It’s time for the 9/11 truth movement to resolve its Pentagon debate by applying the scientific method. Doing so points conclusively to large plane impact.
For over fifteen years the 9/11 truth movement and some of its most visible leaders have debated this question: Did a large plane, matching a Boeing 757 in general and Flight AA 77 in particular, hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001? In the last several years a group of scientists and engineers have presented a number of scientific papers that answer both of these questions with a resounding “Yes.” A number of these scientists and engineers are affiliated with the organization Scientists for 9/11 Truth, which also fully supports the hypothesis that the impacts and resulting fires from the Boeing 767s crashing into the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11 could not account for the destruction of these buildings. Building 7 (WTC7) was destroyed without being impacted by any plane. The evidence is clear that all three of these buildings were destroyed by some form of controlled demolition. While the 9/11 truth movement generally agrees on what happened in New York City, thus far there has been no closure on the Pentagon debate.
As an organization, Scientists for 9/11 Truth has stood virtually alone in maintaining large plane impact at the Pentagon together with controlled demolition of the buildings in New York City. With the publication of three new works, cited below, there are now indications that the 9/11 truth movement may be ready to adopt this position also. See, for example, this article on the Truth Action Project website.
Eyewitnesses and Physical Evidence
The Pentagon question has divided the 9/11 truth movement, impeding its thrust toward truth and public credibility. Despite hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw a large plane fly towards the Pentagon and impact it, critics continue to claim otherwise, mainly because the crash scene was unlike those for other plane crashes. Few critics considered that for this unique event—a high-speed impact of a large plane with a building—preconceived expectations of the observed outcome are of little value. The plane largely penetrated the building, leaving many small fragments outside but relatively few large pieces. In a recent conversation with a “no plane impact” advocate, the advocate stated “We will only know for sure what hit the Pentagon when the people who know the answers come forward.” In fact, these “people” came forward a long time ago in video and audio recordings and in written statements, starting on 9/11 itself. Regrettably, the 9/11 truth movement at large either does not know about these hundreds of witnesses, or else has refused to listen to or believe them.
Eyewitnesses affirm large plane impact, and the damage trail establishes the plane path before and after impact with a high degree of precision. The plane flew low from the southwest straight toward the Pentagon on a path making a 52-degree angle with the Pentagon’s west wall. It clipped a tree; downed five light poles; struck a fence, a generator-trailer, and a low concrete wall; and impacted the building at the first and second floors, creating an 18-foot wide hole atop a 96-foot gash in the façade. Outside, plane debris was strewn to the north near the Heliport because of the speed and angle of impact. The light poles’ separation gives a plane wingspan in the range 100 to 130 feet (a Boeing 757 wingspan is 124 feet 10 inches), while the low concrete wall and generator-trailer damage separation indicates an engine separation of approximately 43 feet (Boeing 757 engine separation is 42.5 feet). See Figure 1.
Inside the Pentagon, the plane was increasingly fragmented by the steel and concrete columns, creating a fluid-like flow of solid debris. This flow of material destroyed or damaged many internal columns, defining a continuation of the outside path, and ultimately created an exit hole in the C ring wall. Debris, including plane parts, spilled into the AE Drive in the direction of the original plane path. Internal columns were bowed and abraded in the flight path direction and much of the first floor suddenly filled with debris. The first floor ceiling beyond the collapsed portion of the building remained intact.
These elements all confirm a flight path that is supported by eyewitness accounts, the radar data and the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data, which was released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). There are over 62 documented eyewitnesses who saw the plane impact. Fourteen (14) witnesses saw one or more of the light poles struck. Four witnesses saw the right engine/wing hit the generator-trailer, while one witness saw the left engine hit the low concrete wall and break apart. Multiple witnesses traced the passage of the plane as it flew from the Sheraton Hotel (last radar reading) to impact at the Pentagon. There were some initial problems reading the last frame of the FDR data, but the properly decoded FDR data traces the plane’s path all the way from take-off at Dulles Airport to impact at the Pentagon.
Applying the Scientific Method
Such a confluence of physical, eyewitness, and other evidence provides an overwhelming case for a large plane—a Boeing 757 and specifically Flight AA 77—impacting and penetrating the Pentagon on 9/11. The initial hypothesis of large plane impact, when examined for its consequences as shown by the eyewitness testimony, physical damage, and other supporting evidence, survives the scientific method test and becomes a theory that explains virtually all the observations. No other hypothesis, such as impact by a missile or pre-planted bombs, has even ventured to explain all this evidence.
This illustrates the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, and the application of the scientific method in solving physical problems. Those who deny large plane impact offer only criticisms or alternative hypotheses, not a theory. A complete theory examines the consequences of a hypothesis, compares these consequences with the evidence, and discards the hypothesis if it leads to results that do not match the evidence. Figure 2 illustrates the flow of analysis using the scientific method.
The Large Plane Impact Hypothesis and Theory
Ask a Question
Let’s begin with the topmost oval in Figure 2 and ask a question: What caused the damage and deaths at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11?
Do Background Research
To answer this question, we first do some background research.
Eyewitnesses: According to eyewitnesses, a large plane flew (in about six seconds according to FDR data) from the vicinity of the Sheraton Hotel at the west end of the Navy Annex and impacted the Pentagon west wall. It flew above Columbia Pike, crossed the clover-leaf intersection of Columbia Pike with S. Washington Boulevard (Route 27), clipped a tree and impacted five light poles, a fence and a generator-trailer and a low concrete wall, all before hitting the Pentagon façade and then largely disappeared inside the building. Plane parts rained down on the Pentagon lawn and the highway that runs parallel to the west wall. Those who observed this fleeting event from outside the Pentagon, from the standstill traffic on route 27, from the vicinity of Arlington Cemetery, and from nearby buildings, are in substantial agreement that impact by a large plane occurred. Some witnesses identified the plane from its silver color and red and blue markings as an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757, or both.
Witnesses to the aftermath of plane impact who did not see the plane hit, saw many small pieces of plane “confetti” as well as some large pieces of silver fuselage. Some witnesses did not see any large plane parts, and did not recognize the confetti for what it was. Critics have seized upon these latter accounts to try to prove that there was no plane. These accounts cannot negate the many positive observations of others as well as the abundance of photographic evidence. There are also photographs and a significant number of witnesses who described seeing plane parts in the interior of the building and in the AE Drive.
Photographs and Videos: Photographs taken outside and inside the Pentagon show many small pieces of silver fuselage with AA colored markings, plane and engine parts, landing gear and a tire. Abraded and bent interior columns show the direction of flow of fragmented plane parts, aligning with the known outside path to within a few degrees. Much of the first floor area under the non-collapsed ceiling suddenly filled with debris. Outside the C ring hole, debris and plane parts were strewn in the AE Drive in alignment with the flight path.
Radar and FDR Data: Figures 3 and 4 show the plane’s path from takeoff at Dulles Airport to a point close to the Sheraton Hotel (radar data) and to impact at the Pentagon (FDR data).
The continuous radar data matching the FDR data indicates that assertions of tampering, as well as suggestions that a plane swap took place, are mistaken. There is no reason to doubt that Flight AA 77 traveled from Dulles to its impact at the Pentagon. The radar track of AA 77 is continuous from Dulles to the vicinity of the Sheraton Hotel and is supported by the FDR data. From there, the FDR data and many eyewitnesses tracked the plane all the way to impact at the Pentagon. The eyewitness and physical evidence fully support impact by a large plane with dimensions matching a Boeing 757.Pentagon Security Videos: Recent work on the video from two Pentagon security cameras shows that they captured images of the approaching, low-flying plane. In his paper “The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras,” Ken Jenkins explains the images, how the date error came about, and the likely origins for the trailing white smoke. There is no evidence at this time that the government is withholding other images of the event captured by the surveillance cameras.
Ken Jenkins and David Chandler also recently took pairs of sequential images from the Pentagon surveillance video cameras, putting them together as you would see them in what is called a blink comparator. In this way, the image of the plane “pops out.” If you watch the image cycle a few times, the details of the plane are clearly visible. You can find the blink comparisons on David Chandler’s website, 911SpeakOut.org.
Construct Hypothesis
Based on the above background research, we propose and test the hypothesis that the Pentagon was struck by a large plane matching a Boeing 757 and most probably Flight AA 77.
Test with an Experiment
Many physical hypotheses can be tested by experiment in a laboratory using relatively simple equipment. In the case of the Pentagon 9/11 event, costs to test and/or reproduce some features of the event would be prohibitive. Fortunately, there are prior relevant tests, airplane incidents and other evidence that are pertinent to the event and that support the large plane impact hypothesis.
The F4 Experiment: In the F4 Phantom jet experiment, a plane was propelled at high speed on a rocket sled into a massive and impenetrable concrete wall. The plane was completely fragmented into small pieces. This experiment supports the fragmentation of the Boeing 757 plane parts that did not enter the building.
Ground Effect: Because of what is known as ground effect, it is claimed by critics that the plane could not have flown closer to the ground than 56 feet, so it would have impacted at the fourth and fifth floor levels. Some experienced pilots have supported this objection. The physical evidence, such as the five downed light poles, confirms that a large plane did fly low. In addition, many witnesses actually reported that they saw a large commercial jetliner, identified as a Boeing 757, fly low and close to the ground. Actual experience confirms this behavior. For example, at an air show in Portugal, Evora 2007 (Figure 5), an Airbus A310, similar in size to a Boeing 757, repeatedly flew low, sometimes with the gear down and full flaps but with at least one pass at a relatively high speed, with no concern about any ground effect. The height of the plane above the runway was little more than the diameter of the fuselage.
Engineers and scientists working in the aerospace field feature an article which explains that, because of the high speed and low angle of attack, ground effect is not a relevant factor, particularly with an aircraft that is under automatic control, as was likely the case for Flight AA 77 at the end. According to Jeff Scott, “ground effect would have been quite small on Flight 77 given its high rate of speed and small angle of attack.” See Aerospaceweb.org and the answer by Jeff Scott, “Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect.”
Further Analysis of Corroborating Physical Evidence: Several items of physical evidence can be further analyzed to see if they comport with a large plane hitting the Pentagon.Clipped Tree: One witness described the plane as “picking off trees and light poles.” Photographs show that the starboard (right) engine of the plane did clip a tree. Jon Cole has shown experimentally that it is possible for the leading edge of an engine to cut the tree. Cole compared this action with similar-looking ragged branches cut with a heavy brush cutter with heavy, thick dull blades rotating at a lesser speed than the airplane that cut the woody branches of the Pentagon tree (See Figure 6). Branches ingested by the right engine can explain the smoke trail from the right engine from that point on, as seen in the security camera videos and in this simulation.
Downed Light Poles: Many witnesses saw the plane hit light poles. In all, five light poles were torn from their bases and broken into pieces. Pole pieces had considerable curvature as if hit by a blunt force at high speed, such as the moving wing of a plane. One pole piece pierced the windshield of a taxi driven by Lloyde England. The back seat of the taxi was pierced indicating how the pole piece was supported at that end and stuck out through the windshield. The separation and positions of the downed light poles indicate a plane wingspan of more than 100 feet, but less than 130 feet. The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 124 feet 10 inches.Rotated Generator-Trailer: Several witnesses saw the right plane engine and/or wing strike one end of a very heavy generator-trailer. The trailer was found to have rotated about the other end toward the building. In addition to the damaged end, there was a gash in the trailer top corresponding to the position of the first flap “canoe” beyond the right engine of a Boeing 757. The location and direction of the gash was consistent with the canoe’s position on the wing and the plane’s flight path.
Gouge in Low Concrete Wall: One witness saw the left engine hit a low concrete wall and break apart. The wall shows a curved gouge consistent with impact by an engine. The distance between the wall and the struck end of the generator-trailer is approximately 43 feet, matching the engines’ separation of a Boeing 757 of 42.5 feet. When the left engine hit the wall it was a few inches above ground level at that point. The wall sits on a high point, and this explains why the engine did not gouge the surrounding lawn as it traveled over the lawn. Some nearby, upright wooden spools were not struck as they were positioned between the plane fuselage and the low-slung left engine.
Debris by the Heliport Area: There was a noticeable amount of plane debris, mostly small pieces, at the Heliport area north of the impact hole. This is in accord with the plane’s path which made a 52-degree angle with the Pentagon west wall as it approached from the southwest. This distribution of debris is entirely to be expected since, after fragmentation, debris that remained outside the building would have a significant velocity component causing it to travel in a northerly direction.
The Impact Hole and Façade Damage: Many claims have been made that the impact hole was too small for a plane the size of a Boeing 757 to have entered the building. None of these claims have merit. The fuselage of a Boeing 757 is 12.33 feet wide and 13.5 feet high and the corresponding hole was about 18 feet wide. Early photographs were obscured by spray from fire hoses and hid a long gash of about 96 feet in the first floor façade. There were many missing outer support columns. Thus the plane’s fuselage, both engines, and the heavier, inner parts of the wings had sufficient room to penetrate the building.
According to witnesses and the FDR data, the plane had rolled about 5 degrees counterclockwise when it hit the wall. Façade markings, such as a long gash made by a wing, confirm these observations. Critics frequently point to the absence of a clear vertical gash that they contend should have been made by the vertical portion of the tail. There are, as shown by Jim Hoffman, markings in the area where the tail might have hit. It is possible that the tail was blown off and fragmented, and did not reach the wall intact. One witness described seeing the fuel explosion while the tail was still visible. Many witnesses saw the tail, and this criticism cannot overturn the other evidence of plane approach and impact.
Internal Column Damage: Figure 7 taken from The Pentagon Building Performance Report depicts internal column damage. At the top, red and blue squares depict missing and severely damaged columns. Green and yellow squares show columns with less damage. The width of the damage at the west wall (top) is about 100 feet, which is consistent with the impact of the fuselage, engines, and the heavy parts of the wings of a Boeing 757. As the fuselage moved into the building, it was shredded and scattered to the sides along its path, but a cone of decreasing width of material maintained enough focus to break through and make a hole in the C ring wall. The dark shaded area of the figure is where the building collapsed about 30 minutes after impact. The first floor area with damage but no collapse filled up with debris without the first floor ceiling collapsing. All these observations support the impact with the façade and passage of a large plane through the building primarily at the first floor level.
It is noteworthy that April Gallop, who has been extensively interviewed and quoted as an important witness, had an office in wedge 2 over 150 feet from the impact hole. Gallop’s office structure did collapse and the lights went out but Gallop was too far away to smell jet fuel. She, with her child and others, exited through a window near the Heliport. Once outside, Gallop collapsed, was apparently unconscious, and was moved to the outer lawn area, and then to a hospital. Gallop had no opportunity to see aircraft debris inside or outside the building.
C Ring Exit Hole: The C ring exit hole can be understood as resulting from the impact of many pieces of plane debris. This process and the false assertion that workers created the hole as a way to access the building interior are fully discussed in the papers listed below. The exit hole lines up with the plane path that made a 52-degree angle with the Pentagon west wall. This fact in itself points to the hole’s origin since the exact plane path was not known until some days or weeks after the event. There is no evidence that any part of the crash scene was staged to imply a non-existent plane crash. All the physical and eyewitness evidence points to actual large plane impact.
Debris in the AE Drive: Debris strewn outside the C ring exit hole was in line with the direction of the plane’s motion and included a plane tire and a wheel rim consistent with a Boeing 757. See Figure 8.
Figure 8 shows a large remnant of a tire outside the C Ring Hole (2). Also shown is a wheel rim (1). The debris angle (3) is also clearly visible. A single doorway lies in the direction pointed to by (4).
Analyze Results – Draw Conclusion
Both the background information that includes the eyewitnesses and the detailed examination of the plane path and damage presented above support the large plane impact hypothesis. The conclusion drawn is that a large plane matching a Boeing 757 and most probably Flight AA 77 struck the Pentagon on 9/11.
Hypothesis is True
The hypothesis of impact by a large plane matching a Boeing 757 and Flight AA 77 is true. The next step in the scientific method is to report the results.
Report Results
Among the first to report the results of a scientific analysis of the Pentagon 9/11 event were Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley. Subsequently, scientists affiliated with Scientists for 9/11 Truth, with additional authors such as engineers and computer scientists participating, produced a substantial number of papers. These papers, all listed in the Additional Reading section below, include the three new works mentioned above and listed here, together with a new article:
(a) “The Pentagon Plane Puzzle”, a video by Ken Jenkins on the Pentagon eyewitnesses,
(b) “Going Beyond Speculation: A Scientific Look at the Pentagon Evidence” a talk by David Chandler.
(c) “The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted” a paper by Victoria Ashley, David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, Jim Hoffman, Ken Jenkins, Frank Legge, and John D. Wyndham.
Except for Victoria Ashley and Jonathan H. Cole (Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice), all of the foregoing individuals are members of Scientists for 9/11 Truth.
See also the article “Why Not Use a Plane?” by Frank Legge and Ken Jenkins on the Scientists for 9/11 Truth website.
Other Pentagon Hypotheses
Since the Pentagon 9/11 event, many individuals have tried to prove that a large plane did not impact the Pentagon. These individuals often point to testimonies by witnesses who did not see the plane impact. For example, an aftermath witness might not see recognizable plane parts and claim or imply that there was no plane involved. Some Pentagon workers inside the building inferred a bomb, since to them whatever happened sounded like a bomb. But an expert witness with military experience, who also saw the plane tail just before impact and following fireball, stated that it sounded like a “2000 lb” bomb. While many witnesses reported that they smelled the odor of jet fuel, a smaller number thought they smelled cordite, an explosive that has not been in use since WWII. Although at least 14 witnesses saw the plane hit the light poles one second or less before impact, some critics claim this could not have happened without the wings being visibly damaged or destroyed.
Even though the event occurred in broad daylight and was viewed by hundreds of people, scores of whom were stuck in traffic on route 27 with a clear view, critics have dismissed witness accounts by claiming these to be fraudulent. However, there is not a single case where a Pentagon witness has been shown to have deliberately lied. On the contrary, there has been an attempt by some to manipulate witnesses years later and lead them to a different conclusion about what they saw at the Pentagon. This is the case with those who postulate the “North path” approach in which the physical damage could not have been done by the plane. While the advocates of a “North path” approach claim the plane flew over the Pentagon, there is not a single, unequivocal witness to this scenario, and many of the very few North path witnesses affirm that the plane impacted the building.
Based on these criticisms, a number of alternative hypotheses have been proposed. Although often termed theories, these hypotheses do not rise to the level of theories because they have not been subjected to the discipline of the scientific method. It is instructive to subject these alternative hypotheses to analysis according to the scientific method steps of Figure 2.
Alternative Hypotheses Analyzed According to the Scientific Method
The Bombs (Pre-planted Explosives) Hypothesis
Those who hypothesize that there was no plane impact attribute all damage and deaths to pre-planted explosives or bombs. These researchers include Barbara Honegger in her “Behind the Smoke Curtain” presentation and the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). Their assumption is that the approaching plane seen by many flew over the Pentagon. Honegger has modified her hypothesis in the last several years to postulate that a white plane was destroyed with some sort of explosives outside the Pentagon near the Heliport area without any debris hitting the Pentagon wall. For these “no plane impact” hypotheses, the next step in the scientific method, Test with an Experiment, raises immediate problems.
The first major problem is the scores of eyewitnesses who saw the plane impact the Pentagon west wall. To solve this problem, many critics simply ignore or attempt to discredit the witnesses, claiming they are lying, incoherent, or manipulated by insiders to tell a false story. These criticisms fail for lack of proof. The witnesses cannot be explained away in any credible fashion.
The second major problem is how to explain the plane debris seen by witnesses and in photographs. No credible explanation has been offered as to how the large volume of plane debris was planted and distributed outside the Pentagon, inside the Pentagon, and in the AE Drive, except by a plane crash. Honegger’s “white plane destroyed” hypothesis appears to be an attempt to explain the plane debris near the Heliport, but it does not explain the plane debris found inside the Pentagon building or in the AE Drive.
The third major problem is a failure to explain, using bombs, the observed damage. This damage includes the clipped tree, the five downed light poles, the generator-trailer that was damaged and rotated toward the Pentagon, the gouge in the low concrete wall, the shape and nature of the façade damage, the internal bowed and abraded columns, the sudden appearance of internal plane debris, the C ring hole and the debris strewn in the AE Drive.
There is no credible evidence for Honegger’s “white plane.” The plane’s supposed destruction without its fragmented parts hitting the Pentagon west wall violates laws of physics, specifically the law of the conservation of momentum. The center of gravity of the combined fragments would still be moving toward the wall at the plane’s pre-explosion speed. There is nowhere near enough plane debris outside the wall near the heliport to account for an entire plane.
The bombs-only hypothesis fails the test of the scientific method in major ways, and the analysis shows the hypothesis is false. However, although the evidence is scant or nonexistent, it is still possible that there were some internal bombs timed to explode at the same time as large plane impact.
The Small Plane Hypothesis
Some investigators claim that a small plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11. These include Massimo Mazzucco in part 2 of his film September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor, and David Ray Griffin, author of many books on the events of 9/11. Griffin has publicly endorsed Mazzucco’s work, including that on the Pentagon. This hypothesis immediately encounters major problems.
The great majority of over 180 eyewitnesses to the approach of the plane and its impact with the Pentagon west wall described a large plane. Only a very small number (six or less) of witnesses described a small plane, and most of these viewed the plane at a great distance, making size judgments difficult and unreliable. Of the large plane witnesses, many described it as a silver American Airlines plane, a Boeing 737 or 757. One knowledgeable witness, Tim Timmerman, an airlines’ pilot, recognized it unequivocally as a Boeing 757.
Secondly, a small plane could not have created the observed physical damage. The downed light poles require a minimum wingspan of 100 feet, while the generator-trailer and low concrete wall separation gives the separation of the engines as about 43 feet, closely matching the actual separation of Boeing 757 engines at 42.5 feet. Given that wingtips of a plane are very light and might easily break off, a small plane would be unlikely to create a 96-foot gash in the first floor.
The small plane hypothesis fails the test of the scientific method and the analysis shows the hypothesis is false.
The Missile Hypothesis
The missile hypothesis cannot explain the spatial characteristics of the physical damage. The light poles were effectively 100 feet apart, and the generator-trailer and low concrete wall were effectively 43 feet apart. These objects could not all have been impacted by a missile. The shape and size of the impact hole precludes a missile, the damaged internal columns were spaced apart over a wide area, and the bowed and abraded columns could not have been rendered in such a condition by a missile. A missile could possibly have created the C ring hole, but only plane parts were found in the debris in the AE Drive.
Donald Rumsfeld alluded to a missile, and eyewitness Mike Walter spoke of a missile, but in the metaphorical sense of a plane acting as a missile. These comments fueled the missile hypothesis. But no witnesses claimed to have seen a missile. Witnesses overwhelmingly described a large plane. The missile hypothesis fails the test of the scientific method and the analysis shows the hypothesis is false.
Conclusion
Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement. Public feedback shows that the false Pentagon hypotheses undermine public acceptance of other highly credible scientific findings, such as the demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC7) in New York City.
Most rank and file members of the 9/11 truth movement take their cues on the Pentagon from well-known speakers, writers, and acknowledged leaders of the movement. The quickest way to end the ongoing damage to the movement’s credibility and bring closure would be for these prominent individuals to publicly repudiate their former endorsements, views, and statements on the Pentagon event and acknowledge the scientific method and its conclusion of large plane impact. In the absence of public repudiations, the damage caused by false Pentagon hypotheses is likely to continue indefinitely, even if those who fueled their spread cease to promote them. Consequently, the surest way to end the debate and enhance the credibility of the movement is for each individual to study, without bias or prejudice, the evidence for themselves.
The recent papers by scientists, engineers and others showing large plane impact at the Pentagon have been collected together on a website that invites feedback and discussion. Comments can be sent to the Scientific Method 9/11 website which specifically invites feedback on many of the papers listed below.
[Editor’s note: Read the author’s responses to critical feedback at ScientificMethod911.org. Read his most recent peer-reviewed paper, “Peer Review in Controversial Topics–A Case Study of 9/11” (published in the journal Publications June 2017).]
Acknowledgments
This article is based on the research and writings of the following authors: Victoria Ashley, David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, Jim Hoffman, Ken Jenkins, Frank Legge, Warren Stutt and John D. Wyndham. These writings point to many other researchers, such as Adam Larson, Russell Pickering, John Farmer and Arabesque, who have contributed to an understanding of the Pentagon evidence.
The author of this article would like to thank David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, and Ken Jenkins for reading the manuscript and offering useful comments and suggestions.
Additional Reading – Websites, Papers, Articles and Videos
Websites and Owners/Sponsors
The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows – Jim Hoffman
Pentagon Attack Errors – Jim Hoffman
Evidence: The Pentagon Attack – Victoria Ashley
The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras – Ken Jenkins
The Pentagon – A joint statement – David Chandler and Jonathan H. Cole
The Science of 9/11, Pentagon – Frank Legge
Warren Stutt’s Home Page – Warren Stutt
Papers on the Pentagon – Scientists for 9/11 Truth, various scientists
Papers on the Pentagon – Scientific Method 9/11, John D. Wyndham
Papers
Frank Legge, “What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, July, 2009.
David Chandler (based on Ken Jenkins), “Blink Comparator Views of the Plane at the Pentagon,” 911Speakout.org, 2016.
Frank Legge, and Warren Stutt, “Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path…“, Journal of 9/11 Studies, January, 2011.
Frank Legge and David Chandler, “The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path,” STJ911.org, September, 2011 and its Addendum, Foreign Policy Journal, December, 2011.
John D. Wyndham, “The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, November, 2011. Revised version (3), ScientificMethod9/11.org, April, 2016.
Frank Legge, “The 9/11 Attack on the Pentagon: the Search for Consensus,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, June, 2012.
John D. Wyndham, “The Pentagon Attack: The Event Time Revisited,” ScientificMethod9/11.org, March, 2013.
John D. Wyndham, “The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues – A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman,” ScientificMethod9/11.org, April, 2013.
Victoria Ashley et al., “The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted,” ScientificMethod9/11.org, April, 2016.
Articles and Videos
Jim Hoffman, “Pentagon – Exterior Impact Damage,” 911Review.com, February, 2003.
Jim Hoffman, “The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics,” 911Research.WTC7.net, November, 2004.
Victoria Ashley, “To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’,” 911Review.com, July, 2009.
Jim Hoffman, “Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce,” 911Research.WTC7.net, July, 2009.
Frank Legge, “Science, Activism, and the Pentagon Debate,” Scientistsfor911Truth.org, April, 2014.
Ken Jenkins and David Chandler: “Pentagon Plane Puzzle + David Chandler: Going Beyond Speculation,” YouTube, September, 2015.
Frank Legge and Ken Jenkins, “Why Not Use a Plane?,” Scientistsfor911Truth.org, January, 2016.
Did the author also write for the Marx Brothers? There’s as much reality in this piece as in “Night At the Opera.”
But if I can manage to see ONE of those 80 videos that the FBI confiscated of the actual event, and it shows a plane, then, yes, I’ll change my mind. Where’s the video? Uh…what’s that you say?
Hundred of recorded eyewitness accounts, damage path consistent with an large airliner, aircraft debris and even DNA doesn’t convice you? Then thumbs up to your ignorance!
Yes, plenty of circumstantial evidence to be sure. The nagging question is, where are all the closed circuit video/audio recordings that surround the Pentagon on that fateful day? Why is the government withholding the full motion videos that capture the airplane descending from the sky and hitting the building?
Well, that meaningless little anecdote clearly outweighs the mountains of incontrovertible evidence that, yes, a plane did hit the Pentagon.
You side stepped to consider my question, where are the full motion closed circuit Pentagon videos? Why is the FBI not making them all public?
The question isn’t relevant to the point. Assuming such videos exist, the fact they aren’t released hardly belies the incontrovertible evidence of a plane impact. The logic “they haven’t released the videos, therefore there was no plane impact”, needless to say, is a non sequitur.
I’m still waiting for your thoughts regarding the discrepancy between the flight 11’s wing outline impact seen in the Fireman’s video verses the hole in the Pentagon that shows no evidence of either wing impacting the face of the building.
There is no such discrepancy. The wing impact on the Pentagon was actually very clearly observable.
Can you provide this clear wing impact evidence? Yeah, because my fellow pentagon researchers and I have never discovered these images in over 12 years of research. Thanks.
It is hard not to see the wing impact damage in photos of the Pentagon. It must take a great deal of effort not to.
There is no evidence of a wing impacting the building. It only exists in the script you’ve been reading.
The impact from the wings is clearly visible in images taken prior to the collapse, e.g.,: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/65d4407fe677a35df93c937b45f6447fa81dba72a35c9341de3f22436a3bc141.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b809c65aad5dd36137f2e3f98d37d07accd930803b2bc0788ba7dd6248fddf53.jpg
lol
Uh huh, “clearly visible” you wrote. And after the “plane’s impact”, the wings were found where exactly, because I don’t see any remains of any wings in any photographs, anywhere.
No wing debris was every recovered, not spars, ribs, ground spoilers, leading edge flaps, flap track fairings or any aileron components. Surely there must have been some part of the wings that didn’t mysteriously disappear into the building to confirm the official hoax. Not even a piece of aluminum skin from a wing laid on the ground.
I don’t believe a wing from a commercial aircraft could strike a solid object such as a building wall and stay completely intact without loss of any wing material. You’re going to have provide other proof that phenomenon is possible.
Just open your eyes and you can clearly see where the wings impacted the Pentagon.
It also must take an extraordinary effort not to see the debris.
Yes, my eyes are open and I clearly see fragments of rubble but none that can be positively identified as parts of a commercial aircraft.
Look closer (see: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/debris-small-2.jpg ).
Even closer (see: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/debris-small.jpg ).
I feel sorry for you Mr. Hammond, that you continue to spew the government’s coverup story about the attack on the Pentagon building.
1. There is no conclusive evidence American flight 77 hit the west wing of the Pentagon.
2. That it was flown by a Saudi Arab terrorist who had absolutely no flight time or hands-on experience flying a 100 ton commercial aircraft, no training whatsoever on IFR rules or knowledge of the Boeing 757’s myriad of dials, switches, knobs and levers of the instrumentation panels and how to correctly operate them or how to successfully navigate through Class Bravo airspace.
The story is profoundly unbelievable and so are you.
The question of who was piloting the plane is an entirely other matter, and for my take on that, you can read my piece “Al Qaeda’s Top Gun”: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/04/17/al-qaedas-top-gun/
Sticking to the topic at hand, you haven’t presented any other explanation for the damage to the Pentagon (including impact damage from the wings) and the debris. Moreover, there was clearly identifiable plane wreckage in the debris, as well as remains of the victims:
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/thumbs/P200030.jpg
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/thumbs/P200042.jpg
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/thumbs/P200045.jpg
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/thumbs/P200047.jpg
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/thumbs/P200048.jpg
The persistent ignorance of the incontrovertible evidence of the plane hitting the Pentagon by your ilk have done untold harm to the cause of truth with respect to what really occurred on 9/11 and why.
The pictures you provided show a component of some aircraft as well as the remains of the deceased who perished on that fateful day. All of which were found somewhere inside the west wing of the Pentagon, not outside on the lawn.
Is it possible the aircraft part was not from flight 77? Is it possible the charred remains were Pentagon civilian and military personnel and not passengers of the same plane in question, given the fact that 125 of the dead worked inside the Pentagon? Of course that is a plausible explanation but you chose to lay it out as further prima facie evidence of the existence of the commercial airplane. Certainly taints your objectivity, doesn’t it, Mr. Hammond?
I read your editorial about Hani Hanjour, alleged pilot of flight 77 (see: http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/2659.html ).
Your last sentence read, “And whichever the case, the conclusion is inescapable that the 9/11 Commission deliberately attempted to deceive the public about the piloting capabilities of Hani Hanjour.”
One would think a respected journalist such as yourself would pursue the end truth based on the premise that someone else piloted an airborne vehicle that hit the Pentagon. But you haven’t; you let it go and accept the basic story created by the perpetrators of this massive crime against the American people.
Your curiosity has gone cold and betrayed your investigative instincts.
As far as your suggestion that, ” … you haven’t presented any other explanation for the damage to the Pentagon …”, that is a correct statement. I do not have access to the full-motion videos the U.S. military has in its possession that would conclusively show what hit the Pentagon on 9/11. But given all the holes in the official explanation of what occurred on that day for which even you have acknowledged with your “Top Gun” piece should make you question everything the government has told us: everything.
We can continue to go back and forth but it serves no purpose. You believe the main version of the 9/11 tale given by the media and the government whereas I don’t.
You see, Mr. Hammond, it’s the U.S. Government we are conversing about; a haven for half-truths and outright lies. Are you familiar with the national debt clock (see: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ )? See how all the numbers spin about that total the amount of debt the American people are saddled with? Now imagine the numbers are not dollars but lies the government tells the world. I’m sure you get where I come from.
I agree that the objectivity of one of us is “tainted”. You are of course welcome to present another hypothesis to explain the overwhelming evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon. I would merely observe how you haven’t done so.
Your comments regarding my article on Hanjour are curious. How do you propose I should have gone about investigating who was actually piloting the plane? Also, I do question everything the government tells us (hence my Hanjour piece, along with pretty much all of my other writings). In this case, the evidence just so happens to be incontrovertible that the plane did hit the Pentagon — regardless of who was actually piloting it.
Again you throw the narrative back to me to prove the commercial airline did not hit the building. I have no way to prove otherwise since the government has all the contrary evidence safely secured away from public scrutiny and the press. In criminal law, a defense attorney through the discovery process has access to all evidence in possession of the district attorney. But that is not the case here even though multiple capital crimes have been committed.
You wrote, “Your comments regarding my article on Hanjour are curious. How do you propose I should have gone about investigating who was actually piloting the plane?”
I can’t do that since I don’t believe American flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
However all it takes is a forensic examination of one aircraft part that does not belong to American Airlines to expose the whole story. For example, look here at a short you tube video of the inside of a typical flight data recorder
(see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlY5W7be5jU ). At the 45 second mark you find the airline name stamped on a plate (e.g., Property of Delta Air Lines). You might want to start there.
But as I wrote earlier, the full motion videos of all the CCTV cameras outside (and inside) the DOD would clear up the matter. Perhaps
your numerous contacts in Washington, DC could point you towards the individual(s) who have pieces to this government created rebus.
Another interesting point is that out of all the civil litigation against
American Airlines for flight 77 passengers, about 30 or so have filed civil cases in federal court so far (see: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/18/sept.11.lawsuits/index.html?_s=PM:US ). Another one for Asia Cottom is pending.
It seems odd only half the families have pursued legal recourse or settled via the 9-11 Compensation Fund for their loss, doesn’t it,
Mr. Hammond?
No, I did not ask you to prove a negative. I welcomed you to provide a hypothesis that better explains the evidence. And now I’m noting that you’ve declined to do so, which I take to mean that you can’t.
Of course I can’t. How could I or anyone else (including yourself) offer an alternative and plausible explanation as to what hit the Pentagon since the government has in its possession all the video evidence that tells the true story about this horrific crime?
You showed photographs of human remains and assume the bodies are flight 77 passengers while disregarding the 125 Pentagon employees who perished in the west wing as well. How does that fact reconcile with your close minded opinion?
You showed photographs of aircraft parts and assume they’re from flight 77 when no eye witness reported seeing the aircraft registration number that identified flight 77. None of that is conclusive proof because it can’t be tied back to the plane, there is no clear chain of custody.
There were many eye witness accounts but the one that stands out in my mind is Penny Elgas. If you read her statement it reads like a short novella instead of the typical person who shockingly witnessed an aircraft impacting a government building (see: http://amhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=30 ).
Her recall of the event was too detailed and used a style of prose that suggests she embellished her rendition to add drama and suspense. She wrote phrases such as, “In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion …” or “In my adrenaline-filled state of mind, I was overcome by my visual senses.” or even this one, “The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I
watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into
the Pentagon.” Yes, ‘watched in horror’, ‘slowly glided’, like she was in a dream even though the reality was the aircraft speed was over 500 mph at impact. Perhaps she will find her niche as a freelance writer with Reader’s Digest.
You ask me to offer a different explanation as to what flew into the Pentagon. You believe it was flight 77 because the government and the media says it was, even though no major aircraft components were found outside the Pentagon such as the tail, wing, etc.
Here is a photograph of an Airbus A310 crashing into a building in Russia (see: http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w20060709.htm ). The plane was moving at high speed when it impacted the building and burst into flames yet the tail and other identifiable parts e.g., fuselage, wing, etc. did not disintegrate unlike the complete disappearance of flight 77.
So if flight 77 didn’t crash into the Pentagon then what did and where did the plane and its passengers go? I suggest you ask the U.S. Department of War because they know the truth. As for me, the real story is the hoax sold to the American people and you.
No, I not “believe it was flight 77 because the government and the media says it was”. Anyone even remotely familiar with my work exposing government and media lies — including the lie that fire caused the free fall collapse of WTC 7 — will recognize what a ludicrous suggestion that is. I know it was Flight 77 because the evidence that this was so is incontrovertible.
It’s enough to observe that you are unable to present any alternative hypothesis that better fits the available evidence — which is to say you reject the scientific method.
The author of the article glossed over the “Test with an Experiment” step of the SM (Scientific Method) relative to the fighter plane experiment and the commercial aircraft flyover to brazenly suggest commingling characteristics and similarities of the two examples was sufficient to support his ‘large plane hit the Pentagon’ hypothesis. It is flawed and here is why:
Understandably he could not duplicate what he believed happened in a controlled test so In order to properly correlate his explanation to a similar event, he would have had to pick a historical aircraft crash that represented a large plane flying through the air at high speed, approximately 4 feet off the ground when it terminated its flight by impacting a 77 foot high solid object. The physical evidence of such an event would have supported his theory. Obviously he was unable to that.
He or a staff associate searched and found the F4 video shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–_RGM4Abv8 . The F4 Phantom in terms of size and mass as compared to a Boeing 757-223 is significantly less. To suggest that both aircraft traveling at relatively the same speed (~500 knots) would result the same with respect to observable destruction and debris is not valid as it is clearly bias. The concrete wall moved in the video whereas the Pentagon wall did not which means the difference does not conform to the requirement that one variable must be constant in the test (see: http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html ).
The airbus A310 flyover is shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26H-WzIe858 . The author chose this video to demonstrate how low a commercial aircraft can fly however it is not an acceptable test as the plane never dropped anywhere near the altitude that allegedly flight 77 did (~4 feet) prior to impact as you can see at the four second mark. Again, we see bias in this step which invalidates the author’s attempt to convince us he adhered to the SM.
Large passenger airplanes are mostly hollow, they are not capable of punching through 300 feet of reinforced concrete and making a round hole at the end as we are led to believe occurred in the ‘C’ ring of the Pentagon. It has not been proven by anyone including the author of this article that it happened either by experiment or by any mathematical calculus.
Therefore the idea the evidence is ‘incontrovertible’ is also false no matter how may times it is repeated as there are many questions left unanswered as to what really struck the Pentagon on 9/11.
there is no chain of custody for that evidence, and the fact of minimal wreckage actually really hurts your position, and you don’t even realize it. lol
Close your eyes, click your heels, and say: There’s a plane at the Pentagon There’s a plane at the Pentagon There’s a plane at the Pentagon There’s a plane at the Pentagon There’s a plane at the Pentagon!!!
Close your eyes, click your heels, and say: No plane hit the Pentagon! No plane hit the Pentagon! No plane hit the Pentagon!
Available evidence does not support the claim that AA Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 — http://www.twf.org/News/Y2010/0911-Pentagon.html
you keep playing fast and loose with that term ‘incontrovertible’, do you know what that means Jeremy? And his logic makes much more sense than the ‘Honey Pot’. They played the towers videos being hit by the planes all day and then for weeks after and we still have video of it. Why not show the video of your non existent 757 hitting the Pentagon? No, if it were they’d have shown it over and over.
Why should they release more evidence — they had so much fun watching some of the truthers discredit themselves … hundreds of people saw the plane go into the building, hundreds more plucked plane parts, luggage, bodies from the rubble.
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/05/cynical-sophisticated-and-subtle.html
… consider the Pentagon crash, and the confiscation of the video from the service station security camera. That the video has never been released is regarded by many as damning evidence that authorities are trying to hide the true nature of the crash: that the video must reveal that it wasn’t Flight 77 but a missile, or a fighter jet. But think: perhaps the video remains hidden because some people are quite happy to mindf*ck the conspiracists and perpetuate an erroneous line of inquiry. Would they want to lay to rest a mistaken hypothesis, when it misdirects the efforts of so many? It may be that the question is not What have they got to hide? but rather, Why do they want us to think that they’re hiding something?
Your argument is a non sequitur. The evidence of a plane impact is incontrovertible (and, yes, I know what that word means; hence my repeatedly using it).
Actually the minimal wreckage ‘evidence’ actually hurts your case, and you didn’t even know it.
You clearly don’t understand the definition of “incontrovertible.” And, there are not “mountains” of evidence. There’s a piece or two of wreckage easily carried by one man. Where did the wings go?
incontrovertible (adj): not able to be doubted or questioned
The evidence is incontrovertible that the plane hit the Pentagon.
Do you expect that the wings would have just sheared off and been laying there intact on the ground in front of the Pentagon?
It’s not that a plane didn’t hit (it probably did) but it certainly was not a 110 foot wide plane, there’s no doubt about that whatsoever.
Plane wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon, skin sheets in the color of American Airlines, also including engine/landing gear parth, the both flight recorders, and even found passenger DNA, THAT is just “circumstancial evidence” for an airliner impact? Wow!
How do you know, that the Government withholding more than what it has already released, including the two gate cams recorded at 1 fps? Do you really think that the Pentagon has all its CCTV cams pointed on to the fly path of the attacking aircraft? That would be odd, don’t you think?
The problem with most of the no-airliner propoents is, that they usually do all ignore the photographic and testimonial evidence because it contradicts their belief.
Explain to me how a missile, truck bomb or a Global Hawk can leave such wreckage, plant DNA and create the photographically recorded damage path outside and inside the building, and fooling of hundreds of witnesses!
All the discussion is around the 85 or so external cameras that surrounded the Pentagon that were confiscated by the FBI. The external short blurred video provided to the public does not
show anything conclusive that a commercial aircraft hit the building. Do you honestly believe that’s the best the Department of Justice can show us?
What about the multitude of internal CCTV cameras inside the complex? Surely there are some installed on every floor that captured video evidence of a large body moving rapidly through the rings.The military refuses to release any of them, what are they covering up?
If you believe the published report of the 9/11 commission regarding the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 then there is no point in challenging the Pentagon incident or the Shanksville PA “let’ roll” story either. But if you suspect the government is lying about this monumental epic in American history, then you have to be skeptical about everything we have been told, everything.
No Planer Alert!!!! We’re skeptical that you graduated from Middle School.
Just to make it easy for you,tiger:The Pentagon was made of far stronger stuff than Tower 1’s outer sheath.
Do yourself a solid:
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/introduction
uh oh, don’t question 9/11, thanks for caring about where our energies go andy
…not to mention the gas station/convenience store CCTV footage which would’ve at least confirmed the type of low flying object moving towards the impact point of the Pentagon building but was ripped out and removed by government agents, likely FBI.
you mean the limited wreckage footage with no chain of custody evidence? It hurts your case. And stop saying hundreds of witnesses, only very very few claimed to be impact witnesses so …stop that propaganda.
Why remove a frame from the security camera footage that was released? it’s been proven, they removed a frame, and the only frame that would show the object. Seems highly suspicious. The burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claim, and the claim that a plane hit the Pentagon is very extraordinary (never happened before or since). Their proof is very lackluster, considering we’re still seriously arguing about it 15 years later. They should have at least one photo by now, be it from a surveillance camera or a satellite, they should have *something.* The fact they don’t seem to have anything, other than a single video with the key frame mysteriously missing, is proof enough that either it wasn’t a 767, or they are intentionally goading the 911 truth movement into believing that it wasn’t. It’s ridiculous to think they accidentally removed that frame and they accidentally didn’t have any other cameras pointing at the most important public US military structure in the world. They were even renovating that side, and had dozens of contractors on base, you really think they didn’t have cameras on the workers? Where are the video tapes? Please.
Also, small pieces of wreckage on the lawn isn’t really proof since there were multiple credible reports of men in suits showing up and tampering with the physical site within minutes of the event. There were no items found that I’m aware of that were too heavy to be lifted by one man, which is rather odd for a wreck in which the wings had to break off since they couldn’t fit in the initial hole. What the men in suits were doing exactly (removing stuff, leaving false evidence, etc.) isn’t agreed upon, but there is agreement that they were there and they were messing with the scene. Anything found is contaminated. We need a photo or video, and they must have one.
Even if we accept your claim that a frame was removed from the video, so what? Do you have another hypothesis that better explains all the other evidence? No, you don’t. Are you trying to suggest that the debris was hurriedly planted there?
Not that hurriedly. But yes.
Sandia National Laboratories’ F-4 Phantom jet test was designed to test the containment shell at a nuclear power station. The Pentagon isn’t built even close to that standard. Therefore, Wyndham’s primary “fact” falls apart. — http://www.twf.org/News/Y2017/0830-Closure.html
“Explain to me how a missile, truck bomb or a Global Hawk can leave such
wreckage, plant DNA and create the photographically recorded damage path
outside and inside the building, and fooling of hundreds of witnesses!”
You are doing the same thing you are complaining other people are doing. ” because it contradicts their belief”
WikiDiki,produce the witness or pipe down.Personally,I think you’re full of it.
“Pffft” You know what that is?
It’s the onomatopoeic sound for bug spray. You’re a bug, now go away.
That’s your response to my request for you to produce a witness known only to you,Buggy?
Where is this person and why have they never been produced for a video clip or a paper?
Pffft, Pfttt, Pfttt.
Apparently you’re a persistent bug that needs a greater dose of sarcasm.
I rest my case!
the case that you’re garbage?
Ignore andy, he’s special
Only you are andy
That means nothing, other than your friend was probably so emotionally impacted, he became convinced he saw something that wasn’t here.
lol, If you’ve studied the Pentagon issue you’d know there are not a hundred impact witnesses, not even close to 30, and there’s even problems with those. And then leaving out the more credible north path witnesses is deplorable. This was dealt with back in 2006, just a regurgitation of a failed theory. Why would they do this? To seem more relevant, could be…but that makes zero sense. To actually use the scientific method, you can’t ignore evidence, you have to make sense of all of it. Have a good day, thumbs down to your name calling.
DNA of the Pentagon employees you meen? Obviously…
Damage path was not consistent with a large airliner, and FDR did not match up with the Pentagon security video either.
Wyndham ignores the most credible witnesses whose video and transcripts are available at http://www.twf.org/News/Y2010/0911-Pentagon.html
The assertion by Scientists for 9/11 Truth that Sandia National Laboratories’ F-4 Phantom jet crash test (the author’s first test of his hypotheses) reflects what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 is utter nonsense — http://www.twf.org/News/Y2017/0830-Closure.html
I know a Marine who saw the plane. He was there. Good grief!
Please post your photo as I have never actually seen a complete dickhead of your magnitude. It would be informative. You’re a POS hiding under an alias without enough guts to post your real name. Your opinion is, like you, worthless.
The videos were held back for just that reason: to spread no planes disinformation.
They did the same thing in OK City, held back the CCTV footage so they could prop up the version of events they preferred, -no CCTV footage = no second man.
At the pentagon, no CCTV footage = no planes nonsense. Aside from all the evidence the reason we know it had to be Flight 77 is because the attackers could not have known ahead of time that no one else would film the attack, -that when it was all over, they alone would control all the images. A single picture would reveal the lie. It hap’d in NYC with the NT strike,, someone shooting nearby just happened to catch it. of course the same could have happened there. That’s why they ran around immediately collecting up all the CCTV footage,. So it could be held back and no planes disinformation perpetuated, to mischaracterize 911 Truth as loony conspiracism. Stick to the facts. 911Truth is about the well documented forensic evidence that proves the demolition of wtc 1 2 & 7
I agree 100% with you. The problem is, with this “author” as you call em, if someone don’t agree with his point of view, he’ll ban you from this thread. Which is OK by me because he just proves that age old saying is true. Once a Jackass, ALWAYS a Jackass. So now that dumb Jackass can go & ban me, the silly little bastard. P.S. Guess the dumb Jackass never heard of “Operation Northwoods” in which our OWN government laid out plans to attack U.S. cities such as Miami & Washington & with planes no less. Sound familiar? Luckily, JFK who was the president at the time, said NO! And lets see that Jackass “author” try & refute that, because he can’t. Its DOCUMENTED! And so is the “Gulf Of Tonkin” which was also another “False Flag” event that killed over 58,000 U.S. soldiers & put the U.S. full fledged into the Vietnam war. Not to mention all the Vietnamese that were killed. So for this dumb Jackass author to even THINK that our government wouldn’t be beyond attacking its own people to further their own agenda, just goes to show, that he’s not only a Jackass, but a stupid Jackass at that. And lastly, the “Patriot Act” was already on the table BEFORE 9/11. And the only way the government could get the American public to buy into this crap, was to stage or at the very least help stage something that would rattle the nerves of Americans. And then 9/11 happened & look how quick the “Patriot Act” surfaced. Now it allows for TSA to grope people at airports. Excuse me, that’s a VIOLATION of OUR RIGHTS. Its called an ILLEGAL SEARCH & SEIZURE! Can’t speak for all of you, but anyone who gropes me, had best be carrying a couple of “C Notes” Like I said about this so called “Author” Once a Jackass, ALWAYS a Jackass. And he can basically KISS MY ASS!!!
What a bunch of rubbish.
Once you actually take the time…research…and learn…it becomes obvious jet fuel didn’t cause the towers to come down and it wasn’t Tim Osman (*cough* I mean Osama Bin Laden *cough*) who masterminded the false flag attack upon us on that fateful day.
Awaken faster America & people of the world…
HOOYAH & God Bless.
It was massive impacts and jet fuel ignited fires,you blithering idiot.
And don’t even start with your cult’s lying talking points about #7,which was smashed into by the collapse of #1 and burned uncontrollably for hours before the FDNY knew it was a goner and created a perimeter.
You are a completely daft…
#1…did NOT smash into #7.
The fires in #7 did minor damage.
Nice try but apparently you fail at research as well as making a valid point.
It was….”Pulled.”
^^ That terminology is used with controlled demolition…
You have much to learn, grasshopper.
You and your miserable controlled demolition cult are a raft of daft.
‘Pull’ is NOT slang for explosive demolitions but literally means to pull down with steel cords the damaged carcass of a building no more than 4,5,6 stories.
This is where Jew hating Holocaust denier Eric Hufschmid,the Godfather of your cult,led you wrong with the abject lie about ‘pull’.Clever guy,he.
Larry Silverstein was clearly referring to the perimeter created by the FDNY when they knew the building would eventually collapse.Everyone was pulled back and away from a dangerous situation.
As the FDNY stated,the building was “fully involved” in fires and had developed a bulge in its north face where beams and debris from the collapse of #1 had smashed into it.It was emanating the creaks and groans only a compromised structure would
How do you think all the fires started anyway,Captain Bugs?
Just continue spewing your rubbish…fewer and fewer people are believing your kinds lies & deceit.
A reckoning is coming…and it won’t be the “culling” that you all are expecting.
Wasting no further time with you.
Fine with me,I’ve already clobbered your cult and linked you to all the evidence and testimony you’ll need to remove yourself from the clutches of such malarkey.
This will help as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OviTulBP78
All I’ve seen is you prove over and over what kind of garbage your opinion is
Actually,fewer and fewer people are buying what you’re selling after they look in depth at both arguments.Your quasi-spiritual mumbo-jumbo about a ‘reckoning’ is one of the many things that has rendered the 9/11 truth stuff to the margins of public discourse.
Particularly #7 has been shown to not be what you insist and not least the controlled demolition of the nutty ‘no-plane hit the Pentagon’ crowd which can be seen here in this paper.
jackass
The topic of this thread is the Pentagon. Please keep your comments on topic.
It’s perfectly OK for your sad “BrotherPatriot” to spew the racist tripe about Larry Silverstein but I’m off base talking about the issue.
The fact that you are silent in the face of such a vile argument while getting all snippy with me speaks volumes about yourself
My comment goes for both of you.
As for racist tripe, if I see it, I will ban the commenter. In this case, BrotherPatriot didn’t even mention Silverstein. Rather, it’s you who brought up his name and falsely attributed to BrotherPatriot “racist tripe” — which is just another example of how you’ve gotten yourself banned from this site for violation of the terms of use of the comments section. Troll elsewhere.
Garbage is slang for what you are, andy the shill
As NIST itself pointed out, the impact from debris from the collapse of WTC 1 was not a contributing factor in the collapse of WTC 7. As for its claim that fires caused the free fall collapse, their report in this regard is riddled with scientific fraud. Free fall means no energy was available to do the work of buckling the columns, as required by their fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
The impacts created the fires and gouged a hole 15 stories high and despite what NIST says a bulge had developed in the area of the north face where debris and beams from #1 crashed into it.
You seem to think that the FDNY is part of a scientific fraud.Their testimony clearly proves that the building collapsed from something other than unduly quiet explosives.
I defer to my previous comment. If you’d like to discuss WTC 7 further, do so on any of the articles at FPJ about that subject. This thread is about the Pentagon.
It has been proven jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel!
What a marvelous but ridiculous attempt at deception by the author.
I can only believe he knows full well he is lying as only a nincompoop could think it is true.
Give us a break. Save it for children’s hour.
Refute his arguments or stop the ad hom and shut up!
What a horrible little man you are.
If you want to believe in fairy stories… You are welcome to.
Just don’t force them on others.
Now bog off.
Your name calling doesn’t change that fact.
Endgame for 9/11 “truth” saps.They are now in the final stages and have become total self-caricatures.
Exhibit A,Jerry,who’s such a bozo that it’s entirely plausible that he’s a disinfo operative tasked with making “truthers” look like imbeciles.
STFU SHILL
Refuting the argument is not difficult. Every part on modern air craft have engraved upon them a serial number, this number is recorded by the manufacturer and kept in records. The largest parts visible in photos after the impact at the Pentagon were engine parts, and indeed in one particular photo these serial numbers were visible.
It does not stretch the imagination for investigators to record these numbers and pass them onto the manufacturers who would then identify them and state positively which model aircraft and even the aircraft that these parts were fitted too.
The FACT, this is easily identifiable procedure was not followed really raise serious questions as to WHY NOT ???? The answer would easily put to rest any speculation on this issue, so why has this not been done ??????????????
How do you know this was not done?
Well Jeremy, it stands to reason, if it had been done, there’d be no dispute over the type of aircraft involved. Simple as that. I’m pretty sure, if it had been done, we most certainly would have heard about it big time by now. The point is, I fail to understand WHY IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE, by this time.
That fact alone, gives us reason to suspect something smelly is going on here. The other issue too, is the debris left of the aircraft, the type of plane alleged, suggests to us two engines. It probably may come as a surprise to you, that these two engines are huge, allowing a man to stand inside of the intake cowels with room to spare, this also means the turbines are HUGE as well. To top it off, the material the turbines are manufactured from is INCANEL and extremely hard material to withstand the excessive heat it is exposed to during operation, thereby canceling any claims such items would simply vaporize in a crash. If they did, it would make it the first time in the history of aviation that such a thing happened.
So the question I have for you, what happened to these engines and their components ????????
Same thing goes for the landing gear of such aircraft. Have you ever seen up close, how big this equipment is ???? It too, must withstand extremely high temperatures during operation thus nullifying the claims of simply vapourising. B.T.W. the Malaysian liner shot down in the Ukraine, the landing gear did not vapourise and was easily indentifiable to verify the type of aircraft it came from. Again, if such equipment had allegedly vaporized in the Pentagon event, it would again, be the first time in aviation history.
So, we come to two questions for you Jeremy, what happened to the engines of the alleged airliner that allegedly hit the Pentagon ????
And what happened to the landing gear of that airliner ????
Actually, no, this does not stand to reason. This is like arguing that since people dispute the Holocaust, there must therefore be no evidence that millions of Jews were killed during WWII.
Americans are now deciding who to vote for, not that an honest outcome is expected.
Do you still not get it?
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Trump “Bombs were in the buildings” …pretty clear to me ‘not evil’ but insightful.
There is so much evidence that disputes the AA Flight 77 impact conclusion from the words of U.S. Army Major General Albert Stubblebine to the extensive research of Barbara Honegger, to the eyewitnesses in the CIT presentation to all of those at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, I have to snicker at the author’s unabashed bravado.
What a bunch of crap, this story. Show one video of a plane crashing into Pentagon.There was Zero indication a plane crashed there, zero. And it has been proven that the plane could not have maneuvered that way.
Your comment is a good indication of your lacking in-depth research into this issue.
Explain
Explain why the article above is crap first.
Trashing baselessly someone’s work then demanding an explanation why the trashing is baseless. That’s bold, my friend.
You are absolutely full of it. They have none of that stuff from the plane. So many camera and not one clear video. I’m not going too argue with you. You are either an operative or one dumb son of a bitch
Andy Warhol once said: “Paranoid,I don’t even know the meaning of the word”.
no one cares andy
Start with the CIT response to Chandler/Cole. Which Chandler childishly refuses to deal with. So sad.
No, the article itself shows lack of in-depth research. Look into the discrepancies between the two pentagon security cameras which have had their footage released. It is clear that whatever hit the Pentagon was taken out of the video that should have shown it clearly. A frame was removed, and that is conclusively proven. Why remove a frame? Why remove the one frame that would show what hit the Pentagon, if it was a 767?
Show us that this frame was removed, as you claim.
I hope that my humble paper can shine some light on why the official story is simply to incredible to be true, and that the pushers of this theory do NOT use the scientific method because they ignore other evidence to reach their conclusions.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/brian-rogers/going-beyond-speculation-the-pentagon-official-govt-story-and-some-truthers-prea/10153613242615049/
or https://docs.google.com/document/d/139gLphbSuOklnO6fsxEDz__bBmIrF-TmeLfV4-KEiPU/edit https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0d44ddea468413a10fca03c201732599d4676b3ab8a8ac78e783d7a8ae7b7ecc.jpg
Regardless of the Pentagon debate, 9-11-01 was an obvious inside job. It’s an unavoidable fact to those who have been paying attention. That’s why there are many Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. There are likely many more that know 9-11 was a lie but are too scared to speak out. It is time for a revolution.
The So-called War on Terror Is A Criminal Fraud
By Prof. Michael Keefer
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights have been displaced by War-on-Terror legislation.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38618.htm
Dollars to peanuts that Michael Keefer is a ‘blame it on the Jews’ nutcase.
What amazes me is that people within the “Truth” movement persist in this untenable position that no plane hit the Pentagon. This claim has done untold harm to the movement by seriously undermining its credibility. The evidence of the plane impact is incontrovertible.
Jeremy has used ‘incontrovertible’ fast and loosely dozens of times on this thread. :/
I have used the word “incontrovertible” very precisely here.
precisely without warrant or evidence yes.
Precisely according to its meaning: “not able to be doubted or questioned”.
Except by the willfully ignorant, of course.
Always has been incontrovertible. The no plane hoax was debunked from the start by some of the best 9/11 truth researchers, notably John Judge. It was a clever hoax to distract, nothing more. Sorry anyone thinks it’s worth anything to debunk a decade and a half later, old story at this point. Meanwhile, how many “truth” activists know about Alec Station, the plane into building exercise near Dulles that morning, the FBI, CIA and DIA lower level agents who tried to stop the attacks, the non response of the NSA warning system during the attacks, to cite a few areas that might yield more results.
Great points! The controlled demolition cult and this garbage have forever ruined the work of serious people regarding that day.
Buried in BS,the real dirt is now egg all over a million faces.
A truly sad thing to watch unfold.
You really are a giant pos. “ANDY THE POS”
The “no plane” hoax was debunked from the start. Glad some people finally admit it was bogus – a decade and a half later – but there was never any evidence the plane crash did not happen and lots that it did.
The first person to hint a “missile” hit the Pentagon was War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whose lack of sincerity should be obvious.
A bigger question is why some “truth” seekers were unable to admit they were snookered.
Meanwhile, the suppressed warnings, Air Force stand down and Alec Station are ignored by most of the 9/11 Half Truth Movement.
the missile slip from Rumsfeld was anything but evidence.
It was a setup, not a slip.
—
Just because someone says the government is lying does not mean they are telling the truth.”
— John Judge
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html
The Pentagon Attack and American Airlines Flight 77
by John Judge
“Hundreds of people saw the plane from windows of nearby buildings, from cars along the nearby highways, and some ducked because it flew over so low. Pentagon employees and construction workers at the site saw the events unfold before their eyes. Hundreds more took part in the clean-up operation and saw the wreckage. It is not difficult to find eyewitnesses to the event in DC. …
“Families of victims and others who work at the airlines, as well as many witnesses I have spoken to, are offended and shocked by these unfounded speculations. Those willing to do a modicum of investigative work here in DC will be quickly disabused of this disinformation.
“There are many legitimate unanswered questions about the events of September 11, 2001, its sponsorship, and the official version of events. We benefit from serious research and the issues raised by victim’s families seeking accountability. Not the least of these is the apparent lack of standard FAA/NORAD response to these emergency events. Rather than use our time proving and belaboring the obvious, or focusing on areas of total speculation that can only hurt our public credibility, I encourage serious researchers to focus on the historical context of the event, the alleged conspirators, the funding, and the government response or lack of it.”
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/notAllCequal.html
Not all conspiracies are created equal by John Judge
///it was setup not a slip //// sounds suspiciously like unfounded opinion, how do you carnac that?
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/f77FoF.html
Flight of Fantasy:
23 October 2002
…. There is no question that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Remaining agnostic on this point also gives ammunition to the perpetrators of the stand-down and serves to discredit the other good work that continues to be done about the reality of what happened that day. It is my feeling that this thesis was actually part of an intentional disinformation campaign that spreads red herrings to discredit the real findings. “These conspiracy theorists will believe anything” say our detractors. Let’s discover and present the hard facts and force the coincidence theorists to come up with plausible explanations instead of spewing out speculations we cannot back up and leaving ourselves on the defensive.
from that article you posted, I couldn’t get past 8 seconds in reading before the same lies from 2006… Ahahahahahahahaaahahahahahaha.
//////We know the plane hit here in DC, because people saw it, hundreds of
them./////////////
Again, like in my paper, here are the sources of the witness list, which is btw, unverified, and therefore UNRELIABLE, but we’ll go there for sake of argument. You people really need to stop lying.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/brian-rogers/pentagon-witnesses-911-various-sources/10153625485875049
A post on facebook does not invalidate anything, sorry.
Of the six witnesses I personally know of, only one had their observations on line.
It’s hard for someone spouting “truth” to admit having been fooled. Get over it.
Meanwhile, who points out the suppressed warnings before the attack and the wargames during the attack that confused the air defense response?
Not to mention how al-Midhar and al-Hazmi weren’t rolled up well before that day or the destruction of all records of the Able Danger program.
Or,how in hell Moussaoui’s laptop remained unopened despite qualified FBI people screaming and yelling that they were sure he was part of an imminent hijacking operation.
Well, if the FBI had been allowed to look at his laptop before the attack then the New Pearl Harbor / American Reichstag Fire could not have happened …
Agreed.
agreed you’re a moron
blah blah blah ANDY”S A SHILL!!!
Refutation of Chandler …
https://www.facebook.com/notes/brian-rogers/going-beyond-speculation-the-pentagon-official-govt-story-and-some-truthers-prea/10153613242615049
if you notice on google, if you search Going Beyond Speculation, you’ll see I’m listed right under Chandlers Presentation lol, and it’s a facebook note!! lol. Constantly getting questions about my paper ..’why won’t chandler respond to colleagues within the movement?’ My answer, he’s unprofessional. Did some great work on the towers, but on the pentagon, he’s jumped the shark.
Unlock the grip on the photos at the scene and all of this argument should be cleaned up in no time. But there are powers that want this to remain in the dark. Ha and they call us conspiracy theorists. .
You comment as though there wasn’t incontrovertible forensic evidence proving that the plane hit the Pentagon. There is.
you know, saying “incontrovertible” over and over doesn’t make it so Jeremy, tell us again about the hundreds of impact witnesses…
You know, denying the incontrovertible evidence of a plane impact over and over doesn’t make it any less of a proven fact.
are you aware of how little wreckage you have and the images seem to indicate fbi and others walking the parts from the emergency building out TO THE LAWN, and others milling around on the lawn with parts in hand minutes after the so called impact. They didn’t want to help with body removal?? Gotta get them parts placed for good photo ops immediately. Where’s your chain of custody? Even the witness list is unverified and you only have very few impact witnesses even though Chandler lies and says hundreds, you and he should be ashamed of yourself for supporting this unscientific drivel. https://www.facebook.com/notes/brian-rogers/going-beyond-speculation-the-pentagon-official-govt-story-and-some-truthers-prea/10153613242615049/
What is unscientific drivel is denying the incontrovertible evidence of a plane impact, including the impact damage, identifiable plane debris, and remains of the victims.
What horrible scholarship. For a real serious counter to this sorry paper, watch the Pentagon chapter of Massimo Mazzucco’s film “The New Pearl Harbour” for a thorough refutation regarding the arguments in favor of the physical evidence being sufficient for a 757 crash.
You see, Wyndham, Hoffman, Legge, Chandler, and Cole use the same arguments that “debunkers” use when arguing in favor of the physical i.e. photographic evidence being consistent with the 757 crash. And Mazzucco’s film is unique in that it shows us what the “debunkers'” arguments are with every aspect of 9/11 Truth, and why those arguments and claims miss the mark.
And worst of all, Wyndham does not even mention the “North of the Citgo” flight path evidence that had been uncovered between 2006 and 2009 by Citizen Investigation Team or CIT. The paper accepts, at face value, the official account that the plane flew south of Columbia Pike, south of the Navy Annex and finally south of the Citgo and hit the 5 specific light poles seen in photos and video. The paper alarmingly accepts, at face value, the story of cab driver Lloyde England, even though there are several serious inconsistencies within Lloyde’s own tellings of the story, not to mention external contradictions from other witnesses who swear to a northerly flight path, inconsistent with the light pole vector, and finally not to mention that Lloyde’s story about himself and a ‘silent stranger’ removing the pole from the car and placing it on the pavement is not corroborated by any other witness. His story is also physically implausible, both the pole impact and the removal of.
Also omitted is the testimony of Pentagon officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr., who was at the edge of the Pentagon’s interior when the huge explosion [presumably the crash] rocked the building, and within “ten seconds tops” he was outside at the loading dock, and saw the approach plane, a “commercial aircraft,” flying over the south parking lot, just above the light poles, AWAY from the Pentagon.
These are just a few of many more omissions and face-value acceptances of official evidence.
Obviously, evidence pointing towards staged physical damage [light poles] and a plane flying away from the building points to a total Inside Job at the MIHOP [made it happen on purpose] level. Wyndham’s omission of these facts is deliberate and conscious, because himself, Chandler, Legge and rest of them have been well aware of it since 2009.
It is a truly tragic paper on many levels, I’m surprised they didn’t do ‘due diligence’ to review it for these errors and exclusions. It’s like a term paper done the night before it’s due after a drinking binge.
If you think the article contains errors, you are welcome to point out what you think they are.
No plane hit the Pentagon. Sounds like the whole article is ass backwards
Hey Brian, how come you never took Jeremy up on his offer to point out the errors?
When knowingly contracted and directed to produce and publish more lies and propaganda to hopefully quite the roar of us who know the lies, how is “due diligence” going to change anything? Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows the official story of 911, and numerous other false flags and/or planned and staged events, are all LIES!
You are welcome to point to any errors you think exist in the piece. I would merely note you haven’t done so. Please also familiarize yourself with the terms of use of the comments section.
On the contrary, the article does mention the CIT’s hypothesis and notes how untenable it is.
You are welcome to provide us with Roberts’ full statement.
And Jeremy, you are welcome to remember that pretty much the only things that are conclusive on this planet are taxes and death. You might want to knock that chip off your shoulder and join reality. You don’t have a market on the truth, the gov’t doesn’t have a market on the truth, and quite frankly, pretty much *everyone* that comes here is going to think that between you and I, one of us is an a**, but we are BOTH going to get votes in that direction.
Nice of you to point out adamsyed’s comment obviously strikes a nerve, though ;)
I take from your comment that you, too, maintain that the above article is in error, but would merely observe that you’ve also declined to present an argument to support that view.
I advise you, too, to familiarize yourself with the terms of use of the comments section.
The usual flailing from another nutty wing of the controlled demolition cult.
Nice job with this important article,Jeremy.
Andy, this discussion here isn’t about the WTC buildings, but the Pentagon.
Yes, a plane hit the Pentagon; but, yes, the three WTC collapses were the result of controlled demolition.
I disagree about demolitions and have responded elsewhere on this thread.
Well, that’s cause you’re a moron
And this is why the 9/11 “Truth” movement cannot be taken seriously. The notion that three skyscrapers occupied 24/7 could be prepared for controlled demolition with no one noticing is so risible that “Godzilla knocked the towers down” would be more plausible.
Not the case at all. There are many reports of employees being disallowed access to certain floors of the building days and weeks before the event. Clearly, some folks only see what they wish to see.
That wouldn’t be sufficient even if true. CD would require gutting *every* story (mainly office space, largely used around the clock), both floor and ceiling, partially cutting beams, placing explosives, wiring everything, and restoring everything to its previous condition, again, with no one noticing. It’s beyond nonsensical.
You say that as though somehow controlled demolition was an inadequate explanation for the free fall collapse of WTC 7, and yet office fires adequately explain how all of the building’s load-bearing columns managed to fail simultaneously. Talk about nonsensical.
Bingo! HYPOCRICY and LIES are the Hallmarks of these criminals and the shills used to aid and abet their crimes!
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! It’s obvious that you know NOTHING about controlled demolition, dew, and/or tactical, neutron explosives! As one who was formally involved in “activities”, for the criminals in charge, I can assure you that 99% of what we’re told by the US government is bovine excrement! PERIOD!
Do some meaningful research! There are ample explanations and evidence that answer your question. The problem is that you, and most Americans, want to just blindly accept whatever they’re told because to do otherwise, might burst the protective bubble they choose to live in! This article, and others like it such as appeared in “Popular Mechanics”, are obvious commissioned attempts to silence inquiry. Do you also still believe that Oswald was the sole assassin? Ha, ha! What a country of dumbed–down, brainwashed morons void of critical thinking skills!
I’ve done plenty of meaningful research. It’s why I dismiss the “Troofer” movement as a branch of the tin foil hat brigade. (Also, I didn’t ask any questions, so I’m not clear what you’re referring to. But I don’t expect coherence from conspiracy theorists, so it’s a moot point.) And LOL at “tactical neutron explosives”! You’re either all the way down the rabbit hole to Kookville, or you’re pulling everyone’s leg.
stfu andy you disinfo pos
And another one living in denial and embracing coggnitive dissonance!
Imagine Adam Syed,tyhe regular riot of truth talking about “willfully ignored evidence”!
This is the same goof who assiduously refuses to do the simple research of the oral testimonies of the FDNY,which definitively and irrefutably prove that his sacred Building 7 was not blown up and collapsed after sustaining severe damage and raging uncontrollable fires.
The only question that remains is this doofus on the same payroll as nutjobs like Les Jamieson and Alex Jones.
The free fall collapse of WTC 7 means no energy was available to do the work of buckling columns, as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
But the topic here is the Pentagon. Please keep your comments on topic.
I’ll just respond to you and the others and then let it go.
I could easily prove you wrong,particularly about #7 as the proof is contained in the oral testimonies of the FDNY.
If you care to engage privately,here or on another thread,I’m game.
There was only a brief period of free fall and it certainly didn’t fall into its own footprint.
Again,let me prove it to you civilly,as you are demonstrably in error.
Thanks
The laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11. You are welcome to search FPJ for articles on the subject of WTC 7 and discuss that subject there. The subject of this thread is the Pentagon.
how are you going to let it go when you go to every 9/11 truth site to discredit it? Because you’re a shill who’s only proving how low the establishment will go to manipulate people
Blowhard nutjob Adam Syed is so obsequious and useless that he needs Jeremy Hammond to respond to his critics.
Being a self appointed cult “leader” (we’re certain he magnanimously refers to himself as a “facilitator”) he’s not able to handle real questions and strong rejoinders.
The 9/11 “truth” movement in a nutshell! Or should we say,a husk of its former shell.
Since you’ve seemed so intent on getting yourself banned for violating the terms of use of the comments section of this site, I’ve granted your wish.
Except that if explosives were planted it would take more than a year (in a similar case it took months to place explosives in an abandoned building that was far smaller)…..and this was when they had the run of the place.
Also you ignore how pysics actually works.
9/11 was caused by the planes; the writer is a moron
How long it would take to prep the building to bring it down is largely a matter of speculation, and it is you who is ignoring how physics actually works. To wit: the free fall collapse of WTC 7 means that all of the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means that there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
It wasn’t free fall though; if you actually tape it it falls slower. The problem is that so many people don’t want to admit that all to often conspiracies are bullshit. There WAS no controlled demolition. Pretty much every honest scientist accepts it
All you are doing with this comment is demonstrating your own ignorance. It was free fall, and uncontroversially so. This is acknowledged by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in its final report on the collapse of WTC 7.
Please educate yourself:
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/11/video-analysis-of-nists-claim-of-a-5-4-s-collapse-time-over-18-stories-for-wtc-7/
For accuracy’s sake, NIST states that 2.25 secs/5.4 secs were at free fall. This means that 3.15secs/5.4secs were not at free fall.
“The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.”
So, like I said, the fact that free fall was achieved is uncontroversial, and Darth’s claim it wasn’t is false and only serves to demonstrate his ignorance.
However, please note that NIST’s claim of “Stage 1” of collapse is a lie. Free fall occurred with sudden onset:
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/11/video-analysis-of-nists-claim-of-a-5-4-s-collapse-time-over-18-stories-for-wtc-7/
Thanks, I will read your paper. I just wanted to clarify about free fall as, your research notwithstanding, many people seem under the impression that it fell entirely at free fall. At least in the official research that is not what happened. I look forward to reading your work.
They would have had to fall much more slowly than observed just to account for overcoming the momentum of each floor one at a time. There would have been no potential energy available to pulverize the concrete, break the columns, and throw beams hundreds of yards. There are even other reasons to show CD. And the NIST admitted there were 8 floors worth of freefall in building 7. That could not have happened in a gravitational collapse.
If we are to believe that J4 could melt the steel beams, then the building should have toppled to the side that the plane entered the building since the explosion and the J4 was unevenly distributed to the side of the impact. You want to call the conspiracy theorists nuts, when just simple common sense along with some knowledge can go a long way here.
They had that year to plant explosives in the elevator columns. As for the outer columns, it would have only taken a couple of weeks, the time during which unaccounted white vans were parked around the building, to replace the trash bins and fire extinguishers on the columns with fakes containing radio controlled shaped charges.
Give us your experience and/or cites proving your claim tjth it would require more than a year to plant explosives! Are you at all familiar with nanothermite? Obviously not! What do you know about DEW and/or tactical neutron explosives? Nothing? Yes, that is evident!
In a building half the size of the wtc WITH free reign it took 8 months. With the wtc they’d have to operate at night only…..so it makes sense. Also numerous scientists and engineers have debunked the myths 9/11 truthers put out. It’s up there with holocaust denial in how offensive it iss
Of course, you must rely on the terms to silence your critics! This is no different than the “chosen ones” using laws to criminalize the questioning of the historical myth they conjured up to justify their many criminal activities since the beginning of man!
andy is a giant goof, I’m sure your mother is very proud
‘adamsyed It’s amazing how much evidence can be removed from an investigation by just calling it false, staged, planted ,people are lying, etc. I wonder how many people like yourself actually realise that you are doing that. In fact it not only removes the evidence , it converts it into evidence for the ‘inside job’ theories, because now all these things are false , staged, planted, people are lying. Every piece of evidence can be converted into the opposite of what the evidence suggests by just calling it false. It’s sad, if you think it’s sad that people who say they are looking for the truth are never going to find it because it contradicts something they want to believe. They have found that they have the power to just make a past event into something they want to believe. You can’t change a past event. It’s in the past. But you can go through the evidence for the past event and fit it perfectly into any theory you like, by eliminating the evidence that doesn’t suit the theory by calling it false. This is now more evidence for the theory because it means evidence is being falsified.
The worst thing that could happen to people in the 911 truth movement would be to find out they were wrong. But they are determined not to let that happen.
If you go to Chandler’s website he has refuted the “flyover” thesis already. He published a paper he going through it. It is not willfully ignored, but rather actively challenged. Here is that paper based on analysis of flight paths which refutes the “north of the Citgo” theory:
http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Chandler_NOC_Refutation.html
All due respect to the panel, but “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” is not achieved.
Certainty is not achieved. Probability is not achieved by this ‘closure’ motion.
It is an Official narrative/position, backed by STATES evidence. Well or ill presented.
Until ALL evidence is properly adjudicated – cross-examined – contested – in a courts of Law, under oath, and on -the-record, this remains a highly polished, published, but open, narrative.
Given the fact that 911 is a fantastically sophisticated false flag operation as already established by the building behaviour forensics; that the Pentagon would not be, can be argued as against the flow of probability. Either way, until ALL evidence is made available for proper (due diligence) contest, ALL differing evidence chains remain, untested, and viable .
Especially NOC.
You cannot bring closure to an issue that remains open by virtue of the fact.
The 9/11 “truth” movement is straight out of the Three Stooges,throwing haymaker after haymaker and hitting only themselves in the face.
When you consider that they are actually still stuck in the LaBrea Tarpits like some demented woolly mammoth regarding the collapse of #7,it’s a wonder they haven’t all dried up and blown away like a bunch of tumble weeds.
Dollars to donuts that if we scroll down these comments we’ll find the usual cast of idiots rattling on about Larry Silverstein pulling the tower and then scamming his insurance companies over the settlements.You just cannot make up stuff as stupid as that crowd.
The free fall collapse of WTC 7 means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
The FDNY knew it would collapse by 2 PM and created a perimeter.Since it is inconceivable that the oral testimonies were faked or that the FDNY is part of a conspiracy I urge you to look at the paper I linked (wtc7lies) and carefully investigate what the the real experts on burning buildings,the FDNY,say about #7.
Proof of foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC 7 hardly belies the fact that its free fall collapse means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
This thread is about the Pentagon. If you wish to discuss WTC 7, search FPJ for any of the articles on that topic and comment there.
As I said to you earlier,Mr. Hammond,I merely wanted to respond to responses to my comments,among them are some from you.Curious that you fire off an argument in response to my points and then lecture me about not arguing the point.
I’ve made my points and don’t plan to continue.However,if someone responds over the next days to anything I’ve said I trust that you will allow me to respond.
The argument against/for demolitions at WTC are related to this thread,by the way,so I don’t really get your narrow definition of boundaries.
By the way,the building had only a brief period of free-fall during its 15 second global collapse,which can be explained by the unusual construction of the building.
Thanks.
Please stay on the topic of the Pentagon. If you’d like to continue the discussion of WTC 7, do so on one of the articles on that subject.
That’s the fourth time,are you a robot?
If you have something intelligence to add to the discussion of the Pentagon, you are welcome to do so. As you seem disinclined to, you are on notice for trolling. Final warning.
What could I add to John Judge or Mr. Wyndham? The pathology that they expose and the #7 rubbish are part and parcel of the problems inherent in this issue.
Anyone wishing to learn more about the controlled demolition of WTC 7 can find more here:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/?s=wtc+7
Great, then we agree you’ve had nothing intelligent to add to the discussion. Glad to come finally to a resolution.
andy, it’s better than anything you have to say
ANDY IS A GARBAGE POS SHILL, not hard to see, you’ve been warned
this guy goes to all the 9/11 truth sites to discredit them. Apparently people can’t believe things on their own, they need to be told by shills
Wow. What a fantastically juvenile strawman argument. I didn’t say that the energy went away. I said “The free fall collapse of WTC 7 means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.”
So let me reiterate for you what that means: it means that all of the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. And, since you obviously don’t have a clue about simple high school physics, let me explain further what that means: An object in free fall can do no work, as all of its gravitational potential energy is being used in accelerating the object toward the ground. Conversely, if the mass of WTC 7 had been doing the work of buckling columns, it wouldn’t have been in free fall.
So, once again (and perhaps this time you’ll be able to comprehend): The free fall collapse of WTC 7 means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
The laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11.
Now, if you’d like to discuss the subject of WTC 7 further, please search FPJ and find one of its articles on that subject and comment there. The topic of this thread is the Pentagon.
I have no doubt that you’ll eventually “comprehend” that the FDNY testimony obviates all of the computer modeling that biased scientists proffer.It’s actually a no-brainer.
And,why is it OK for you to argue the demolition case but not OK for us?
The only computer modeling that biased scientists have proffered that I’m aware of is NIST’s.
If you’d like to discuss WTC 7, do so on one of the FPJ articles about that topic. The topic being discussed here is the Pentagon. Last warning.
Puh-leeze Mr. Fennerman! I’ve been banned from every 9/11 website,from the ridiculous (Infowars) to the sublime ( Russ Baker’s site) in my efforts to sound an alarum that the controlled demolition stuff is a dead end and easily dismissed by a general public alerted by more substantial stuff.Quite simply,it’s a cult and has the perspective of a fruit fly.It has no awareness of the plethora of evidence and arguments that render it useless and self-immolating.The sheer amount of dunces who actually still trot out the “Larry said to pull it” boggles the mind.Something tells me you’re on board that racist train.
Hell,even Richard Gage subscribes to that malarkey.
Like every other self appointed “leader” of the discussion of these important issues you have every attribute of the Bhagwan Shree Rashneesh’s security staff,who helped keep his saucer eyed followers from the information that he was banging every sannyasin in sight,criminally importing hash by the truckload and spending all you and your folks’ hard earned donations buying a fleet of Rolls-Royces.
The fact that you keep arguing the issue while feigning stringent moderation coins you as everything that’s wrong with the 9/11 movement.A movement which has crab-walked itself into a corner and metamorphosized into the nutty,dead-enders Controlled Demolition Cult.
Not only is it beyond ridiculous that you utterly reject the testimony of the firemen who were there that day,it is truly sad that you have so little confidence in the serious information that has been dug up over the past 15 years which hasn’t been argued against,much less debunked.
A lack of confidence so profound that you lurch absurdly towards the least provable and,indeed,the most easily disproven,speculative plank that has poisoned the movement for years.
If you think I could give a hoot about your hapless,weak minded warning then you really don’t have a clue.
Since only a paltry few still tune into sites like yours,911truth or 911blogger etc. I understand that I’ve already hit the few dozen here with all the nutritious beef stew (‘wtc7lies’ paper and “WTC Not a Demolition” video on youtube and the oral testimonies of the FDNY concerning #7) they will need to extract themselves from the morass you all are in.
You can threaten me with Soviet style censor all you want,all it does is show your slip and reinforce the reputation of the “truth” movement as a nutty bunch who drove themselves over to the outskirts of the lunatic fringe.
The only thing I have to say to you is that your pretentious butt can take a flying fuck at a rolling donut and you should spend more of your time disabusing the numerous schnooks from the absurd,anti-Semitic powered argument about your cult’s Sacred Tower 7.
Well, now you’ve gone and gotten yourself banned, here, too, for violating the terms of use of the comments section.
Wow andy, so many words, but so little to say. Go back to your pathetic little life please, you’re a giant goof shill
You’re not aware of much except the moldy rotting talking points that have been amply shown to be misinformation,when not disinformation.
Take a hike,son.
Threaten your kittens and goldfish and threaten Richard Gage for the major malfunction of falling for the “pull it” slander,numbnuts.
andy = goof shill
+Jeremy R. Hammond ‘An object in free fall can do no work.’ Are you expecting it to? Are you expecting an object that is in free fall to be at the same time buckling supports? The fact that is in free fall means that the supports that were holding it up are no longer. They have already buckled. That’s why it is in free fall. Saying the supports buckled because of explosives is an assumption and is the least likely scenario in the circumstances. What happened after the short time it was in free fall? Was that not controlled demolition? According to Tony Szamboti of AE911 truth after the short period of free fall the building would crush itself to the ground. So all that is in dispute is what started the building falling. Was it explosives or was it support columns buckling and giving way after huge physical damage and a major fire compromised it’s structure. Twenty three videos of WTC7 collapsing and there is no evidence of explosive detonations. If explosives were used to cut the columns of the building then the columns would be cut. AE911 truth and Richard Gage said they have no evidence of cut columns.
This is nonsense.
It is emphatically not an assumption. It is a logical conclusion based on the facts and the hypothesis that best fits the evidence. Again, free fall means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
It was not support columns buckling and giving way, and we know that for a fact for the reason just provided. Ergo…
On the contrary, every one is evidence that the building was brought down deliberately.
The evidence was destroyed by the government. Hmm… But not all of it. In fact, there were structural elements from WTC 7 that had been melted. Office fires don’t do that to structural steel. FEMA actually documented one of these beams in its initial report, which NIST then denied the existence of in its own report, which is riddled with scientific fraud.
‘An object in free fall can do no work.’ Are you expecting it to? Are you expecting an object that is in free fall to be at the same time buckling supports? The fact that is in free fall means that the supports that were holding it up are no longer. They have already buckled. That’s why it is in free fall.’
This is nonsense???
An object in free fall can do no work. It therefore can not be ‘doing any work’ by buckling the supports that were previously supporting it. The supports are not being buckled while it is free fall. That is why it is free fall. There is nothing to support it. The supports have already lost the ability to support it.
In the 23 videos of the collapse of WTC7 there are no sounds of explosions to be heard. There is no evidence of cut steel afterwards. It would have been visible and obvious everywhere from the time the dust settled.
Controlled demolition is not a structural scientific reason for the collapse of a building. It’s a non-structural reason to do with people planning something. That is an entirely different area to science or physics and doesn’t require an engineer or architect to judge or tell people about the credibility or likelihood of it.
See my previous comment.
See my previous comment.
I did. You just repeated the same fallacies I already addressed. Hence me referring you to my comment before last, which you’ve failed to point to any errors in, either in fact or logic.
Large plane, perhaps. 767 or 757, definitely not. You don’t need to look past the initial photographs to tell that, unless the plane had exotic weaponry directed at it, a 767 could not have crashed there. The hole is too small for it to fit, and the debris outside is too sparse to make up for it.
That’s simply wrong.
There are some glaring items of omission found in this “scientific process”. I ask the reader, why in the world would the scientific method use a fallacy of omission as part of its process? Because that which is omitted, destroys the hypothesis, that is why. For starters, this article relies upon unconfirmed and outsourced eyewitness accounts lifted from media outlets without any confirmation of said accounts. Many have been already been determined to be inaccurate or outright fabricated or determined to be unable to see the impact and the break down can be viewed here: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82 and here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22741 Strike 1. So much for this part of the scientific method. This “scientific method” COMPLETELY ignores the manufactured FDR and the 89 RAEDS radar data. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html and http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html. I wonder why in the world the “scientific method” complete ignored this damning evidence of a non-impact?? Strike 2.
Strike 3-AVOID THE FOLLOWING AT ALL COSTS! Yet the eyewitnesses and their views here: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/cit-response-to-david-chandler-and-jonathan-cole-pentagon-statement at the bottom of the page HAVE been collaborated on video with their own drawings, many of which were first revealed in the Center For Military History publications. You can’t have the official story and these confirmed eyewitnesses at the same time. I and many others contend this is exactly why the Pentagon did not release any of the videos that might shed light on the issue. This article also relies on the entire anti-CIT crowd which I find hilarious for a cointelpro movement.
So I flew planes for 20 years and after I found out that these Saudis couldn’t land a cessna — Your ” theory” ain’t going to fly with this old pilot.
Can you prove that Hani Hanjour was not flying the plane that hit the Pentagon?
No, but the Government said so- LOL – I’ve had several friends die flying and one hit a mountain going full throttle – Of all the plane crash’s I’ve seen — the tail feathers were always looking at me as I’d fly over the remote crash sites. Didn’t see any on the Pentagon crash pics- tho
If you can’t prove the Saudis were not flying the planes on 911 then you can’t say they were unable to fly them. If they were flying them they they were able to do it. I presume if you were doing an aerial search for a crashed plane and you saw wreckage but didn’t see an intact undamaged tail , you would have flown on and ignored it.
Colin, you have the burden of proof backward. Logically, you can’t prove a negative. It’s up to the one making a positive assertion to provide evidence to support it.
I think I could prove that a plane didn’t hit my house today. The people making the positive assertion are those who say ‘Hani Hanjour’ was incapable of flying the plane that hit the Pentagon. The way to find out if someone can do something is for them to try it. Hani Hanjour was either flying the plane or he wasn’t. If he was flying the plane then he was capable of doing it. If he wasn’t flying the plane then he would never have tried it. Either way no one can say he was incapable of it.
The people making the positive assertion are those who say he was — a dubious proposition:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/04/17/al-qaedas-top-gun/
Funny, they left out the one fact which represents the strongest case against supposed “Muslim terrorists” executing this attack on the Pentagon: the fact that the flight school instructor where Hani Hanjour did his flight training noted that he was INCOMPETENT, and could barely fly a basic plane similar to that of a Cessna (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html).
Yet he was able to execute this rarely ever performed maneuver of flying a huge jet so close to the ground? Yeah, ok.
“It’s time for the 9/11 truth movement to resolve its Pentagon debate […]” Why? What for? What 9/11 problem must be solved now? Irrespective of what intelligent people think about the 9/11 Pentagon attack, the facts are that 9/11’s key act of terror, the televised disintegration of the Twin Towers and their remaining occupants, was the product of a controlled demolition, that a coalition of government agencies from FDNY to USAF conspired to cover it up with Osama bin Laden’s air show and fraudulent reports, and that just about every institution, anywhere in the world, that would reasonably be expected to explain the above, has not done so.
The questions of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 are interesting and may even be important, but are not essential to learn 9/11’s fundamental teaching: the failure of ostensible watchdogs to bark. Anti-neoconservative governments, engineering organizations, Muslim institutions, anti-war intellectuals…all have gone out of their way to not teach 9/11’s essence as the largest false flag in history and arguably the most obvious one.
Incidentally, the comments show that this article will not close the Pentagon debate, as they offer many non-stupid arguments against the author’s analytical method. This is another reminder that educating the general public on the 9/11 Pentagon attack is hopeless and that Building 7 is much more promising.
Love,
People who talk about ‘CIT’ and their flyover theory and think they have to provide some detailed technicial arguments against it are really missing the point. This CIT theory has been in the public domain for maybe a decade and I have yet to see anyone point out clearly and precisely that the argument they put forward is illogical. It breaks basic rules of logical deduction that apply to investigating anything and therefore has no credibility. I can’t understand why this hasn’t been pointed out and why people either criticised their ‘methods’ and their attitude or how they interviewed witnesses etc. when the whole problem is a theory based on illogical deduction..
This is true of the general conspiracy culture. It makes no sense: “they” are hiding the truth about the September 11th attacks and will kill 3,000 people in a “false flag” attack…but somehow allow Alex Jones and other conspiracy websites exposing the truth to exist? Talk about illogical.
IMO couple kinds of people get wrapped up in this bs:
1. “Someone on the Internet is Wrong” rationalists who get sucked into debating CTs because they “cant’ even”. Most of them miss the point: the entire thing is a fraud and no one is obligated to debate a fraud.
2. People with a (usually alt-right) political agenda who want to spread conspiracy culture even if they don’t believe in it.
Fortunately, with the current dumpster fire in the White House, it takes the wind out of the sails of most of the “the NWO Jews Killary rigged system!11 !Eleventy!11” conspiracies.
Most, but not all.
The government doesn’t want the true facts of why 9/11 really occurred!
Um, “the gummint” is currently headed by a “truther” or “truther enabler” and his merry band of idiots who support a plethora of anti Semitic conspiracies. So, logically, if they believed this crap, they wouldn’t be suppressing anything.
The truth is there is nothing to suppress because there is no conspiracy.
Every myth has it’s soft spot, that part of the story that is taken for granted, accepted as fact, but when examined closer it conflicts with the rules of science.
It is assumed that kinetic energy and jet fuel were the only energy factors at play to disintegrate the large airliners into no more than confetty, passengers vapourized and were blown to bits of bone.
Jet fuel does not detonate, the combusuion of jet fuel is called deflagration. The “woof” you get when igniting a dish of flammable liquid such as gasoline is a deflagration.
Deflagration is, a relatively gentle process which is simply the rapid burning of the fuel. One of the primary attributes of deflagration is that the flame travels at a speed significantly lower than the speed of sound.
Detonation however is a far more powerful reaction of the air/fuel mixture and results in such a rapid reaction that the pressure-wave created travels at super-sonic speeds.
In effect, a detonation is a violent explosion and as such it produces vastly higher pressures than the simple burning process of deflagration.
What would take place if a bomb/explosive is detonated in a jet fuel rich environment? Fuel air bombs use this principle, the shockwave of these type of explosions is devastating.
The detonation at the Pentagon
It was the total disintegration of the plane, and the detonation at the moment of the crash, that maybe was investigated, FBI and NTSB were on the scene, but never fully explained and put into a report.
Whatever caused that detonation, was more than just jet fuel alone.
The detonation at the Pentagon is further evidence for the use of explosives. The shockwave of the explosion, was felt by people driving by, their car was blown sideways, the sound was described as that of a bomb, an artillery shell that detonated, the destruction inside the Pentagon was the result of a massive blast wave.
There is no report
The 9/11 commission report never touches on these 4 detonations, NIST and FEMA only talk about jet fuel and kinetic energy, the Pentagon building performance report talks about a fuel-air explosion but only explains it as having come from the jet fuel. A fuel-air explosion is not the same a the combustion of jet fuel alone. There is no report on the Shanksville crash.
There is no report that has ever examined these 4 detonations. Leaving out these detonations and the resulting shockwaves in all reports clearly shows that there was something never to be discussed in a scientific way.
Small pieces
There are few people in the truth movement that have analysed the crashes of the 4 planes, and asked the question of what could have caused the total destruction of these planes to that extant that we only see relatively small pieces of the aircrafts scattered over large areas, the force that was necessary to disintegrate these planes and the result does not compare it to other normal plane crashes.
An extra explosive device was needed
The heat factor reported at the Pentagon, the ‘hot spots’ at Shanksville and the molten metal that dripped from the South tower corner, made me to think that incendiaries were used in these crashes, and that is were i started to dig into nano thermite and its use in thermobaric explosives.
I am curious, what others have to say about the 4 crashes, for i am convinced that these planes were prepared with some special features. Imo it were regular passenger planes added with some weapon system to accomplish that extra blast and enormous heat production.
“It is assumed that kinetic energy and jet fuel were the only energy factors at play to disintegrate the large airliners into no more than confetty, passengers vapourized and were blown to bits of bone.”
The planes did not disintegrate into confetti, there were large pieces of fuselage , engine cores, undercarriage , wheels, all kinds of debris. The passengers were not vapourised and reduced to bits of bone. The myths are ones produced by people who make up the myths.
What possible logic would be involved in doing anything or adding anything to the planes to produce something that would be inconsistant with planes crashing?
A detonation took place at the same moment the planes crashed, the fusalage of all 4 planes was reduceced to confetty, small pieces that were scattered over a large area in all directions by the super sonic last wave.
“All human remains were found within a 70-acre (the size of 53 American football fields) area surrounding the impact point. Somerset County Coroner Wally Miller was involved in the investigation and identification of the remains. In examining the wreckage, the only human body part he could see was part of a backbone. Miller later found and identified 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling about 600 pounds (272 kg), or eight percent of the total. Investigators identified four victims by September 22 and eleven by September 24.They identified another by September 29. Thirty-four passengers were identified by October 27. All the people on board the flight were identified by December 21. Human remains were so fragmented that investigators could not determine whether any victims were dead before the plane crashed.”
“Miller later found and identified .. eight percent of the total”.
Passengers remains vapourised.
I presume you think using the word ‘vapourised’ means there were explosives. When bombs explode in Baghdad or Kabul are people vapourised? Are suicide bombers with actual explosives physically attached to them , in a belt all around them , are they vapourised? Are the people around them vapourised? Or do the unfortunate people who have to clean up afterwords have to pick through the bloody mess of limbs and skulls and guts and take the injured, who were lucky to be not so close to the bomber, to hospital. Do you serious think the kinetic energy of a large airliner combined with the energy released by the fuel required to get that plane across the continental US , all of that energy released in less than a second, would not fragment and shred that plane and it’s passengers?
Confetti are small pieces of paper a few millimeters in diameter. There were large pieces of all the planes recovered ,including engines and landing gear and sections of fuselage.
You presume to know what happend to 92 percent of the passenger remains , mabey give us a clear explanation as to why those remans never were found Colin.
Passenger remains were spread over a large area, the size of 53 American football fields, eight percent was fragmented into 1,500 pieces, an explosion did take place, absolutely.
It’s the type of explosion that was never investigated. All evidence points to a detonation, and not just a deflagration, when jet fuel burns into a fire ball.
You presume to know .. what the government never explained.
I don’t need or expect the government to explain the obvious. I use my own common sense and that tells me that heavy engine cores and undercarriage and fuselage sections are not confetti otherwise many marriages would end at the church door. What I assume is that people are not stupid and would think the way to make people think something happened is not by actually having it actually happen but instead to create convoluted complex unworkable plans to make something entirely different happen.
Your common sense is not an official report.
You have to be incredibly credulous to believe the official narrative regarding events at the Pentagon on 9/11, a narrative devoid of evidence and no more plausible than NIST’s explanation for the demise of Building 7.
For a start, no Boeing could continue to fly straight and level after colliding with light poles. The plane would have immediately dived into the ground and exploded right there at the roundabout the moment its wings were ripped apart and its fuel tanks ruptured by impact with the light poles.
And the debris field of the disintegrating aircraft would spread out, not converge to a point that punches a near perfect circular hole in a wall. The people peddling this nonsense have one objective, which they achieve with admirable success, and that is to create discord within the truth movement, the 9/11 research community or whatever you want to call those who are sincerely seeking the truth about 9//11.
Ultimately this topic becomes pointless, futile and irrelevant.
One thing i don’t understand is that the planes were apparently full of people. Presumably they had relatives, there was coroners involved and death certificates. So were the planes full of people hijacked by terrorists using box-cutters. Did the relatives sue the airlines or was compensation paid. I do not know the track record.
“. The physical evidence, such as the five downed light poles, confirms
that a large plane did fly low. In addition, many witnesses actually
reported that they saw a large commercial jetliner, identified as a
Boeing 757, fly low and close to the ground.”
The first line makes no sense if you are looking at this scientifically. The downed light poles dont prove a plane hit them, it proves the light poles were knocked down around the same time the pentagon took a hit from something.
Also, shouldnt THOUSANDS of witness seen the plane fly low and hit a building in Dc of all places?
Where are the cadavers? Corpses. Human body parts? I dare say this article clamoring for Closure on the debate is an agent provacateur CIA clonedrone fossil fooled murderer also, part of the reptillian darkshirt acadamy anxious to move on vs. NEVER FORGET the pet goat.
Here is the only footage officially released by the Govt. from the Pentagon on 9-11. They only released it because Judicial Watch sued them under FOIA. No plane do I see…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAaP4Z3zls8
I know I’m late on this, but I’d like to point out that this was rush hour at one of the bridges that crosses from VA to DC, and I395 is 6 or more lanes across right there. Over 200,000 cars used this stretch of highway every day in 2001.
There are also all the on/off ramps, the high density streets all around, Crystal City with its many high rise buildings, etc. There were a LOT more than dozens of witnesses, a LOT more than 180. I don’t know how many cars were sitting in the parking lot that is I395, and all the other surface streets, and in the Pentagon parking lot, at that time of day, but just imagine over 6 lanes and HOV and all those surface roads (etc) sitting still for miles in all directions. I would think that would be in the many hundreds, if not thousands. As to Crystal City, it’s a densely packed area of high rises with many windows facing that direction.
And one of those witnesses was my boss at the time, who was sitting in that traffic almost directly under where the plane crossed I395. We worked in Crystal City. So this is a sore point for me when people deny it was a plane.
Thanks for the great article, I wish more people understood this.
Total Bullshit. Many people describe what they saw as a missile. And why would there be “small piece of debris on the lawn with the Airline logo?” Did it come apart on the way into the buidling? That makes no sense. And why were people picking up the debis hours afterward? Wasn’t that a crime scene? And why… a fuck nevermind…. The Scientific Methold assumes that you are also using common sense. It doesn’t work otherwise.
https://youtu.be/j850peLZKwE TROLLS EVERYWHERE! Cognitive Dissonance abounds! Not enough tea in China to make me believe a plane hit that building and I trust the expert unpaid Pilots for 9/11 and the Architects and Engineers and so many other people who worked so hard to get to the truth putting in so many hours to put together wonderful videos!!! I don’t have even the tiniest doubt about the real truth and who was behind the murders on 9/11 and the reasons for it. Guess they thought the fluoride works better than it does.
The most telling part of the to and fro-ing in the comments is that the Conspiracy Theorists all hid behind nom de plume/made up names which show they lack the courage of their “convictions” like the gutless bastards that they are. You are a waste of space and your opinions, like you, are worthless.
87 (?) cameras on not ONE could get a clear shot of a SEVEN FIFTY SEVEN ???? Think about that for a second. Think about the building in question and its importance. End sarcasm. There HAS to be video footage. We are not talking about toy-sized object here! It’s a freaking plane!
Also, this plane would have had to have had a long run-in, where many more witnesses from further out would have seen it. Research what a plane needs to do to be able to land precisely. Controlled movements and slow descents. To get to ground level without crashing earlier, by a relatively inexperienced pilot by airliner standards I am assuming … It didn’t just appear a few hundred meters away, and at ground level. I am not a conspiracy theorist nor have read anything about the stories before today, but the evidence just doesn’t add up. I am an aviator and engineering graduate by the way. I’d be very surprised to see true footage of a plane plowing into that building. the wings? There is no evidence of them even hitting the building, and they certainly didn’t “snap back” along the fuselage and go in the hole; too much momentum. They’d shear off and smash into wall. Try and walk through a door with your arms out the side… And lack of aircraft parts, except the nice shiny piece, coincidentally with markings on it? I also have aircraft crash investigation training and all this seems fake to me, but again, I wasn’t on scene.
I HOPE THE RUSSIANS REVEAL THEIR SATELLITE IMAGES OF NO PLANES USED IN THE 9/11 ATTACK, 48 HOURS AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF 2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS MISSING FROM THE DEFENSE FUND AND WHAT PART OF THE PENTAGON WAS HIT ? OH THE ACCOUNTING SECTION TRYING TO FIND THAT MONEY ? THE OWNER OF THE TWIN TOWERS AND HIS FAMILY MISSING THAT DAY FROM THE BUILDINGS ????? YEAH RIGHT !
No conspiracy this large, could be kept under wraps, with all the blabber mouths that would’ve been involved. When people know something, they talk. I’m going to guess that everyone that believes the missile theory, also believes in the Illuminati.
http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/conspiracy.html#numbers
Wouldn’t the orchestration of the attack by insiders have necessitated the involvement of large numbers of people?
Not in the execution of the attack. A conspiracy can involve different levels of complicity, with knowledge of the complete plan limited to a few individuals. There are plausible scenarios of the attack as an inside job in which the number of such individuals is smaller than the number of individuals accused by the official conspiracy theory of “sleeper cells” directed by Osama bin Laden.
High-ranking officials in the government have at their disposal several tools that Osama bin Laden would have lacked, such as detailed knowledge and control of the military’s disposition and response to the attack, and access to the military’s and intelligence agencies’ hierarchical and compartmentalized command structure designed to execute complex operations with individuals working on a need-to-know basis. Compartmentalization is an organizational tool long employed by intelligence agencies. 1
The speculative scenario outlined in Attack Scenario 404 explains how the attack might have been carried out by as few as twelve individuals.
Exactly. First, the number of people “in the know” would not necessarily have to be large due to the ability of a central core of plotters to compartmentalize information. Second, even if we assume everyone knew, it would not follow that therefore it couldn’t have happened. The Manhattan Project required a very large number of people, and yet the nuclear bomb they were working on remained a secret.
The masters of “squaring the circle” Sounding scientific and professional doesn’t make you so, and even scientists and professionals can lie. Reality doesn’t hold contradictions and the official story is full of them. Show me a video with a 757 hitting the pentagon and I’ll believe “the official conspiracy theory” otherwise, please, don’t insult our intelligence.
The assertion by Scientists for 9/11 Truth that Sandia National Laboratories’ F-4 Phantom jet test reflects what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 is utter nonsense — http://www.twf.org/News/Y2017/0830-Closure.html
The F-4 Phantom jet test is not relevant to what happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
The F-4 test aimed to investigate the impact of a jet on a wall of reinforced concrete 7 meters (23 ft) square and 3.66 meters (12 ft) thick representing a containment building at a nuclear power station — not the outer wall of the Pentagon.
According to the Pentagon Building Performance Report (page 6): “The perimeter exterior walls of [the Pentagon’s] Ring E are faced in limestone and backed with unreinforced brick infilled in the concrete frame. Nearly all remaining exterior walls are 10 in. concrete.”
Nixon’s foreign policy advisor: “9/11 UNVEILED . . . is the best short summary of what most Americans and virtually all of the rest of the world consider to be the 9/11 mystery”.
FREE at http://www.twf.org/Library/911Unveiled.html — 100,000+ downloaded
Eyewitness accounts ignored by John D Wyndham
Video, transcripts, etc at http://www.twf.org/News/Y2010/0911-Pentagon.html
Just minutes after the alleged attack, standing in front of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Jamie McIntyre, CNN’s senior Pentagon correspondent since November 1992, reported to Judy Woodruff: “From my close up inspection there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. . . . . The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage — nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.”
McIntyre continued, “If you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that all of the floors have collapsed, that didn’t happen immediately. It wasn’t till almost 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.”
Later that day, McIntryre said, “I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane.” Pentagon impact hole closeup
A few years later McIntyre claimed that he had been taken out of context. Jamie McIntyre’s original account of September 11, 2001 is confirmed by several eyewitnesses.
Other Eyewitnesses
Bob Pugh, freelance photographer, who filmed the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, said in his videotaped account, “I’m looking for wreckage, . . . I can’t see anything that I recognize. I can’t see the tail, I can’t see the wheel, I can’t see the engine. There’s no chairs, there’s no luggage there’s no logo. . . . The largest piece I saw was may be 2 by 3 feet . . . The foam trucks were beginning to show up . . . [the hole] was 16 feet diameter, 20 feet tops.”
Lt. Robert Medairos, Arlington County Police — watch commander for the day, who stated (ABC 7, Washington, D.C. September 13, 2001, 3:25 PM), “They said it was a plane, and I didn’t see any pieces of any plane, and I couldn’t believe a plane hit the building.”
Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski, who from her fifth-floor, B-ring office at the Pentagon, witnessed “an unforgettable fireball, 20 to 30 feet in diameter” confirms McIntyre’s account.
Writing in “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” Kwiatowski noted, “a strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘missile’.” (DoD News Transcript, October 12, 2001)
Pentagon employee April Gallop, whose “desk was roughly 40 feet from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wall” stated in a sworn complaint (before the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York): “As she sat down to work there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.”
Whey are these guys moving the evidence instead of preserving it for investigators? http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0307-Pentagon.html
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/913efbc7d6cea99e7b0d2896be15f709b043bbd843b4aa5fdbc24d401f98ccff.jpg
Where’s the plane?
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2010/0911-Pentagon.html https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4171763fd01edd5ede2f4944f454e4a124beb76c283d845b252b02915487bfaa.jpg
The assertion by Scientists for 9/11 Truth that Sandia National Laboratories’ F-4 Phantom jet crash test (the author’s first test of his hypothesis) reflects what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 is utter nonsense — http://www.twf.org/News/Y2017/0830-Closure.html
John D. Wyndham, founding member Scientists for 9/11 Truth, claims to bring closure to the 9/11 Pentagon debate. A decisive test of Dr. Wyndham’s hypothesis is the Sandia National Laboratories’ F-4 Phantom jet crash test.
Dr. Wyndham writes (Foreign Policy Journal, October 7, 2016): In the F4 Phantom jet experiment, a plane was propelled at high speed on a rocket sled into a massive and impenetrable concrete wall. The plane was completely fragmented into small pieces. This experiment supports the fragmentation of the Boeing 757 plane parts that did not enter the building.
The F-4 test aimed to investigate the impact of a jet on a wall of reinforced concrete 7 meters (23 ft) square and 3.66 meters (12 ft) thick representing a containment building at a nuclear power station — not the outer wall of the Pentagon.
— http://www.twf.org/News/Y2017/0830-Closure.html
It remains one more riddle to be solved.
First, a few misconceptions, how Hitler came to power. Then the riddle will follow:
Hitler was not elected, but was appointed. He was appointed “chief of government (chancellor)” by the (elected) mighty Reich’s President, who at any time and without justification could fire him (like 26 chancellors before Hitler had been fired by the two Presidents).
The President had the authority to rule on “special decrees”, in case Parliament’s decisions were blocked, had the authority to temporarily suspend basic rights and freedoms and also was able to dismiss the Parliament (to prepare new elections).
Suspended basic rights on the request of the Parliament immediately had to be restored.
The balance of powers in the Weimar Republic therefore were between President, chancellor, government and Parliament.
There was one flaw in the constitution: When President Hindenburg died, according to Article 48 of the constituiton, Adolf Hitler, the chancellor, was to replace him. Article 48 said: ” In case of “non-availability of the President, he will be replaced by the chancellor. If that “absence” will be of “long duration”, some special legislation has to take care of that problem (which never came into existence)”.
By the death of President Hindenburg Adolf Hitler became President and chancellor in one, with the power to rule by special decree, to suspend basic rights and freedoms and to dismiss Parliament. The balance of powers completely erased, nobody was left to dismiss chancellor Hitler or to request re instatement of basic rights and freedoms.
Perfect dictatorship based on the German democratic constitution, which made it difficult to impossible for anyone, to resist.
Now compare to the USA:
There is no “chancellor”. The (elected) President is chief of government, meaning: “always chancellor and President in one”.
Special decrees and suspension of basic freedoms and rights have some similarities in the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts.
The US President however cannot dismiss the House of Congress.
If the 4th plane, which didn’t make it into its target, would have been aimed at the Capitol, not the White House, where the Congress had a meeting during the time being, a situation quite similar to Hitler’s coming into power would have been created.
Dictatorship based on a constitution.
Difficult to impeach.
My riddle therefore is: was plane No. 4 proven to have been aimed at the White House or could there have been another target?
Just release the videos. Period. Until then, this debate will continue.
What kills me about articles like this is one how it brings unnecessary division to an already bad situation. First of all, the people in the Pentagon say pieces of the plane and the blades. 2nd, they saw body parts as the we’re escaping. 3rd, you clear as day see a piece of the plane hit the light and I think an engine part hit a truck. Finally, families had all of their questions answered and even were allowed to see the bodies.
speaks a thousand words
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/39b2822a8c5f2fc9ba029188a64587a7305347b58d24cf466799f585d102d1b2.jpg
Hi John,
I need to correct one of your statements regarding the position of the 9/11 Truth Action Project (911TAP.org) on the Pentagon issue. On this issue, 911TAP takes the same approach as that of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. We neither argue for nor against the large plane-impact position. Our focus is on teaching the public about the controlled demolition of the three skyscrapers in New York on 9/11. We have no interest in getting tied up in debates about what hit the Pentagon.
The evidence section of our website that covers the Pentagon has this to say about it:
“The 9/11 Truth Action Project does not have position about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11”
The link is here: https://www.911tap.org/evidence/what-about-the-pentagon
I respectfully ask that you remove this mention of 911TAP from your article. At this point in the evolution of the 9/11 Truth movement, it is detrimental to the mission of 911TAP to be identified with either side in the Pentagon debate.
Thank you. I will also contact you by email also.
Best Regards,
David Fura
Member of the Board
9/11 Truth Action Project
I’m seeing this from both sides. To me, it sounds like there were two planes. One flying slightly north of the Citco the other on the south path that impacted. I remember there were interviews a few days after 9/11, with some people in Arlington National Cemetery that saw a plane fly away. Everyone’s eyes were more than likely on the fireball and never saw a flyover. But looking from a different direction, you’d see both, a plane flyover and a fireball. It’s the same as a magician’s slight of hand, misdirection. No need to argue.
And where is the wreckage?
This is a shameless piece of disinformation. Quite simply, the massive engines of a 757 hang 15 ft below the nose. According to the official story, the nose hit the pentagon at ten ft off the ground. So…why didn’t the engines plow up the lawn? And how could a bulbous soft metal airliner pierce through a reinforced concrete and steel mesh wall? This is in complete violation of Newton’s Third Law.
What a garbage article, As at the towers, there was no hijackers, no hijackings, no planes, no plane crashes. Just explosives, lying witnesses and collusion from the media. Fake light poles. Fake Taxi can. Bogus explosion in the video. Why would they need smoke generators if it was a real plane crash? No real debris. 150 seats passengers. Two huge 6 ton engines. at least ten large pristine 757 tires. Claim that the plane was entirely consumed by fire, total baloney Planted junk in the building looks like it came from the landfill. Why would they change their modus operandi from the towers? Confiscated and never made public videos. National Security my ass! Covering their ass is more like it. Cover up by the fBI. I will gladly debate anyone foolish enough to try.
Some minor problems with the official story. The flight path would have been impossible to follow. Why not just fly straight into the building? And where are the videos of the plane? And where are the engines?
The official story on the “crash sites” on 9/11 is still pathetically unbelievable to this day.
Only the biggest patriotic rubes and brownnosers buy this bunkum. No planes, just a lot of murdered Americans.
Who wrote this drivel. Nothing proves a plane ever hit the pentagon. This sounds like it was written by the criminals that did the crime in the first place.
Someone the government found to continue to mislead the people.
The planes fake radar track takes it over the White House, but not a single witness reported it. What a farce.
I know that there was an airliner, because I know and believe an eyewitness to it, who however could not see the actual impact. However, the taxi driver was interviewed saying the light pole in his cab was planted the night before. Also, this article does not reconcile the two different flight paths. I can accept the airliner being remotely controlled, as it makes the most sense. There will be no rest until all questions are answered and the confiscated videos are released.
“While the 9/11 truth movement generally agrees on what happened in New York City, ”
I’ve been asking for a long time for someone from the 9/11 “Truther” side to give me a chronology of events that took place from 9/10 to 9/11 to result in the events that we witnessed that day, but I’ve yet to see anyone make the attempt. The only chronology we have of those days is what the official government report gives us. “Truthers” are great at throw out random claims about suggested isolated events, but apparently none of them has ever assembled a coherent timeline of events necessary to result in the outcome we saw that day.
You say that explosives were used? Where did they come from? When did they arrive? Who placed and prepared them? How long did that take? What kind of explosives were used? Who triggered the detonators? Do you know that thermite is not explosive? Do you realize that you have absolutely no evidence or coherent defense of your wacky claims?
More yellow journalism and lies! Just like the NIST and 911 reports! Anyone with an IQ above room temperature, and who has done any meaningful research, KNOWS that the official story and anything close to it is complete BULLSHIT! I could easily rebut this horseshit article but I won’t waste my time because people who want to believe the LIE cannot be convinced no matter how much evidence is provided. Tell us all about the physics of “conservation of momemtum”, genius! That’s just for starters plus, explain the numerous, documented cases of vehicles, (WTC buildings) spontaneously bursting into flames, several blocks away or how the buildings turned to dust or how WTC 7 collapsed from minor office fires yet, it’s collapse was announced, by major MSM, 20 minutes before it came down in it’s own footprint! If just one of the stories about any of the 4 incidents of 911 are proven to be a lie, then ALL ARE LIES…PERIOD!
Simply put a neocon statement long before the fact stating what they need is a “Pearl Harbor” like event proves that we now have a new super-power, the power to get what we wish for. The rest is just arguing over the details. Except that the same power may have existed at the time of the actual Pearl Harbor event. One thing is true for sure, they wished for something like this to happen, death and destruction or the appearance of it. Either for it to truly to happen or to fool us into thinking it did. Either way it looks like something is rotten in NYC and DC.
Fully involved? Is that the oxygen starved fire emitting thick black smoke that you refer to? There was no way the fire and single column failure caused a global collapse at freefall speed.
This exercise in rationalisation of the Official Fairy Tale, masquerding as an appeal for unity in the Truther movement, self-destructs in its claim of taxi driver Lloyde England’s cab having been hit by a light pole impacted by AA77 as it flew across the bridge.
Various versions of this claim are circulating in the False Truther camp, but it matters not whether the plane was actually AA77, nor whether either Pole #1 or Pole #2 is thought to have been the culprit.
The False Truther Brigade claims Lloyde England and his cab for their own, as eye witnesses to the plane flying across the bridge on its path into the Pentagon. Patronisingly, they excuse Lloyde’s “confusion” as to his location at impact, on his advanced age. They reserve the right to cherry pick the circumstantial proof of location of the cab FULLY 11 MINUTES AFTER THE IMPACT from Ingersoll’s photo series while rejecting the consistent verbal, physical and geographical testimony of Lloyde England himself. They ignore corroborating testimony of other eye witnesses who locate Lloyde England elsewhere at the moment of impact. They ignore the character witness of his wife Shirley England, who was always cognizant of and supported his claim to have been elsewhere than the bridge at impact.
The truth is that neither Pole 1 nor 2 hit the cab.
Lloyde England was nowhere near the bridge when a pole of dimensions approximately 12 feet x 4 inches diameter as he several times demonstrated, and drew on a sketch of the cab provided by Russell Pickering, suddenly speared his windshield “like a javelin “, entering dead straight on, at a considerable angle.
Lloyde testified,
“It was DRIVEN DOWN, AT A ANGLE.”
This statement alone is fatally incongruous with a light pole hit by the swept-back right wing of a speeding plane crossing the highway at an acute angle, at an elevation low enough to cut off a light pole about 30 feet above ground level, then somehow projecting that pole far to its left to impact the cab which at 40 or 50 mph, must have been quite a distance from its position photographed 11 minutes later. Had such a trajectory even been impossible, already defying the rule “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,” the height of the pole above the windshield would by then not have met this “DRIVEN DOWN AT A ANGLE” criterion.
Lloyde stated that he saw the plane for only a split second as it flew across him, and that he did not know where the pole came from. Had he been nearing the bridge when a plane approached on a collision course across the Official Flight Path, he would have had a clear view of it for several seconds.
But as Lloyde repeatedly stated, showed on photographs and overhead maps, and very specifically pointed out on two drive-bys of the area, he was driving north of the heliport, approaching the Columbia Pike exit sign, when the plane suddenly appeared above him from behind the tree-topped cemetery bank, and a pole impaled his windshield. “Glass was everywhere” as he locked up the wheels and the cab came to rest beside the cemetery retaining wall, 350 yards north of the bridge, at 9:37 a.m.
Fortuitously, although almost all traffic southbound had been blocked off at this time, there was a car traveling on Lloyde’s tail. Its driver had the presence of mind to exit his car at the exact spot where Lloyde’s cab had been hit, and to begin taking a series of photographs within a minute of the impact. Although this motorist gained much notoriety from the photos which he published on the internet a few hours later, he studiously avoided including any reference to the presence of Lloyde England and his taxi. His name was STEVE RISKUS. He took photos from various locations, having to frame them carefully and deliberately to exclude Lloyde and the cab.
However, his second photograph shows the highway littered with shattered glass, and some black skid marks veering across the lanes, directly north of the Columbia Pike overhead sign.
Riskus was not the only one to record imagery proving Lloyde’s testimony correct. A very amateur videographer began shooting video at 1 minute 35 seconds post impact, as he/she walked from the north entrance of the Pentagon, around to the footpath opposite the heliport. From this vantage point, 7 seconds of shaky footage were taken aimed across the highway towards the cemetery wall. Against this bright backdrop, beyond lanes of traffic and a concrete barrier, Lloyde England’s black Capitol Cab can be identified. Although the images captured from the 30 frames per second footage are of poor quality, there enough of them to validate Lloyde’s own testimony.
Here is a list of identifying features.
The car is black.
It is in the southbound lanes beside the cemetery wall.
There is a distinctive roof light on the top of the car, consistent with the Capitol Cabs style.
The driver’s door is ajar. Its interior features are a perfect match for images of the Lincoln Continental Town Car, 1990 model. They also match the interior driver’s door of Lloyde’s actual cab, as seen on the video “The Eye of the Storm”.
The profile of the front panel and bumper of this car is a perfect match for the 1990 Town Car.
Features of the side dashboard match both 1990 Town Car photos, and images of Lloyde’s own cab.
The distinctive quarter glass of the rear side window of the Lincoln Continental is seen in many frames.
The right rear side window of Washington cabs bore a mandatory blue sticker advising fare charges, as seen on video of Lloyde’s cab. This dark rectangular shadow is obvious on the video images.
Capitol Cabs were black with an orange stripe running along the side beneath the windows. This can be discerned on several video frames.
The distinctive 1990 Lincoln rear door handle is identifiable from the video.
The rear doors of Capitol Cabs bore a large white logo. As the videographer moved south along the highway, this unique logo came into view.
Lloyde England stated that a stranger driving by in a white van, stopped and helped him pull the pole out of the windshield. There is a white van parked about 20 yards in front of this cab on the video.
Steve Riskus’ red sedan, as identified in his own photographs, is parked just around the curve from the cab.
Detective Don Fortunato stated in his two testimonies that he pulled up across the barrier from a taxi cab which had had its windshield “knocked out by pieces of pole”. Fortunato’s silver sedan is parked in this position relative to the cab – both in this video, and later again on the bridge, in every other photo taken.
The lower half of a person can be made out, clad in dark pants which show up against the bright concrete wall, standing in front of the bumper, in the position which Lloyde demonstrated that the stranger was in when he helped remove the pole.
There is a diagonal pole through the cab, extending from about level with the front bumper as Lloyde demonstrated and drew, and extending into the back seat, in many video frames.
This segment of the video was taken at 9:41 – 42 a.m. Lloyde testified that as he was removing the pole, there was another explosion, and as he turned to look at it, he fell down beneath the pole.
Another photographer, Daryl Donley, captured an image of the secondary explosion, which he stated was about 4 minutes post impact. At the end of this segment of silent video, the videographer very suddenly spins around to capture the action at the impact site, as tnough something had caught his/her attention at that moment.
Throughout the seven second segment, a black tow truck is seen waiting directly behind the cab.
About 30 seconds later, the videographer aims the camera to the south, and an identical black cab can be seen in the far distance, stationary across the southbound lanes on top of the bridge.
All these details, and many more from this one video, 100% support Lloyde England’s true testimony, corroborate the North-of-Citgo Flight Path, and destroy the Official narrative.
But there are numerous other videos taken concurrently, all within the first 10 minutes post impact, which show the scene from other viewpoints, record the transport of Lloyde’s cab from the cemetery to the bridge where it replaced the decoy cab at 9:44 a.m., and fill in many other details of the staging of the bridge-cab-pole scene.
This recently-analysed video evidence is what the 9/11 Truth Movement has needed all these years.
The unfolding story can be viewed at my thread on LetsRollForums.com, titled
LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED WITH NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOTOS AND VIDEOS.
What is really tragic Adam, is how Lloyde England’s testimony has been misconstrued and misrepresented by all sides since Day 1.
We have CIT to thank for obtaining Lloyde’s frank and full description of what happened to him on 9/11, but they failed monumentally in disregarding this valuable witness’s true account, and painting him as an operative.
Lloyde England was the first witness Aldo and Craig ever interviewed, but they approached this with considerable bias as evidenced by Aldo’s many prior forum posts where he was already making accusations against Lloyde long before ever speaking with him.
At the end of the interview seen in “The First Known Accomplice”, Aldo asked,
“And when the pole hit, you were on the bridge, right?”
Lloyde’s face shows astonishment that anyone could have imagined such a thing.
FIVE TIMES, LLOYDE SAID, NO!!! when Aldo repeatedly tried to get him to say he was on the bridge.
When Russell Pickering was questioning Lloyde about the dimensions and position of the pole through the windshield, Lloyde clearly corrected his grandiose gesticulations and said,
“NO, IT WAS DOWN HERE,” showing how the pole extended from the back seat, only as far out as the front of the hood.
This is also exactly as Lloyde illustrated the pole on Russell’s sketch of the cab, and showed Craig on the actual cab which they visited in The Eye of the Storm.
Lloyde’s testimony was consistent throughout. Inexperienced, biased interviewers Craig and Aldo filtered his responses to their leading questions and outright false accusations, through the misleading Jason Ingersoll collection of photos, which proves only that Lloyde’s taxi cab was located on the bridge 11 MINUTES POST IMPACT, and that Lloyde himself was there 18 MINUTES POST IMPACT.
Prior to this, we have Lloyde’s testimony :
“I KNOW WHERE I WAS … THAT’S NOT WHERE IT HAPPENED”.
Lloyde England was libeled and defamed mercilessly thanks to the circumstantial evidence of the Ingersoll collection, and most especially thanks to CIT’s deeply flawed treatment of Lloyde’s story. Now he is also being defamed by the False Truther camp, which protests that Lloyde and his taxi are crucial witnesses to AA77 flying across the bridge and into the Pentagon, while ridiculing his testimony as to his location at impact as false due to his geriatric “confusion”.
The truth, as has now been analysed on numerous FOIA-released pentagon videos, is that a 12-foot x 4 inch pole impaled Lloyde’s cab as he was driving southbound, north of the heliport.
A white van is recorded on 3 videos and numerous photos, arriving from north of the cemetery, passing Lloyde’s cab, parked in front of the cab, departing the cemetery site about 3 minutes later, driving towards the bridge, parking on the bridge, then leaving the scene.
A stranger did indeed help Lloyde remove the pole, and then took off again after a secondary explosion occurred.
A waiting tow truck and trailer loaded up Lloyde’s cab after the attending detective pushed Lloyde to the ground, and “ran him off” from his taxi.
Videos show the taxi being relocated 350 yards from the cemetery to the bridge, between 9:43:12 a.m. and 9:45.
Rumsfeld’s bodyguard was monitoring this action from the sidelines. When the tow truck had exited via the northwest on-ramp and unhitched the trailer there behind a guardrail and those big rubble piles (Aldo Marquis even recognised before his first interview that this was the trailer used to move Lloyde’s cab to the bridge; it is seen in the background of Ingersoll’s DSC_0420), the black bodyguard collected Lloyde in a brown jeep and returned him to his now relocated cab for the incriminating photo opp.
What a shame that Aldo did not follow up on his first instincts about that trailer, but instead let his imagination and accusations against Lloyde run wild.
Craig made a video in the VDOT depot, where he was looking at a nearly identical trailer, but they never connected the dots there.
It is time for this real truth to be factored into the story by all sides of the truther squabble.
Nobody can ever achieve any progress while avoiding this crucial evidence.
QUOTE :
“Downed Light Poles: Many witnesses saw the plane hit light poles. In all, five light poles were torn from their bases and broken into pieces. Pole pieces had considerable curvature as if hit by a blunt force at high speed, such as the moving wing of a plane. One pole piece pierced the windshield of a taxi driven by Lloyde England. The back seat of the taxi was pierced indicating how the pole piece was supported at that end and stuck out through the windshield. The separation and positions of the downed light poles indicate a plane wingspan of more than 100 feet, but less than 130 feet. The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 124 feet 10 inches.”
This is false.
No witnesses saw the lightpoles being downed by the plane.
Several people made reference to this, but they did not see it happen.
They even admitted later when asked, that they had heard this is what happened.
They had seen the images of Lloyde’s cab posed beside Downed Pole #1 and assumed that this was proof.
Perhaps they were among the drivers who were allowed to file southward on Route 27 past the cab and poles for about 3 minutes only, specifically to produce eyewitnesses to this impossible tableau.
Lightpoles taper from 10 inches diameter at their base, to 6 inches diameter at their top end.
A severed pole would therefore always have a diameter of at least 6 inches.
But the pole which entered Lloyde England’s cab windshield, did so through the 4 inch diameter hole at the lower edge of the glass, not through the gaping hole in its centre, which eyewitness to this damage, Tony Terronez, stated, looked as though it had been hit with a baseball bat.
Tony was about 100 yards north of the heliport when he heard Lloyde’s windscreen smashing, and inspected the damage personally.
The recently-constructed theory of 9/11 “Consensus” activists, that it was a lower support arm which speared the windshield, is also a desperate ploy to persuade OFT sceptics to swallow the preposterous party line. These arms are curved, yes, but they are flattened in cross-section, and are only about 2 1/2 inches in diameter.
The two impressions made on the rear seat upholstery by the offending pole are perfectly circular, smooth, and about 4 inches in diameter.
Ergo, it was not any part of a light pole mast, nor any other component of a light pole, which hit Lloyde England’s cab. The physical evidence absolutely rules this out.
The separation and positions of the downed light poles are certainly not proof that a 757 caused this.
That proves only that the 5 poles were downed within a corridor inside the width of a 757’s wingspan. Or indeed, inside the wingspan of any plane of that size.
The poles could have been pre-placed as CIT suggested.
They could also have been knocked down in real time by some other means. Poles 2, 3, 4 and 5 lay in positions which radiated outwards from a central area. Had some force in this area been applied to those poles, it would explain the inexplicable – how Pole #2 was hit by the wing of a plane moving in a northeasterly direction, yet it fell to the west.
It is obvious that Pole #1 had been dragged across the highway, as the excoriation in the tarmac terminating at its sharp-cornered base proves.
But Lloyde England, who is annexed as a valuable eyewitness by Wyndham, Chandler, Legge, Coste at al, categorically denied that the plane flew across the bridge. He was north of the Columbia Pike exit sign, opposite the heliport, near eyewitness Tony Terronez, near eyewitness Father Stephen McGraw, when the plane appeared for a split second from behind the tree-topped cemetery bank and flew over his car.
Lloyde was told that the plane’s wing cut the top off a light pole, carried this piece of pole on its wing, and that it then dropped onto his cab (in the phone interview with Jeff Hill).
But Lloyde’s own testimony was that he never saw the pole coming, that he did not know where the pole came from, and that he was not on the bridge when this happened.
This attempt to shaft all 9/11 Pentagon sceptics into the Official Fairy Tale camp needs to be loudly and vociferously exposed for the deceitful, dishonest ploy it is.
You are enough to cry “uncle’ alright. So, what is your Mossad or CIA operative number? If Americans were fooled then, they won’t be looking for you now. The only thing trying to find you now is your conscience .
He forgot to include the videos and photos of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Can’t wait for those.
the continuing disinformation is impressive, years back i watched a presentation – behind the smoke curtain, this took all the credible evidence that proved beyond a doubt that no plane hit the pentagon, in the beginning saying they would not offer other alternatives, or blame, then at the end she goes off the rails ranting about zionists, effectively discrediting (intentionally) all the evidence and information she had previously presented, it was so obvious
given the release of the new report on building 7 by UniversityAlaska Fairbanks showing the official story to be a lie, that in a perfect world would allow honest questioning of the entirity of events
Always glaringly strange there are no plane parts from the wreckage, not even of the tail section. It’s like the old UFO reports with vague images and fake evidence. Very fishy.
MyWiki, down below you say the following:
“The concrete wall moved in the video whereas the Pentagon wall did not”
If you look at the picture all the way at the top of this page, what do you see? You see an entire section of the Pentagon where the bottom two floors are just MISSING (i.e. they moved), which has resulted in a partial collapse of the floors above. What could have caused two entire floors to go missing like that, if not a large, wide, solid object traveling at a high rate of speed? It’s as if a table had the lower 40% of its legs sawed off instantaneously, and the (now shorter) tabletop just dropped to the floor.
Here’s the pic in question: https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/pentagon-911-1024×640.jpg
I’ve worked on airplanes for over 25 years. My question is specifically where did the vertical stabilizer and the horizontal stabilizer (the tail section) go? As well as the rest of the Boeing 757-200 go? The angle that is supposedly hit the pentagon would have caused the entire aircraft to disintegrate or possibly spin sideways. I’d expect to see at least the vertical stab laying on its side with the AA logo on it. I SEE NO AIRCRAFT IN ANY PICS!
I’m wondering what the government’s latest excuse is for continuing to suppress those other Pentagon security camera videos, if in fact we are reasonable to conclude that some of them, like the released frames near the guard shack, likely also give a view of some portion of the airspace around the Pentagon. Since the plane took the unnecessary risk of circling the Pentagon, almost as if the pilot wished to spare the part of the Pentagon that any terrorist would deem the most valuable target, this means the plane was in nearly every part of the sky that any pentagon-camera would have captured if any of them were indeed partially pointed toward that airspace, as a few of them likely were, even if most of them weren’t.
Or should be we believe that the people who protect the most valuable airspace in the world, never thought to use more than one camera to capture what’s going on in that airspace? They seriously thought that using just one camera to capture less than an 8th of that airspace would be sufficient? Sorry, that doesn’t wash.
What are the odds that the still-suppressed videos are still being suppressed because they show other acts that, if made publicly known, would actually or potentially compromise national security? What, does video #15 show Dick Cheney speaking in fluent alienese with a reptilian shapeshifter? I’m sorry, but when Ken Jenkins says only two of the videos “show the impact”, he is intentionally missing the point: we don’t need to see video footage of exactly the “impact”. We only need to see some degree of footage of a passenger jet flying in or near the Pentagon airspace on 9/11.
Therefore when Jenkins and others pretend that only two videos “show the impact” (see for example Maquire Declaration: “I determined that sixteen (16) of these videos did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon”) they are intentionally dodging the larger question by pretending only the specific “impact” video has any relevance to the question of what hit the Pentagon, when in fact that’s foolish, as what hit the pentagon could also be reasonably determined by looking at what was flying through pentagon airspace just previously. The question would be: do any of the Pentagon security camera videos show any portion of the sky whatsoever? If so, the fact that the plane circled the Pentagon before crashing into hit raises genuine probable cause to believe at least one of these videos might have at least partially captured this passenger jet flying through Pentagon airspace. That, and not merely the “impact video” would likely squelch the conspiracy theory that what hit the pentagon wasn’t Flight 77. Your case for protection of national security interests sucks…unless you cleverly mean that national security would be compromised if the public knew that the videos that should have captured flight 77 in the Pentagon airspace, don’t show any such thing? Gee, maybe that’s the sort of word-game being played by those with custody of the evidence?
I forgot to add that if Norman Mineta’s testimony is the least bit reliable, then because the Pentagon defense system personnel obviously recognized flight 77 was bound for their part of Washington for at least a few minutes before the plane got there, these people would more than likely have activated any dormant security cameras so they could monitor the very airspace they are tasked with protecting. Any claims that they simply didn’t think to turn on the cameras aimed in the right direction, will be dismissed as lies. The very fact that Cheney was being routinely informed about the progress of the plane flying toward the Pentagon is quite sufficient to render reasonable the inference that somebody somewhere had a video feed on Flight 77, even if only for it’s last few seconds. I will not believe the Pentagon was depending exclusively on non-pentagon video feeds, such as from the media, to help it guess at what was flying around its airspace two minutes before impact, and so long after they were fully aware such attack was in progress.
Not after the proof that America was warned months in advance that just such an attack, using airplanes as missiles, was likely to occur anyway. And not after it became public knowledge that on September 10 Bush chose to have the roof of the hotel he was staying in outfitted with antiaircraft missile batteries, something no president has ever done before or since. If indeed we had no foreknowledge of 911, what spooked Bush into thinking he might need to shoot down an attack coming from the sky one day before 9-11?
Some documentaries provide pictures allegedly of military personnel on the pentagon roof holding what appear to be large military style guns aimed upward. I’m still researching this.
@Barry Jones,
Your masterful treatment of this topic is appreciated. I applaud you for your incisive remarks about the deceitful response to all FOIA requests – which says basically, “We decided that the actual moment of impact was not seen on this video, therefore we are not going to allow you to see what was actually recorded on all these withheld videos, that would incriminate us.”
Your point about the several minutes’ forewarning of the approach of a plane being sufficient to have alerted at least someone to train all CCTV cameras on the sky, is well made. So what would any and/or all of these rooftop perimeter cameras have captured? As you point out, contrary to the Official story, which has “AA77” making its large loop entirely west of the Pentagon, the plane in fact did its loop at a much lower altitude, after crossing east of the Potomac River, passing the White House, before crossing the river again and turning northeast towards the target. All cameras on the perimeter should have captured this loop, which was witnessed or heard by ANC worker William Middleton, by heliport tower staff ATC Sean Boger and Jackie Kidd, and by charter boat operator Steve Chaconas, among others.
A sceptic would think this sufficient reason for the FBI to prevent public access to the footage from any of these 80??? Pentagon cameras trained skyward.
Citizen Investigation Team did some research on the CCTV camera footage confiscated from the Citgo gas station. There were several cameras operative, showing the station premises, including video of Sergeant William Lagasse. He is seen filling his tank, then suddenly backing out and peeling off from a bowser on the northwest corner after the impact, lending credence to his testimony of having observed the plane from that location, as it followed the North-of-Citgo path towards the Pentagon, rather than the South-of-Citgo path of official infamy. The footage from these cameras was eventually released, but the FBI maintained a stranglehold on the one video aimed at the northside flightpath and Pentagon, which, the proprietor stated, would certainly have shown the plane and the explosion.
No footage has ever been released from the videos confiscated from the Sheraton Hotel, apparently. This would definitively show the true flightpath and impact, from its lofty elevation west of the Pentagon and towering above the Navy Annex.
Has anyone ever even questioned whether the Navy Annex would have had CCTV cameras that might have captured at least some of the action? Surely it would have!
All this silence is damning.
What else could those cameras possibly have captured for posterity that They Don’t Want You To Know About?
Rooftop cameras atop the west wall of the Pentagon would have recorded the plane approaching from the west, on a flightpath fatally at odds with the official trajectory.
They would also have recorded the several minutes’ presence and activity of the military helicopter remarked upon by numerous witnesses. Are we to believe that no surveillance cameras are trained on the heliport at all times? This helicopter was picked up on at least 5 independent videos of which I am aware, mostly after the impact. However, it was recorded flying on the west side of the Pentagon a few minutes prior to impact, by the Double Tree forecourt CCTV camera. Therefore the helicopter’s presence in that area is confirmed before and after, thus necessarily during, the event, and its identity is confirmed in two high quality photographs taken by two different photographers, after the event.
Yet the presence and identity of this military helicopter has been officially suppressed. Its ID has been sneakily conflated with those friendly little blue and white Park Police helicopters which were later landing on Route 27 to evacuate victims. However, this helicopter was no small fry. It was described by one Route 27 eyewitness as looking “Important enough”. Other witnesses gave confused testimony suggesting it had actually crashed into the plane. Had its activity been benign or helpful, no doubt we would be familiar with eyewitness testimony from, and accolades to, its crew for their heroic efforts. But all is stony silence regarding the purpose, and even the presence, of this military helicopter “hidden in plain sight” near the helipad of the nation’s military headquarters.
CCTV cameras would also have recorded the moment when Lloyde England’s taxi windshield was speared by a pole as the plane flew across Route 27 at the level of the heliport, on a path perpendicular to the west wall. That trajectory was confirmed by Steve Riskus on an Italian website, where he provided testimony and marked on overhead photos, the flightpath crossing perpendicular to the wall at the level of the heliport.
Riskus’ photographs were the first taken after the explosion, and confirm his location north of the Columbia Pike exit sign, north of the heliport. Riskus was driving on Lloyde England’s tail, therefore must have witnessed the impact of this pole “driven down like a javelin” as England described it. But neither CCTV footage nor Steve Riskus is permitted to reveal this disconcerting truth. The withholding of evidence that this event occurred 400 yards north of the Columbia Pike overpass bridge, over which “AA77” allegedly flew, is not proof that it did not happen. The testimony of Lloyde England is that his cab windshield was smashed by a pole while he was north of the heliport, and the evidence on Steve Riskus’ second photograph of shattered glass and black skid marks on that piece of highway, confirms Lloyde England’s truthfulness.
As does the low-resolution amateur video taken from the lawn, showing Lloyde’s cab with diagonal pole inside it, and a black tow truck waiting directly behind it.
Pentagon CCTV would have shown us all of this, as well as the assistance given by the driver of the white van in removing the pole before he drove on down to the bridge. We would have seen an identical black Capitol Cab skidding to a halt across the lanes atop the bridge at 9:37, to hold the spot for lloyde England’s cab which would soon replace it. We would then clearly see the hasty loading up of Lloyde’s cab onto the low loader trailer, its concealment with a black tarp, the two pieces of pole being loaded on the tray beside it, the tow truck’s journey south to the bridge where it did a U-turn across the lanes to offload the cab and two poles, before driving off the northwest cloverleaf, unhooking the trailer behind a pile of earth, and heading west (at which point it was photographed by Navy Times journalist Mark Faram, nearing the Citgo station). We would see the decoy cab with its two occupants, speeding away from the top of the bridge as Lloyde’s cab arrived there at 9:44 a.m.
No Pentagon CCTV footage revealing any of this has ever been released, of course. However, we DO have two amateur videos, one taken from the lawn north of the heliport, and the other shot from behind the overhead sign on the bridge, which reveal all of these things. There is also the FOX5NEWS live, time-stamped colour TV footage, corroborated by the CCTV footage from the Residence Inn in Crystal City, which both captured many of these details.
Another source of imagery of course, is the VDOT traffic cameras along Route 27. The camera on the bridge would have had a bird’s eye view of the cab and tow truck pantomime, from the cemetery wall at impact by the pole, until the staging of the tableau atop the bridge. Other cameras further north would have captured this performance from different angles.
CIT investigated this lead, and were told that VDOT policy is not to record footage unless requested to do so by police attending a traffic incident. By then of course, the action is over, which begs the question of why there would be traffic cameras at all. It has been standard practice in Australia, since long before 9/11, for these cameras to record constantly. Traffic offences are thus photographed in real time, registration numbers of offending vehicles are identified from these images, and traffic infringement fines are automatically generated and forwarded to motorists. Is the US of A so very far behind Australia, that it does not have a facility for recording traffic incidents continuously? Especially in the Pentagon environs?
Even if not, all VDOT cameras are monitored at all times. Therefore, several staff were watching as the plane crossed Route 27, and no doubt they would then have begun recording the aftermath, at least. So why has even the post-impact footage from these VDOT cameras not been released? Is it possibly because of the Lloyde England cab – tow truck – white van – decoy cab – light pole – low loader trailer sequence which would be revealed opposite the blazing Pentagon?
Somebody must have seen this sequence of events. More than one person must have seen it, and drawn the attention of their fellow workers to this curious procession, which would by now be recording.
CIT interviewed the Operations Manager at the VDOT headquarters which was (then) opposite the (then) Navy Annex. They reported that the manager was noticeably nervous during their interviews. He gave them permission to film in the VDOT yard, where inadvertently, a trailer of the unique style and same colour as the low loader trailer used to transport Lloyde England’s cab on 9/11, was captured on one of their videos. The manager gave CIT the full high-resolution series of the Corporal Jason Ingersoll time-stamped photographs, which show Lloyde England and his cab posed on the bridge, but not until at least 11 minutes post impact. This photo series also shows the infamous “white van” attested by Lloyde England but believed by nobody, parked for several minutes on top of the bridge. They show Lloyde England himself, in the interval between his cab having been hit near the cemetery, and it’s relocation to the bridge. During this time, Lloyde was far from his cab, watching the Pentagon spectacle from the HOV lanes north of the bridge.
Another black man is seen talking with Lloyde, possibly the same man who Lloyde claimed, found a dollar bill on the road as they were walking home. Lloyde’s story of tearing this dollar bill in half, then both signing and exchanging them as keepsakes, was ridiculed by all. Yet these photographs possibly recorded that very interchange, as this man deliberately diverted Lloyde’s attention from his cab being relocated unknown to him.
The Jason Ingersoll collection then reveals the arrival of the bodyguard of the Secretary of Defense in a brown Jeep, as he angled through the traffic towards Lloyde England. A few minutes later, we see this Pentagon bodyguard, the brown Jeep, and at last, Lloyde England, clearly on the bridge near his cab. One of those photos of the cab shows the low loader trailer parked on the northwest cloverleaf in the background, with telltale tyre marks made recently on the grass by the tow truck which left it there, as it made a U-turn to exit towards the west.
Somebody with inside knowledge of this scam would be painfully aware of the significance of all these details captured so candidly by Jason Ingersoll. The general public, and Ingersoll himself, would notice nothing amiss. Someone with access to the VDOT camera footage, and the vehicle parking area at the depot, and inside involvement with the 5 DOWNED LIGHT POLES alleged to have been hit by “AA77” as it flew across the bridge, would surely suffer conflict of conscience, even if not personally involved with perpetrating this military deception. The Operations Manager, father of young children, suicided a few days after allowing Craig Ranke to film in the depot, and giving him the photo collection. Another victim of the 9/11 saga?
How come the multi ton jet engines were never recovered? Why don’t we see typical aircraft debris, like pieces of seats, cushions, tray tables, etc? Where are the wings, just absorbed into the building and gone? How come no footage of the plane crashing has ever been released, actual footage showing the plane I mean, not those few cheap frames that show nothing that we’ve all seen. The FBI immediately showed up to the nearby businesses, which includes several hotels, and confiscated their security recordings, and yet they have never been released, and instead I wouldn’t be surprised if they were destroyed. A few testimonies isn’t hard to obtain, but when you apply scientific logic to the situation, comparing it to other crashes and photos of what those crashes are like, you can easily realize how this is a farce. The perfectly green grass right in front of the fire with essentially no debris anywhere. There is that one photo of that one painted piece of scrap aluminum, but if it had flown out of the explosion area so far away, it would have scorch marks without a doubt, and of course it doesn’t show any.
At the end of the day, you need to think beyond the crash, for example; what was stored in the area which the crash happened? Don’t know? Well let me enlighten you then… the day before 9/11 the pentagon/white-house admitted that several trillion dollars had gone missing and that an investigation was underway. Guess where all the paper trail and data on that investigation and lost money was stored. That’s right, exactly where the “plane” hit the pentagon. Convenient no? After 9/11 nobody even thinks about that missing money, and even if they did there is no way to continue the investigation. You see, when you investigate a conspiracy, you have to look into why such an action might be taken to discover if there is any reason for such a conspiracy to take place. In the case of 9/11 several things were achieved all at once, allowing those who influence the two parties to plan on our entry to the middle east in a much bigger way then ever before, while also allowing for more enforceable security on the populace, and of course the hiding of stolen money (money IS power in many ways) among other things. I suggest anyone who’s genuinely interested in the truth instead of pettiness to check out ae911truth.org which is a website of architects and engineers who collectively are speaking out against the lies fed to us by the media, and instead provide scientific reasoning for why a conspiracy has taken place.
Wake up people!
What was left of the engines was found.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
I personally know four people who boarded that plane and then vanished off the face of the earth. Charlie Falkenberg and his family. We know they boarded that flight, so what do you think happened to them?
Doctor, I have to agree with this assessment. Ackam’s Razor tells us where there is smoke there is fire. You do not address the fact that it would have been almost impossible for an experienced pilot to bring the plane in as it allegedly did, discounting that Honi Honjour was barely competent in a Cessna (Read Crossing the Rubicon). The government’s argument that the videos are being held for National Security are hollow as any video of a plane impacting the Pentagon would bolster the “terrorist” point of view and most effectively discount conspriracy rumors.
If it was a plane, it wouldn’t be the first plane to hit a building. Without exception, every photo and video of these plane accidents, as well as ones not involving buildings, show recognizable wreckage. Where are the massive multi engines that would tear through the walls of the old building like a bullet through tissue paper. If the heat of the explosion was such to virtually disintegrate the bulk of the plane, why is so much of the structure and interior right next to the impact area relatively undamaged. Lamps on desk, file cabinets untouched, etc. This defies the physics of heat expansion. The time alone should have been long enough for such damage that we should have seen the tail of the plane sticking dramatically out or broken off in a large piece.
Most importantly both at the Pentagon and at Shanksville, we have never seen photographic evidence of bodies… no matter how grisly… they would have completely short-circuited any conspiracy theories about the impact.
Sorry NON-Patriot, but WTC Tower One DID smash into Building 7 and the fires did MAJOR damage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8wR9PQSPc&list=PLa2jaugRORQ1PrqM7L10P69UMQ-GaaoUw&index=7&t=0s
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7onfire.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg
What it’s really time for the so-called “9/11 truth movement” to do is accept the fact that American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 WERE hijacked and crashed into the Twin Towers, American Airlines Flight 77 WAS hijacked and crashed into The Pentagon, and United Airlines Flight 93 was hijacked with the intent of crashing it into Capitol Hill before the passengers fucked that plan up for them.
Actually, it can. but it didn’t have to.
“Scientists for 9/11 Truth” is utter nonsense, and so is “The Wisdom Fund.”
Again, “Scientists for 9/11 Truth” is utter nonsense, and “The Wisdom Fund” is not about wisdom.
Here’s parts of it:
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/PentagonDebrisMontagecopy1.jpg
Your accusations are void of evidence, johnscriv
No, thumbs down to your lying. The “scientific method” does not in fact disprove that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Only junk scientists who work for factions within the so-called “9/11 truth” cults claim it does.
Merely parroting the official party line is proof of nothing except cowardly avoidance of the true evidence.
The fact that the Arlington, VA cab driver LLOYDE ENGLAND was 400 yards north of the Columbia Pike overpass bridge when the plane flew overhead and a 12 foot x 4 inch pole ( not any component of a lightpole) impaled his cab, is proof that the plane did not fly on the Southside flightpath required to do the damage to the Pentagon, but on the North-of-Citgo Flight Path seen by all eyewitnesses.
It is proof that the plane was not involved in randomly knocking a lightpole into the taxi, but that some process was involved in a premeditated plot which selected, set up, targeted and fired with military precision at Lloyde England and his cab.
The fact that Lloyde England and his taxi, with impairing pole, were first videoed at the Columbia Pike exit road overhead sign next to Arlington National Cemetery at 4 minutes post impact, then relocated south to the bridge, where the taxi was photographed 11 minutes post impact, while Lloyde was pictured far away, is evidence of a military operation prepared and practised for such hasty action during the first minutes after the Pentagon explosion.
The fact that DONALD RUMSFELD’S BODYGUARD, AUBREY DAVIS, was seconded within 10 minutes of the Pentagon explosion to abandon his boss on the Pentagon lawn, to seek out LLOYDE ENGLAND among the crowds on the highway (a humble cab driver who was unknown to him), collect him and decant him on the bridge near his relocated cab, then supervise Lloyde for several minutes during the JASON INGERSOLL PHOTO SESSION, is proof of foreknowledge and planning of a staged tableau to give the false impression that the plane had flown across the bridge, knocking down 5 lightpoles, one of which allegedly hit Lloyde England’s cab right there in its own shadow.
Search “LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED WITH NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOTOS AND VIDEO”.
Predictive text rage incident … should read, “with IMPALING pole”.
Seeing things as the are is NOT “parroting the official party line.” Everybody in the area saw that it was a plane, and there ARE NO photos or videos contradicting this fact.
The idea that the plane didn’t crash into any of the lampposts before hitting the Pentagon is bogus, because all the photos prove that it did. Lampposts are designed to be decapitated from their bases upon collision with cars. Planes wouldn’t have a single problem causing them to fly into the air and land on random vehicles. nearby. And Columbia Pike WAS nearby.
Your claim about Aubrey Davis means nothing either. Any driver nearby who’s car or truck was damaged by the planes would’ve been sought out.
QUOTES from 9/11 Truthers R Liars on February 10, 2020 at 6:41 pm
** “Everybody in the area saw that it was a plane, and there ARE NO photos or videos contradicting this fact.”
I never suggested that there was not a plane.
** “The idea that the plane didn’t crash into any of the lampposts before hitting the Pentagon is bogus, because all the photos prove that it did.”
There are no photos of a plane hitting a lightpole.
A photograph of a lightpole lying on the ground is not proof that it was hit by a plane.
Therefore NO PHOTOS “prove that it hit any of the lampposts”.
** “Planes wouldn’t have a single problem causing them to fly into the air and land on random vehicles. nearby. And Columbia Pike WAS nearby.”
They did not “fly into the air and land nearby”.
The poles barely moved from their bases.
It is as if they were neatly laid on the ground right near their original positions.
There are no marks in the ground where these heavy poles lnded after being hit by a speeding jet.
I agree that a plane flying at over 500 mph would cause poles to fly far into the air, which did not happen here.
Pole # 1 (which allegedly hit Lloyde England’s cab) was apparently hit by the swept-back RIGHT wing of the plane, carefully lifted up and over the steel guardrail without touching it, sent flying way up the highway to the LEFT, hit Lloyde’s cab, which then skidded to a halt, bringing the pole back south again, and left the base of this pole within a few feet of its own concrete pad behind the guardrail.
What nonsense!
There is a deep scratch in the road surface, running from the opposite side of the highway to the sharp corner of the base of this pole, strongly suggesting that this pole was DRAGGED into place from across the lanes, to be posed beside Lloyde England’s cab in the photos.
The pole which went through LLOYDE ENGLAND’s windshield was no bigger than 4 inches in diameter.
We know this because the entry hole was 4 inches diameter, and the 2 imprints of this pole (it bounced) on the rear seat were about 4 inches diameter.
Lightpoles however, are 10 inches diameter at the base, and decrease to 6 inches diameter at the top.
Much bigger than the hole in the windshield, which is that SMALL hole at the very lower edge of the glass, NOT the gaping hole in the centre of it.
This pole in Lloyde’s cab was also perfectly circular, and cut neatly across at the end, as though with a metal saw.
We know this because the imprint on the rear seat upholstery was perfectly circular.
However, the cut ends of all the downed lightpoles were crushed, jagged, deformed, flattened.
The large downed lightpole lying beside Lloyde’s cab on the bridge did NOT hit the taxi, because Lloyde himself stated,
“Thats what THEY say. THAT’S NOT TRUE. You gotta understand. THIS DOES NOT SHOW IT.”
He then pointed out the other smaller pole lying behind his cab on the other side, 4 inches diameter, perfectly circular, and neatly cut across at the ends, and said,
“THIS shows the pole HERE”.
** “Your claim about Aubrey Davis means nothing either. Any driver nearby who’s car or truck was damaged by the planes would’ve been sought out.”
Aubrey Davis was videoed by at least 3 different cameras on the lawn of the Pentagon with Donald Rumsfeld, from 4 minutes post impact, 9:41 a.m., until Lloyde’s cab was videoed (by 4 different cameras) as it was being relocated from where it was hit beside the cemetery retaining wall, to the bridge, at 9:43 a.m.
Photos taken at 9:52 a.m. onwards show Aubrey Davis on the bridge near the cab, after having arrived there in a brown Jeep.
Lloyde England was not seen clearly there on the bridge until 9:55 a.m., standing behind that brown Jeep, and later next to his own cab.
Prior to this, the brown Jeep was photographed driving north towards Lloyde England, who was standing in the HOV lanes north of the bridge, watching the fire.
This means there was just 6 minutes from impact to Lloyde’s cab being moved by a towtruck and low loader trailer.
But the taxi was only moved 350 yards down the road, from next to the cemetery, to the bridge, where it was placed cross the lanes in the middle of the road, obstructing southbound traffic.
The cab was not moved to get it out of harm’s way, but to have it photographed next to that lunker lightpole which never hit it, because it was 400 yards away at the time the plane flew over Route 27.
Lloyde England was not assisted by any first responders as the unfortunate victim of a dreadful terrorist attack.
In fact, he was PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED by the police officer who arrived on the scene who PUSHED HIM DOWN, then forced him to leave his cab and start walking home.
The bodyguard of the Secretary of Defense had no business knowing anything about minor traffic accidents, much less any business getting involved in collecting and supervising the unknown taxi driver purely for a photographic session.
Rumsfeld’s bodyguard’s duty on this most significant day, was to protect and guard Rumsfeld, not to get involved in traffic accidents.
After the photographs were taken, within 20 minutes from impact, the 3 officials guarding Lloyde England and his taxi on the bridge disappeared, and Lloyde was left to arrange his own removal truck for the cab, and to make his own way home.
Another car which was further noth of the Pentagon when hit by a plane’s actuator motor was indeed “sought out” by police. They put yellow “POLICE DO NOT CROSS” tape around it, and around the motor.
Lloyde’s cab had no such yellow tape and nor did the lightpole.
In a criminal case, it is the duty of the authorities to substantiate their accusations. In the case of the Pentagon, it is the duty of the U.S. government to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, including by demonstrating:
(a) that the debris in the Pentagon belonged to the aircraft assigned to flight AA77. This must be done forensically and the procedure must be verifiable by independent observers;
(b) that Hani Hanjour had a ticket, boarded the aircraft assigned to flight AA77, knew how to fly a Boeing 767 on instruments and steered the plane into the Pentagon;
(c) that the bodily remains of Hani Hanjour were identified in the ruins of the Pentagon.
We know meanwhile that the U.S. authorities failed on all three accounts.
A government making wild accusations but failing to prove these accusations is acting in bad faith. Its story must therefore be suspect. There is actually no need to go further in order to reject the official truth on the Pentagon. There is no need for the public to determine exactly what occurred at the Pentagon. When the authorities lie about a mass-murder, they become automatically suspects. Period.
@Elias Davidsson
Bravissimo!
I hope you don’t mind, but I re-posted your comment on my thread “LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED WITH NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOTOS AND VIDEOS”, link below. Unfortunately, comments there are scarcely possible as new memberships have been closed for some time.
http://letsrollforums.com//lloyde-england-vindicated-new-t32464.html?p=279011#post279011
Bringing closure…? A plane supposedly crashes and slices a wall perfectly straight….and people are saying case closed. Really? Are people actually saying they believe airplane crashes can slice walls perfectly straight now? I can’t even the fathom how anyone can possibly believe that a plane could crash into a building and slice walls perfectly straight.
And there was 5 downed poles but what about the rest of them? There was more than just 5 poles and the downed poles weren’t at the very end.
So a 175 ft plane knocks 5 poles down but misses all the ones at the end, completely misses the trailer & wood cable spools, doesn’t even damage the grass, crashes into the wall leaving a perfectly round 22 foot diameter hole which somehow ends up becoming sliced one side perfectly straight, all while leaving the back of wall of on the 1st ring intact. And the plane itself pretty much vanishes, leaving only a few flimsy soda can looking parts, no bodies and no luggage.
And then the FBI confiscates all the tapes showing exactly what hit it but refuses to release them. The FBI claimed the tapes don’t show anything, but they refuse to release them. Why is that? There was a camera right above the impact zone, so how could it have caught nothing? It had to have caught everything. So the FBI is clearly lying. Why is that? If everything happened exactly the way official story claims, they wouldn’t hide the tapes because there wouldn’t be a reason to hide them. But they are hiding them, because they have every reason to hide them.
It’s no wonder people want to bring it to a close. The more people talk about the more questions it raises. The more time people have to think about the more they notice how ridiculous it is. Show the tapes if it happened like they say. Let us see how a plane slices a wall perfectly straight. That should make for an interesting debate.
Well then they must be telling the truth, right? Because witnesses can’t lie. Especially if there’s a conspiracy. Then they’re all bound to tell the truth. Because those are the rules. Yeah… Wow. Thumbs up to your intelligence. If it really happened the way the witnesses describe it then why not show the tapes? Why are they hiding the tapes that show it? “Oh you don’t need to see them…just believe these honest witnesses we have here telling you what they saw.” Oh Yeah… nothing suspicious or strange about that!
Let’s see the tapes so we can see how a plane slices a wall perfectly straight. Who wouldn’t wanna see that? You believe planes can crash into buildings and slice walls perfectly straight…and you’re insulting other peoples intelligence… Bravo!
Meaningless…? A plane crashes into a building and slices the wall perfectly straight. How is that meaningless? Why wouldn’t anyone wanna see that impossibility on video? And you’re saying you believe that planes can crash and slice walls perfectly straight, so why should anyone listen to you? lol
No. The reason they held them back is because they show they’re lying. Just like in Oklahoma. It took years to get them to release the videos. And when they finally did, all the videos went went blank at the same time for 4 minutes. The 4 minutes that happen to show everything that really happened. What are the odds of multiple videos in different locations all going blank at the same time? All for 4 minutes. The same 4 minutes needed to show what happened.
I happen to know one of the most knowledgeable people on Earth for explosives. He showed me the evidence of an outward explosion. He said the photos from Oklahoma prove without a doubt that the bomb was on the inside. He’s made some pretty big bombs and said there’s no way in hell a fertilizer bomb could have done that, especially in the back of a truck. Bombs don’t blow to one side either, but in all directions. If the truck really parked where they claim (after claiming it was across the street), and where the video shows them parking before going blank, then the majority of damage would have been to the other side, as well as the building across the street.
Not coincidentally, another bomb expert (an army major or general) said the same things my friend said. How lucky for the ATF/bomb squad & FBI that they moved offices to another building just months before. The face of the building was blown out. Whoever planted the bombs in the building had to have the ability to bypass security protocols and work undisturbed without drawing suspicion. Meaning someone who belonged there.