the plane seems to have actually been somewhat left of center. And this must be so, to account for the Citgo and cemetery witnesses.

    And why do I ‘throw out’ all the other witnesses? You ask, as if that is what I am actually doing – but all accounts are not equal, and many claimed as S-path, are simply ambiguous as per the POV they held.

    And this is what is lacking in your spreadsheet: the connected overhead and other signal images as per the witness actual visual access. You site many who claim to have seen the impact or – just prior – just after. I find several of these suspect for various reasons, and few because they were “in on it”, but mostly because of some of the minutia that seems fabricated, and anyone familiar with subtle subconscious enhancement of dramatic events knows that this is common to the point of simply being the average human response.

    Others still struggle with what they think they must have witnessed, and some fragment of a memory that knows the impact didn’t happen – suppression.

    Some testimonies are by flat out TVZombies who believe what authority says happens despite their own eyes and that they must surely be mistaken. And so they recite the script right off the playbook.

    And so the parsing out of all this is an issue of ‘Profiling’ through deconstruction of their text, subtext, and framing.

    >> Hint: Penny Elgas

    And frankly Frank, I am absolutely confident that my intuitive skills and learned knowledge of that art are far superior to yours.

    After all I know what you are.~ww – May 2012
    \\][//

    Reply

  100. Your comment is awaiting moderation. {and likely will never be published~ww}
    July 1, 2014 at 4:06 am
    To Kevin Ryan;
    That was a cheap shot of “guilt by association” ad hominem Kevin. But to leave it at that and dismiss the substance of Shelton’s comment is utterly deplorable.
    I have very high regard for your work on the WTC aspect of the 9/11 case, and am truly disappointed to see this sort of illogic and disproportion coming from you, as well as your clique orbiting Frank Legge and his utter spurious nonsense attacking the CIT evidence.

    Whether it is ego and attendant hubris, or there are darker forces at work here I cannot tell. But something very strange is going on and you and your gang are instigating it.
    Willy Whitten – \\][//

    http://digwithin.net/2012/06/15/from-renovation-to-revolution-was-the-pentagon-attacked-from-within/#comment-7994

    [2nd Post]>
    July 1, 2014 at 9:26 am
    And so to the problem of parsing the Pentagon witness statements, we have shown that it is not sufficient to merely accept that testimony in a vacuum, but to analyze the merits of it in the surrounding context of the event. One of the most essential being the witnesses POV, their position in relation to the Pentagon, distance from, and obstructions acknowledged.

    It is equally necessary to determine the reasonableness of their statements in view of simple human limitations to visual acuity.

    As per our assertions as to the psychological and physiological responses to:
    1.a bright flash, and 2. the effects of trauma.
    What argument is there available to counter with? Can it be denied that these are well developed concepts of both scientific realms? Do our opponents accept these as valid scientific principles? If so, can they make a successful argument that these principles are misapplied by “opinion”? As I anticipate this here, it be must realized that this counter argument can be determined a fallacy by the very scientific and rational reasoning that the concepts are themselves constructed of.

    As I can see it, only a novel approach will have any effect on our argument, and in this case, novel would mean synthetic, some rhetorical spin of the wholly fantastical.~ww

    Now, if it is argued that I have prejudged any argument to be made before even hearing it. Let me show how this is fallacy as well. It is simply verifiable that the prior MO of the counter commentators on this thread has already been such fantastical rhetoric. I am simply predicting/anticipating more of the same as framed by them themselves.

    It is the key proposition that the plane witnessed approaching the Pentagon did not, and could not have hit, considering the post incident damage and path thereof. It is inherent to such an assertion that the perpetrators would have necessarily anticipated witnesses beyond their direct control, that they must devised some means of distraction or masking the event. Thus the principles of stage magic become apropos; taking into account the very aspects we speak to as per physiological and psychological responses. The most simple answer would be a flash/smoke bomb, preliminary to the main concussive blast to destroy that section of the Pentagon. The brilliant flash, would cause the human reactions detailed here, the smoke would act as a screen for the plane to melt into as it flew over the building.

    This being the frame of our argument, there can be no rearrangement of the contents thereof to argue against. Any argument must address the central issues of this frame. Therefore only an argument that expands that frame with a logical and centered counterargument is rationally permissible.

    If such terms aren’t acceptable to the opposition, a reasonable argument must be waged on that heading first and foremost.

    These are the known human responses to such stimuli as stated, there is nothing subjective in our argument. All is straightforward standard application of previously stated ground principles.

    You may not reinterpret our argument and make a case against your own construction. To defeat Our argument you must address it as stated, otherwise you are making what is called a ‘straw man argument’ against a phantom of your own creation. This has been clearly judged by all reason to be a fallacious form of argument. And do keep in mind that if you are reminded of this, taking that as an “attack” on your person is clearly as absurd as the cause of our allegations.

    Those who are unclear as to the logic and spirit of rational argumentation, should take a refresher course prior to appearing foolish with some clear epistemic error on their part.
    \\][//

    Reply

  101. “Considering means, motive and opportunity might allow us to propose a possible “insider conspiracy” while maintaining much of the official account as well.”~Kevin Ryan

    And just what is the motive for “maintaining much of the official account”? An account admittedly proposed by the perpetrators? What is the point of such a ludicrous exercise?

    “What happened during the Pentagon renovation project should be of great interest. A preliminary investigation raises the possibility that the work done during that time could have provided the cover for an effective insider conspiracy. We should examine the people involved in planning the renovation project in order to begin answering the question of who might have benefited from the attack.”~Ibid

    Yes indeed, and by the same token we should examine the likelihood that these perpetrators “attacked” the Pentagon themselves by planting explosive charges inside the Pentagon during the so-called ‘renovation project’.

    “On the day of the attack, the instant of impact was witnessed by Frank Probst, who just happened to be in the exact area outside the building when it occurred. …He worked with Evey in the Pentagon Renovation Program Office as a communications specialist…Probst had worked on the renovation project since 1995, before Evey joined. Six years later, as one of the few people who witnessed the impact and the one who saw it from the closest vantage point, Probst’s testimony was critical to establishing the official account of what happened.”~Ibid

    Yes what a jolly fine coincidence this is aye? And as such, why in the world would anyone take this testimony seriously? In order to “maintain much of the official account”?
    Ryan practically proves that the “Renovation Program” very likely built explosives into the renovation – and yet still “maintains much of the official account” and emphatically disputes the proofs of the NOC and no plane crash.

    It is almost as if Ryan is trying his best to tell us by code that the plane crash was faked, while appearing to argue against it. Is he compromised, blackmailed, is his family in danger? Something is extremely odd when all is considered here.
    Baffling!!
    \\][//

    Reply

  102. Hah…now I know where I got the idea that the spreadsheet used by Legge originated with Mark Roberts; it says so right on the “Author Tag” to the OS xls doc.

    Obviously Legge did a major overhaul, but as the history of the document is in the open-tag, it is the Roberts doc that Legge began with.

    My notes from that time:

    ~SPREADSHEET by Mark Roberts

    I have had this spreadsheet for close to two months now…and the more I look at it the more useless it seems. It is badly arranged, the categories seem arbitrary, and testimony is sacrificed for the authors commentary in many places. The biggest deficit however is being able to determine exactly where the witnesses were during the event.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
    Sun, May 27, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Frank_Legge wrote:
    “Mark Roberts appears to be a shill. That does not mean that his calculations are incorrect. If you really have balls you will take the calculation to someone with brains and take the risk of finding that he is right and you are wrong.”

    My reply, 10:38AM – May 27, 2012:

    You say, “Mark Roberts appears to be a shill”?

    Appears to be?? 

    Mark “Debunker” Roberts…”appears to be a shill…”

    WTF???

    I have had a hard time taking you serious for some time Frank, but this takes the cake. Someone who has lost their judgment as profoundly as you have – how can the correctness of calculations be judged one way or another by such as you?
    _______________________________________________
    Yup
    \\][//

    Reply

  103. “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth” — Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

    That there are those who claim that planting the “evidence” of aircraft parts at the Pentagon is too far out to even consider are lacking more than simply in imagination, but in historical precedent. The fact that a good many drug convictions rest on planted drugs by arresting officers has been discovered by the legions. That FBI “informers” and double agents have provided most of the so called “al qaeda terrorists” with bombs and bomb making materials is too well known to have to mention. And yet the idea that a military structure that has the known policies of “need to know,” “chain of command,” and the enforcement of secrecy pledges with huge penalties for breaching such is beyond their comprehension.

    Added to this is the fact that not a single item has been identified by standard ‘Aircraft part numbers protocol’ nor the standard procedures for aircraft crashes carried out – for the first time in over 20 years, the planes from 9/11 all exempted from standard procedures. It is also a fact that there is no public access to the ‘chains of custody” for any item in the whole 9/11 case.

    When these issues are added together with the witness testimonies, as further understood from Citizen Investigation Team’s work, the emergent truth that an airplane couldn’t possibly have crashed into the Pentagon becomes increasingly obvious.
    When all of these dots are lined up, the stubborn intransigence of the of a certain centralized cabal of “9/11 researchers” becomes more than baffling – it becomes suspicious.
    \\][//

    Reply

  104. Epiphanies on Parade a Neural Cascade

    Realizing that the Medium is the Message is a core point in getting what goes on in the postmodern ‘high-tech’ society. Even though the concept has been around from the early 1950s when McLuhan first began writing and speaking on the subject – it is not openly considered by the mainstream, because it reveals too much as to what the mainstream media is all about and what it’s underlying agenda actually is.

    Once one ‘gets it’, has that epiphany as to how it is the medium itself that is the message, a whole new level of understanding is available. A large part of grasping the the underlying basic core of this ‘message’ is as McLuhan himself reiterated, it is a continuing massage., it is “Process”. Just as the medium is the message; the process is the agenda. When all is in an endless process of becoming, it never actually is.

    This is the trap the Palestinians are caught in with the “Mid East Peace Process”, which has been going in circles for the past 60 years. This is the key to the power of the New World Order centered in the UN. It is the revolving “resolution”…the perpetual revolution – the never ending story, from the land of Nod, to the land of Oz.

    In the paradigm of the dialectical, the Process is the Agenda – not reaching the solution. It seems a spiral as natural as DNA, but it is an illusion as there is no depth – so it is merely a going in circles on a flat plain. Around and around the playing board.

    All of this has bearing here, on this very topic of the Pentagon event. We have been set on a turning wheel of process; ending back at ‘GO’ where we began, wherein it was ‘obvious’ that no plane hit the Pentagon. Like a “Reset” button was hit for the ten year anniversary. This is essential for the agenda of the current system, the Process Must Proceed.

    Most of those involved in this have little to no understanding of the parts they play in this process. It is only in bringing this process to the forefront of our consciousness that we can begin to determine such things and to make the conscious effort to break the bonds to such a game—to step away from the game board and make our own path to where we want to go.

    “The United States and its allies” is the euphemism used by ‘critics’ to describe what is in reality the centralized world governing process. The United States is simply the garrison state of the real power ‘behind the throne’ {as is said}, and that power has been known for centuries as “The Money Power”, a cabal of powerful international banking fraternities who have held a monopoly on such power since the battle of Waterloo.
    ~ww – 5/29/2012
    \\][//

    Reply

  105. “Here’s an analogy. Assumption: 2+3=6.4. Mr. Ryan did not lay down mathematical proofs to debunk this: Known: 2+2=4. Known: 2+1=3. Known: 4+1=5. Thus, 5=[4]+1=[2+2]+1=2+[2+1]=2+3. 56.4. Therefore, hypothesis 2+3=6.4 is wrong.
    Instead, Mr. Ryan assumed “2+3=6.4″ and tried to build with this inherent calculation error.”~Señora Skunktwat – JULY 1, 2014 AT 5:09 PM on T&S

    Is this really an analogy? It looks more like mental masturbation and drooling twatsnot to me. “Let’s play with numbers!!”
    Why? Why use tortured analogies rather than address ideas straightforward in plain language? The usual answer to this is that the one putting forward the “analogy” is trying to confuse, or is confused themselves.
    . . . . .. . . .
    Then the entity uses this quote of September 2012 from Dr. Steven Jones:

    “Something maintained those hot-spots, not just nano-thermite.”

    This statement by Jones is ‘Orbiter Dicta’, an off the cuff statement or phrase not meant to have serious bearing on the case at hand.

    Of all of the serious arguments and full expositions made by Professor Jones, which can be read and understood in their actual context, the Skunktwat entity latches onto this aside made by Jones and presents it in a vacuum. To seriously believe that Jones was suggesting “nuclear” is so far beyond sanity that it is mental meltdown… To make a mountain out of this molehill of a throw-away statement by Jones, is just another of the myriad of instances of the entity using it’s special form of rhetorical menopause to torment his readers.

    Señor el Zero is insane.
    \\][//

    Reply

  106. http://digwithin.net/2014/03/16/28-missing-pages/

    “The leaders of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry were Congressman Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham, who headed-up the House and Senate intelligence committees at the time. Due to Goss and Graham’s activities before 9/11 and on that day, as well as their representation of the state of Florida, their leadership of the Inquiry presented a remarkable number of questions.”~Kevin Ryan

    As the vast majority of the work done by Kevin Ryan to do with 9/11 is so good, even beyond reproach – it becomes a baffling anomaly that he has taken the position on the Plane strike on the Pentagon that he does.

    This seems to attend to many others in his immediate clique as well. All but for Frank Legge, who seems to me the prime candidate as the mole who ingratiated himself with these people early on with an eye for turning them as far as the most important element of the 9/11 issue; the Pentagon event – which in turn has had the effect of divisiveness reverberating and splitting the Truth Movement in a major way – at least in terms of it’s “leadership”.

    This is why 5th column strategies have been so successful throughout history in the game of “Divide and Conquer”.

    Obviously a “mending” will not be achieved by this ‘Consensus’ approach using a despotic ‘Delphi’ approach. This can only cause the dissenters to become more aggravated and more vocal in their dissent. After all, the reports put out by the ‘Consensus Panel’ are pretty much just summaries of old information that for the most part all of us have known for years prior to the summaries being issued.

    One last point here; there will NEVER be an admission by the deep state as to it’s involvement and perpetration of 9/11. So anyone holding out for an honest inquiry by the criminal cabal ruling this nation might as well wake up and smell the coffee.
    \\][//

    Reply

  107. Political Dynamilogy

    “It is an honor to be the target of the war machine’s disinformation program.” ~Kevin Ryan

    The basic structure of political dynamilogy hasn’t changed since Caesar, and is aptly described in The Prince by Machiavelli. When one grasps these concepts of political power one understands that we are ALL the target of the war machine’s disinformation program – and the result of the campaign of ‘divide and conquer’.

    But people like Ryan play right into the hand of “war machine” by taking on the same attitude of ‘exclusiveness’ of authority in their refusal to have discourse with critics and dissents against their positions.

    We are seeing the same dynamics play out with the Consensus Panel. It is not that any of these parties in themselves are necessarily willing “agents”, it is that they inadvertently play into the program of the disinformation program.
    What is especially remarkable is that it is under the auspices of “consensus” that the divisions are most certainly drawn.

    The only solution is OPEN DIALOG between the parties in dispute.

    “Hard lines are being drawn… nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong…”
    ~Buffalo Springfield

    As Mr Syed’s article on Mr Ryan’s book highlights, there is value to Ryan’s work, but there are also deep problems to it as well. Those who praise Ryan’s work wholeheartedly miss the points that we make. Of course Ryan does as well. For Ryan this is due to arrogance – for his fans it is due mostly to ignorance. Ryan does his fans no favors by dismissing rational criticisms of this faults. His fans do Ryan no favors in overlooking such faults in his works.

    If dialog with Ryan is out of the question because he steadfastly refuses, there is still a chance of reaching his fans with well reasoned argument. But those with stars in their eyes will never be convinced — just like those who consider themselves stars and position themselves high in synthetic heavens.
    \\][//

    Reply

  108. So what is Best Evidence for the Pentagon 9/11 event?

    >Photos of unidentified “aircraft parts” that have zero accounts of ‘Chain of Custody’?
    >A ‘Flight Data Recorder’ that has no ID nor account of ‘Chain of Custody’?
    >Photo’s of “the interior of the Pentagon” that could have been taken anywhere?
    >Photos of dead bodies in pools of water full of debris, with no conclusive landmarks proving these photos were taken in the Pentagon?
    >Radar reports asserted by government sources with no verification from independent sources?
    >A blur claimed to be an aircraft in a video from the gate surveillance camera?

    It should be obvious to any lucid and serious researcher that none of the above have the slightest merit. The ONLY thing that can be counted on is witness testimonies compiled by citizen reporters who put the effort into on camera interviews with such witnesses. These witnesses who were in the best POV to make a determination, all described a [NOC] “North of Citgo” path of the plane that approached the Pentagon just before the explosion took place at the claimed “impact point”.

    Put simply the trajectory of the NOC makes it impossible that this plane hit the Pentagon at the claimed “impact point” – because the damage path within the building does not line up with that trajectory. This is simple physics and aerodynamics.

    Those who argue against these findings have nothing but conjecture and spinning rhetoric.
    \\][//

    Reply

    • Of course it is disingenuous enough for this clique of pretenders to assert that the onus on the authorities to prove their case has somehow magically been relieved due to the scurrilous arguments of this clique – but THEN for them to turn around and actually argue for the authorities case themselves is so far beyond reason as to be Kafkaesque!

      It simply boggles the mind what arrogance can do to despoil reasonable thought.
      \\][//

      Reply

  109. Scott Creighton is chickenshit – he just banned me for criticizing his arguments on his Willy Loman site.

    What a punk! Lol.

    Yea! I said you’re a PUNK Creighton! You can quote me motherfucker!!

    Hahahahahahaha!!!!

    http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/flight-mh17-and-globalist-billionaire-rinat-akhmetov/#comment-87403

    And now after banning me there, he keeps on yappin about me – a coward punk motherfucker is what you are Creighton.

    \\][//

    Reply

  111. I will point out here that my intent upon starting this blog was to use it primarily as my own journal. Thus the motto above: ‘My commentary on this wacky wanky world’

    As time has gone by I have vetted a few special people to make comments here as well.
    But I never intended this to be a ‘Forum’ type space. If someone wishes to debate me in a forum situation, I suggest they go to Truth and Shadows, as I am likely to be on any thread on that site.

    And if Scott Creighton had the balls, he could find me there at T&S as well. But Scott has no balls, or he would have had the guts to address my criticisms on his own blog rather than simply shutting me out. Yes he can shut me out, and then continue with his trite snarky little rap. Well fuck you Scott, if you don’t think the lucid and prescient members of your own tribe aren’t going to see your game, then you are stupid as well as arrogant.
    \\][//

    Reply

  114. Mineta arrived at 9:25 a.m, and the event at the Pentagon happened at 9:37 a.m.

    “During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?”~Mineta — 9/11 Commission testimony

    Mineta confirmed his statements with reporters, saying “When I overheard something about ‘the orders still stand’ and so, what I thought of was that they had already made the decision to shoot something down.”

    Norman Mineta made it clear to reporters– who verified his quotes in written text alongside him– that Mineta was indeed talking about a stand down order not to shoot down hijacked aircraft headed for the Pentagon.

    After no shoot down took place, it became clear that Cheney intended to keep NORAD fighter jets from responding– evidence that Cheney is guilty of treason, not negligence for allowing the Pentagon to be hit.

    Mineta was still in the PEOG bunker when the plane was reported down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

    “I remember later on when I heard about the Shanksville plane going down, the Vice President was right across from me, and I said, ‘Do you think that we shot it down ourselves?’ He said, ‘I don’t know.’ He said, ‘Let’s find out.’ So he had someone check with the Pentagon. That was about maybe, let’s say 10:30 or so, and we never heard back from the DoD until probably about 12:30. And they said, ‘No, we didn’t do it.’”
    http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260607_mineta.html
    \\][//

    Reply

  117. Nice job compiling everything in a sort of one-stop-shop, Willy! Using CTRL+F and searching for certain words, it might actually be easier to find something via your page than going directly going to Pilots or CIT and using their search functions.

    Get a load of this: At the SF 9/11 Truth Annual Film Festival this year, David Chandler is going to spend 60 minutes arguing that a plane hit the Pentagon. (I presume this includes time for q/a.) This is after the 30 minute excerpt from Ken Jenkins’ upcoming film arguing the same position; the original idea was to show Ken’s finished product but… he hasn’t finished it yet.

    Click to access 2015FF-schedule.pdf

    Reply

    • Thank you Adam!

      So we are going to get another fusillade of bullshit from Chandler and his cohorts! It is tragic these so called “scholars” are so butt-headed and narrow minded. They have obviously rejected the CIT information with biased prejudice.

      I see they are also featuring the disingenuous Barbara Honegger at this same event. So it appears to be a mishmash of some good info by PD Scott, mixed in with misinfo garbage on the Pentagon event. Typical for the Wondering Who’s of the “Truth Movement”.
      \\][//

      Reply

  119. From: Steven Jones
    Subject: Request that you review a paper re: 9/11 Pentagon plane
    To: “Rob Balsamo”
    Date: Wednesday, June 1, 2011, 10:22 AM

    Dear Rob,

    This is retired Prof. Steven Jones.
    Hope you are doing well.
    Attached is a paper submitted to the Journalof911Studies,

    The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the North-of-Citgo Flight Path Hypothesis

    Frank Legge, (B.Sc., Ph.D., Chemistry) and David Chandler, (B.S. Physics, M.S., Mathematics)

    I’m writing to ask if you would be willing to provide a review of this paper, giving some feed-back to the authors regarding the suitability of the paper for publication. Your review would be done as an anonymous referee, your identity known only to co-editor Kevin Ryan and myself, unless you wish to identify yourself.

    If you wish to decline, I understand, but then would you kindly provide me with email addresses for P4T member Shelton F. Lankford and Bruce Sinclair, so that I may pursue this request to them. As you know, all papers in the journal undergo close scrutiny and peer review; here is an opportunity for you to participate in this effort.

    Please let me know.

    Best wishes,

    Steven Jones

    PS — this will be my last duty as co-editor as I am stepping down from this position soon. At that point, Kevin Ryan will correspond with you (should you accept to do the review).

    . . . . .

    On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Pilots For Truth wrote:

    Hi Steven,

    Call me when you can and we’ll discuss it. I will probably decline as the past two papers published at your Journal on this topic are now confirmed disinformation. In other words, Legge and Stutt have admitted errors, but have apparently refused to correct them. Call me and I can give you details. I can also quickly explain to you why our calculations are not wrong on G Loading when considering aerodynamics. Legge is using basic 10th grade physics. There is much more involved.

    xxx-xxx-xxxx

    I was also just notified of the attacks on you over at Blogger and Truth Action. Wow, very sad sight, but i cannot say i am surprised. I predicted this long ago. Personally i think Blogger has been taken over by the likes of JREF and Screw Loose Change.

    Hope you’re doing well…
    Rob

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21569
    \\][//

    Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Reply

Leave a reply to hybridrogue1 Cancel reply