Eyewitnesses Contradict Pentagon 9/11 Story: Rock Creek Free Press

[Beam Me Up]

Source (PDF): http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/CreekV3No4-Web.pdf

Eyewitnesses Contradict Pentagon 9/11 Story
BY SHEILA CASEY / RCFP

Two California men who call themselves the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) have compiled impressive video evidence that the plane seen flying towards the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 could not have caused the death and damage at the Pentagon, nor the damage to five light poles outside the Pentagon.

Frustrated with the inability of 9/11 researchers to do anything other than speculate about what really happened that day, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis decided to take matters into their own hands. They have repeatedly flown in from southern California, canvassed the area near the Pentagon on foot to find people who saw a plane just prior to the fireball, and then quizzed these eyewitnesses extensively oncamera to establish exactly what they saw, when they saw it and where they saw it from.

...

Taken together, the 13 witnesses deliver a devastating blow to the official story about the Pentagon attack. Five 40-foot, 247-pound light poles were knocked down that day. If the plane flew north of the Citgo station, it could not have knocked down those poles. The west side of the Pentagon was damaged as if it were hit by a plane heading north, with the zone of destruction angling north. If the plane flew to the north of the Citgo station before hitting the Pentagon, it would not have caused this kind of damage.

CIT's evidence is compelling for a number of reasons. Three of their witnesses are Pentagon police officers who were on duty at the time of the attack. Most of the others were government employees at their jobs, and their presence at that place and time can be verified. This stands in sharp contrast to the witnesses who claim they saw the attack from their cars, as their presence on the road cannot be confirmed. CIT's witnesses are quite sure about what they saw. Sergeant William Lagasse, an officer with what is now known as the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, was fueling his patrol car at the Citgo station when the jet flew past him. He has stated that he is "100% sure" that the plane flew to the north of the gas station, that he would "bet his life on it."

There is a remarkable degree of congruence in the witnesses' accounts. They are not 9/11 researchers and none of them seemed to be aware that they were describing a flight path at odds with the official story, thus they had no reason to be less than forthcoming. Each was interviewed separately, yet their stories are quite similar.

...

Sheila Casey is a DC-based journalist. Her work has appeared in The Denver Post, Reuters, Chicago Sun- Times, Dissident Voice and Common Dreams. She blogs at http://www.sheilacasey.com

Full story in source PDF.

About Rock Creek Free Press

The Rock Creek Free Press is a new monthly newspaper with a completely novel take on the news. In contrast to established, corporate controlled, "main stream" press outlets, our focus will be on reporting the truth; no corporate spin, no pulling punches, no parroting of administration propaganda.

The Creek is an experiment in Community Supported Publication. We take no corporate advertising. We rely primarily on reader donations, small business advertisers and subscription sales. Your generous donation will help assure that this new experiment in alternative publishing is a success. Thank you.

http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/

[KDLarsen]

1. Let me guess..

.. the article doesn't include each of the eye witnesses mentioning that they saw the aircraft impact the Pentagon?

[Beam Me Up]

2. Actually, no.

All of CIT's witnesses also believe that the plane they saw hit the Pentagon, although this cannot be possible. This fact has been used to dismiss CIT's work as irrelevant, but it's not a compelling argument.

Less than an hour earlier, America had seen the south tower of the World Trade Center being hit by a plane and exploding into a huge fireball. Most people were aware that an attack was underway. If they saw a jet heading directly towards the Pentagon, and next saw a massive fireball, it is doubtful that one person in a thousand would question whether the plane had crashed and caused the fireball. To conclude that the fireball was caused by explosives preplanted in one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet, in an intentional false flag attack to justify war, would require observers to have a degree of perspicacity that was extremely rare in the pre-9/11 world, and only slightly less rare now.

Edit to add second paragraph.

[BeFree]

140. Interesting

These eyewitnesses who saw the plane and have recalled the angle of the plane's attack, contradict the official report's description of the plane's angle of attack!

Why in the hell would they do that? Haven't they read the report and decided that the report is more truthful than what they saw? I mean, everyone has read the report or at least seen the diagrams in the report showing the angle of attack, yet these eyewitnesses still aren't with the program?

Bushco gave us a complete and exhaustive report describing in detail everything there is to know, right? They covered all the bases even going so far as to grab up all the tapes from the cameras around the area, and even tho they haven't released those tapes to anyone, they did give us their word that there was 'nothing to see'.

So why are these people arguing with Bushco?

Heh.

[aldo]

3. As I recall most of the official eye witnesses are Christianists or have mil/intel connections

The official theory at the Pentagon is too ridiculous for words.

[hack89]

4. And of course you can prove this?

or is real evidence irrelevant to the conversation. Because I don't think you recollection is correct at all - I think that if you don't cherry pick the evidence, you will see that the eyewitnesses are a cross section of America.

[KDLarsen]

6. Hey Aldo

Do you agree with your buddy Craig when he said the following about Sean Boger (the heliport ATCO):
"He says he hit the deck so logic would dictate that he did this as the plane hit and deduced the impact considering all other witnesses corroborate his north side claim."

Also, are you ever going to tell Lloyd England that you consider him to be part of a "coverup"?

[Beam Me Up]

8. Who are "official eye witnesses"?

What do you mean "Christianists"?

[vincent_vega_lives]

10. Who the hell knows

WTF he is talking about.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. And the CIT boys show up boasting of the latest reporter they have bamboozled.

All of your key witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Hundreds of people were in perfect positions to see a flyover. No report yet of a flyover has been discovered.

The bodies of the passengers of Flight 77 were recovered from the wreckage. Flight 77 is on the primary radar tracks from takeoff to crashing.

You guys are probably quite nice people when you aren't ranting about your Flight 77 delusions. Go be nice people.

[Twist_U_Up]

38. The bodies were recovered,but plane disintegrates. Riiiiiight

you do know how silly you sound right boffin?
Go be smart people

[Realityhack]

40. Oh look a straw man. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Pieces of the bodies were recovered, yes.

As were pieces of the plane.

You are treading into dangerous territory. Be smart.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

131. did you see them?

[Bolo Boffin]

132. No, but plenty of people did.

Are you honestly saying that this is a hoax to that level? I can maybe understand someone who says the plane was shot down -- but are you honestly saying that all of that debris was staged and planted?

How about the people on board? Did they really die in your estimation? Did they really exist?

ETA: Scratch that. I thought this was about 93. I can't understand anyone on any aspect of denying Flight 77.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

133. I'm sure we will hear the real answer soon

[Bolo Boffin]

134. You have heard the real answer

That doesn't stop you from being here questioning it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

144. but it's not the real answer

[Bolo Boffin]

145. Yes, it is. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

146. no

[Bolo Boffin]

147. uh-huh. n/t

[planeman]

101. All those key witnesses saw the plane in the wrong place.

[planeman]

103. Roosevelt roberts saw a plane fly over.any comments?

[LARED]

130. Well yes, after reading his transcript on Above Top Secret

found at "http://abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread382628/pg1" (right below the ad about A Frightening 150 Page Report Into The Obama New World Order. See Now!)

I am convinced one has to be extremely gullible or quite stupid to believe he is stating he saw a plane fly over after the attack

[planeman]

151. he saw a commercial airliner near the pentagon at the time of the explosion.

you cannot disprove him

[LARED]

152. Are you moving the goalpost and now saying

he only saw a plane near the pentagon, but maybe it didn't fly over?

[Evan Sent]

156. Roosevelt Roberts

No, he saw a silver commercial airliner with jet engines banking around south parking lot, 50-100 ft over the light poles merely seconds (7 steps out to the edge of the loading dock) AFTER the explosion. Now he is scared to talk now that he realizes the implications.

[SDuderstadt]

155. Seeing as how the Pentagon is very close to National Airport....

what is so suspicious about seeing a commercial plane in the vicintiy of the Pentagon???

[Evan Sent]

161. Vicinity?

Vicinity?

It wasn't just in the vicinity, it was 50 ft over light poles in the south parking lot IMMEDIATELY after the explosion. That is the not the Reagan arrival path. That can only be one plane my friend. THE plane.

[SDuderstadt]

169. Oh, bullshit....

You're saying the plane was that close and no one else saw it? Really?

[Evan Sent]

173. Then stop feeding your bulls

No I am not saying that.

Plenty of people saw it and didn't say anything out of fear, confusion, or being sold on the 2nd plane cover story. That doesn't mean the flyover/flyby didn't happen. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

More on 2nd plane cover story:
http://thepentacon.com/2ndplanecoverstory2.htm
http://thepentacon.com/Topic5.htm


Flyover/away witnesses and connections:

1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=157
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going"
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=499
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building not directly in"
http://thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".
http://thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

174. Not his bulls, yours, and they keep grazing in the stupid grass.

Flyover witnesses - bwahahahaha!

[Evan Sent]

175. Your bull has no balls

Nice "duhbunk" there. Handwaving doesn't really count as debunking there now does it?

Maybe you can set up a site on it, then have it fail, and then take it down.

[LARED]

7. Rock Creek Press: "a completely novel take on the news"

Well they at least they got that part right.

Is Rock Creek Press a "World Weekly News" for the ct'er community?

[planeman]

102. Strange how you will believe Khalid Sheik Mohammed

and not the Rock Creek Press.Oh the irony.

[vincent_vega_lives]

9. I can think a better name for their group

Citizen's Legal Investigation Team. ;)

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Tissue? n/t

[BeFree]

14. Heh

As we have seen right here recently, eyes are tricky things. Maybe not the eyes but the brain that receives what the eyes are sending.

If I get the gist of your story, haven't seen the vid, the eyewitnesses and the story don't jibe. Not surprisingly. Right after the 'event' eyewitness accounts were all over the place.

Its great that so many are willing to get out there and discover the nuts and bolts of the event. My hat is off to them. They offer a great service to the whole of society.

[Beam Me Up]

15. It's not only that they "don't jibe" -- they are irreconcilable.

One has multiple eyewitnesses interviewed on-site, on-camera. All tell nearly identical stories. All of these stories are irreconcilable with the physical evidence.

There are only so many options here but, first, lets be clear about WHAT is being determined. The flight path and angle of approach of the aircraft alleged to have caused the physical damage at the Pentagon is a line with almost NO degrees of variance. If the aircraft traveling this line is too high, too low, too far to the left or right by even a small amount it will miss one or all of the knocked down light polls and/or create a damage path quite different from the one observed and officially recorded in the building's structural report. This has to be clearly understood. For the damage at the Pentagon to be caused by the plane seen by these witnesses, it HAS to conform to very strict parameters.

However, what we find in all these instances -- again, eyewitnesses, on-camera, on-site -- are descriptions of events that confirm one another but are irreconcilable with the physical damage observed. All of them saw the plane come directly over or north of the Navel Annex and all saw it north of the Citgo gas station. This is a line of approach at EXTREME variance (approximately 40° to 60°) with that of the narrow line DEMANDED to satisfy the parameters of the physical attack.

There are only three options: 1: They are all mistaken. 2: They are all lying. 3: They are describing what they actually saw.

Option 1 is highly unlikely. We can easily imagine one or two witnesses being mistaken but when we get upwards of a dozen witnesses all reporting the same thing, this option becomes increasingly difficult to rationalize. Moreover, if we were talking about a small difference -- say, a matter of being on a different course by 10° or less, one might expect some variance depending upon the witnesses relative point of view. But when multiple witnesses from multiple perspectives all recount a flight path extremely at odds with the one necessary to account for the physical damage "mistaken" becomes increasingly unacceptable as an option.

Option 2 is equally highly unlikely. One would have to ask, what would be the motivation for witnesses to lie? It is one thing to suspect a witness of lying when their account satisfies some agenda but that isn't the case here. In this instance all the witnesses believe (or did believe until they began to understand the significance of what they had observed -- which, up to the point of interview they had not questioned) that the plane they witnessed impacted the Pentagon. So, they had no reason to "alter" their story to fit a preconceived scenario. They assumed it already FIT the picture. However, their unanimous over Navel Annex, north of Citgo accounts are so irreconcilable with the physical evidence as to be IMPOSSIBLE. Their observations cannot be made to fit the physical evidence, period.

That leaves us with Option 3: They are telling the truth as they experienced it. They saw a plane fly toward the Pentagon on a path irreconcilable with the physical damage. None of them claim to actually have seen the plane impact but ALL of them assume that it did so because there was an explosion and many of them were aware of the events in NY, aware that "America was under attack," and therefore did not question the sequence of events. It seemed "perfectly obvious."

It is only upon closer inspection that nothing is obvious what so ever.

This is what so called "skeptics" deny, repeatedly -- that there is any meaningful or significant deviation between the official explanation and other observations. This is false. There are -- and that presented in this thread is only one example. They're on this thread like white on rice because their goal, their aim, is to keep all such discussion contained within an arena of the "unacceptable". Their tactics are obvious -- and odious.


edit clarity

[AZCat]

16. Ah, the final refuge of an internet conspiracy theorist.

When your arguments fail, just question the motives of those who disagree with you.

[BeFree]

17. Thanks for the background

Well written, easy to understand, and covers all the bases.

It must have made these folks quite incredulous to realize that what they saw and described was not reconcilable with the Official Story.

They probably didn't want to hear that fact?

[Bolo Boffin]

18. You really are pushing Flight 77 denial, aren't you?

:rofl:

[BeFree]

19. Really, just an open mind

IOW, I have serious problems with the Official Story. There are way too many things that just don't make sense.

Like with this thread, eyewitnesses who are at odds with what you believe?

Why is that? Why would they be at odds with you? Do you know any of these people? Do they piss you off? You seem pissed off.

[jberryhill]

20. While you were out....

It's not the first time that CIT/Pentacon has been around this particular block.

There's a tendency not to appreciate that not everyone is wearing the "been there, done that" t-shirt when a golden oldie comes around.

CIT relies uniformly on witnesses who saw an airplane hit the Pentagon, in order to conclude that an airplane did not hit the Pentagon. I mean, okay, they have some people who disagree on flight path, but that's not really much of a big deal.

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. well, gee, when you put it that way... ;)

I gather they argue that anything these eyewitnesses say that appears to mean "I saw the plane hit the Pentagon" must be interpreted to mean "I have to assume that I saw the plane hit the Pentagon, since I saw it headed toward the Pentagon and then there was an explosion." Something like that?

That move actually could make some sense, depending on the context. In this context it appears to require a big plane to disappear and something else to take (almost) its place, so it always amazes me how angry some people get that it isn't widely accepted.

I'm curious: has someone who isn't committed to the "Pentacon" angle given Lagasse a chance to try to reconcile his north-of-the-Citgo memory with the other things he remembers and how they match up with evidence on the ground? For instance, I believe he recalls the plane hitting some light poles, and the record seems clear about what light poles were and weren't knocked down.

[jberryhill]

24. Yes, you nailed it...

Their memories are only fallible when they don't agree with Aldo's flyover theory.

[Beam Me Up]

25. "Isn't the whole point of 'research' to figure out the truth?"

Since you are so fond of Skinner's statement: "Isn't the whole point of 'research' to figure out the truth? In the search for truth, isn't it important to start with facts that are factual?", that you wear it in your signature, lets establish some facts, shall we?

Do you agree that the approach angle that knocked down the light poles and the damage path within the Pentagon is a line from which any aircraft causing it could not have varied more than a few feet? Do you regard this as a "fact" from which we can begin or not?

Now, do you agree that the CIT witnesses actually exist and that they have made the statements recorded by CIT (regardless of what conclusion one might draw about the significance of these accounts, if any)?

Will you allow the establishment of any facts from which further discussion can develop?

[OnTheOtherHand]

41. a bit tetchy, are we?

I've spent years myself trying to get DUers to follow simple arguments, so I know the feeling, at least.

As far as I know, the approach line that corresponds with the broken light poles and the damage path within the Pentagon is uncontroversial. And I have no reason to doubt that "the CIT witnesses" actually said what they appeared to say on camera.

The discussion rapidly moves on from there -- in fact, I had already moved on from there. So it appears to me that your questions were disingenuous. But it's probably just because you are so sure that you have a winning argument.

[Beam Me Up]

43. I'm certainly no "tetchier" than many who have posted on this thread

(and to which I will not reply).

I've spent years myself trying to get DUers to follow simple arguments, so I know the feeling, at least.

We have something in common.

As far as I know, the approach line that corresponds with the broken light poles and the damage path within the Pentagon is uncontroversial. And I have no reason to doubt that "the CIT witnesses" actually said what they appeared to say on camera.

Am I to take "uncontroversial" as a "yes" agreement to my question -- that the approach line can not vary by more than a few feet?

The discussion rapidly moves on from there -- in fact, I had already moved on from there. So it appears to me that your questions were disingenuous. But it's probably just because you are so sure that you have a winning argument.

How does this comment help us? I'm not being "disingenuous" at all. I'm trying to do precisely what your sig line suggests: establish facts from which discussion can proceed. This is not a "game" to me; this isn't about "having a winning argument" for me. At this point it is about whether or not you and I can establish some basic facts. It appears we have established that the CIT witnesses said what they said (without taking that any further); that, in other words, they aren't hoaxes of some sort. They are real people, actual witnesses who believe they saw what they have reported. It also appears you agree that the line of approach is very specific. Is this correct?


edit html

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. that's certainly true

Many people have been arguing about this subject for many years, I surmise.

Am I to take "uncontroversial" as a "yes" agreement to my question -- that the approach line can not vary by more than a few feet?

I'm sorry, but I think this is a strangely naive question. How would I be in a position to have direct knowledge of the physical evidence? I have a day job. I said what I believe: that this issue is uncontroversial. If someone wants to come along and harangue me for believing the OCT about which light poles were knocked down, well, whatever.

You appear to be asking me to repeat myself, which I decline to do, or to restate myself in your words, which I also decline to do, without disparagement to your Socratic method. Can we please get on with it?

ETA: I don't think this is a game either. As far as I know, none of your critics does.

[Beam Me Up]

60. I don't wish to harangue you for your beliefs.

Is that what you sense I'm doing? If so you have my sincere apology as it is not my intention.

You used the word "uncontroversial" which threw me perhaps because we live in different information streams. In the information stream I inhabit, the official flight path is not controversial but well established. However, within that stream, whether or not a plane was witnessed flying that path, or even could have flown that path aerodynamically, is a matter of considerable controversy. I have no idea how familiar you are or how familiar you wish to become with that controversy (actually three separate but related controversies). If you have no interest then I'll forebear any further discussion out of respect for your right to believe as you wish.

[OnTheOtherHand]

63. fair enough

I'm not asking you to forebear any further discussion. I think I've been pretty clear.

[Beam Me Up]

70. Very well then, I'll try my best.

I'm beginning to understand you are somewhat new to all this. I don't know you personally so I just don't know what you're aware of and not. As stated elsewhere in this thread, my interest in this began years prior to 9/11 (and actually dates back to the JFK assassination when I was a teenager). As my signature indicates, I'm very influenced by the writings of Peter Dale Scott (and others) who look at the world from a perspective that is quite different from that of corporate news. Just giving you a touch of background about where I'm coming from.

Overview: You know what we were told happened at the Pentagon. However, even from the beginning, there were conflicting reports about what happened. On the morning of 9/11 most TV coverage was focused on the video of the second plane strike and, subsequently, the building collapses and the horror of it all. Very traumatic for all of us. Simultaneously we were hearing about an event at the Pentagon that was initially reported as a "bomb" or "truck bomb" that had gone off somewhere near the heliport. For some time there was no live TV coverage of the situation. If my memory is correct, by the time live coverage from the Pentagon scene was made available, the outer facade had collapsed and it was around this time that the plane impact story began to be reported. Even so, reports were a bit "odd" because there was no large, obvious, plane debris found outside the Pentagon as one might expect. Apparently, as with the WTC, the plane had completely penetrated the building leaving little wreckage outside. Even witnesses on the scene didn't see any plane debris. If you look at the video links in the posts #28 and #62 below, you'll see what I mean.

Suffice it to say fairly early on a controversy began to brew among some online about whether or not AA Flight 77 had struck the Pentagon as reported -- and has continued ever since. This controversy has been compounded on many fronts and, I believe, intentionally by some for the purposes of obfuscation and cover-up. It is to be noted that in-depth inquiry and investigation by those who wone could argue have both the means and responsibility to do so was not, and has not been forthcoming, leaving it to citizens to dredge through photographs and on-line video and, in the case of CIT, to undertake the investigation on their own. The obvious down side being lack of resources, absence of professionalism and, ultimately, the necessity of being able to put witnesses under oath and and cross examination. No such inquiry has or is ever likely to take place.

If you read the 9/11 Commission report, you find that the information presented therein about what transpired at the Pentagon is very slim (a few pages) and most of that is based (and at times inaccurately represents) a "flight path study" that was commissioned by the FBI via the NTSB (National Transportation and Safety Board). Much of this "flight path study" was derived from data accessed from the Flight Data Recorder (in all cases apply "allegedly" here) from AA77, found inside the Pentagon rubble, turned over to the FBI and subsequently to the NTSB (chain of custody) for analysis. The NTSB generated its report, a comma separated value (CSV) file and a "flight simulator" animation from this data.

Toward the end of 2006 (if memory serves) several groups petitioned the NTSB via FOIA for this data for independent analysis. I believe one of the reasons this was requested is because the NTSB generated animation of the AA77 flight path showed some irregularities that were quite astounding -- especially toward the end on the approach path just prior to impact. This animation, if I recall, was made public and put up on youtube prior to FOIA requests for the CSV file (I could be wrong about that). In any case, this government released animation posed more questions than it answered because 1: The data from which it derived ended approximately one second prior to impact; 2) the heading on which the flight was recorded appeared to be North of Citgo (NOC) and (if all that wasn't enough to drive one bat-shit crazy) at an altitude FAR too high to have hit the light poles -- indeed, hit the Pentagon at all! Oh, yes, and it should be mentioned that somewhere along the way the "four frame parking lot security camera video" had also been made public, allegedly showing the impact (the first any had seen) of AA77 into the Pentagon. This latter is remarkable more in what it does not clearly show than in what it does (perhaps). In any case although one could quibble indefinitely about what it does or does not show the one thing that was quite obvious was that whatever "it" was, was perfectly horizontal, barely skimming the Pentagon lawn. In other words, not proceeding on a visibly downward trajectory.

Needless to say controversy in certain circles of which I am very much apart became rampant. This is a truly WTF!? situation. How is it that we have five light poles knocked over and a damage path within the Pentagon -- and now a few frames from a security video that seem to more or less substantiate one another BUT data from an FDR which substantially contradicts that physical and photographic evidence? As if all that wasn't bad enough, one group of investigators was sent the "raw data file" from the (alleged, never forget) FDR. This "raw data file" had NOT been requested by the FOIA and, moreover, was a large read-out of unformulated data that could not be analyzed without a) access to very specialized FDR reading software (not publicly available) and what is called a "frame rate layout". Nevertheless, through a bit of skullduggery, some researchers were able to acquire both the necessary software and the frame rate layout so the data RAW data could be read out, looked at and analyzed. Although this data differed somewhat with the CSV file it did corroborate it in certain respects, most significantly giving us what is called "radar altitude" (altitude as determined by onboard radar rather than barometric or other sources). Again, this last altitude reading showed the plane FAR too high to have hit the Pentagon, much less the light poles.

To complicate matters even further, during this time CIT began their on-foot investigation interviewing witnesses on camera -- most notably the Pentagon police officers at the Citgo gas station, both of whom emphatically reported having seen a plane that was 1) more consistent with the FDR data but completely inconsistent with the physical damage (and video).

Now, I'm trying to present all this as factually as possible. In doing so I have to report that there has been and continues to be considerable controversy about what all this means. This is why I say there is more than one controversy. The physical damage flight path is incontrovertible. We know where the plane would had to have been to cause that damage. Witness accounts are very controversial (as seen in this thread). Equally controversial is the analysis of the FDR data, what it actually says and or means, with some arguing through various means (wrongly, IMO) that it is NOT inconsistent with the physical damage, where others are quite adamant that it is and can not be reconciled with the physical damage. If the former is true, there is no controversy. If the latter is true, then then we have a paradox: The data being analyzed could not have been found inside the Pentagon by light of the fact that the aircraft generating it could not have impacted it. All these maddening controversies (and more detailed ones than I care to even approach here) continue to this day.

I take the position that what we have here is evidence of a cover-up at the Pentagon. I believe the FDR data is fraudulent in whole and was likely made public to engender precisely the kinds of controversies it has. This hypothesis is based on the observation that when one is dealing with a counter-intelligence operation, controversy is acceptable because it can never lead to the establishment of fact that is prosecutable. In line with this, I believe (and I have no problem admitting this is a "belief") that the entire Pentagon scene was "controlled" -- including a fake attack plane which did not hit the Pentagon. (I reserve the right to amend this belief based on evidence not yet uncovered). But, given a plethora of peculiar facts ( e.g., the unlikelihood of a taxi cab being struck by a 200+lb, 40' long light pole having been sent flying after impact by an aircraft, allegedly traveling in excess of 500MPH, without shredding it to bits, killing the driver who walked away unscathed with little more than a punctured windshield and no scratches on the hood), it seems to me the only rational explanation. Something happened and we do not know what it is. But that is just my opinion based on immersion in all this for several years.

Currently there is considerable discussion about whether or not a plane COULD HAVE done flown the flight path demanded by the physical evidence even if it were on the correct flight path. This controversy hovers around the fact that there is an antennae (VDOT) directly in the flight path up-hill next to the Navel Annex. The plane would had to have cleared that object and yet pulled out of a dive such that it could hit the light poles AND continue across the Pentagon lawn without slamming into it before hitting the Pentagon. Much of this discussion is even more technical than the above -- far beyond my capacity to comprehend beyond an intuitive grasp of the problem. We're dealing with the aerodynamic constraints of an airliner, not those of a fighter jet.

The upshot being, as it often is in these cases, one chooses whatever one wishes to believe based on what information one is willing to accept. We have witnesses who emphatically put the plane on the wrong flight path to do the physical damage while nevertheless believing the plane impacted; we have only one "real" (IMO) "fly-over" witness and he isn't particularly "friendly;" we have FDR data that ends about one second prior to impact point but, in any case, seems to contradict the physical damage on multiple points; we have a taxi that "ought" to have been shredded but wasn't; we have witnesses who say they saw the impact -- but did they (can they be verified?); we have a few video snapshots that show nothing conclusive except something traveling level across a lawn.

Now, I ask you, why don't these pieces fit together easily? This is the problem i have with the whole thing. They don't. It really ought to be quite simple -- identified and identifiable wreckage (via FOIA request we know the NTSB did NOT correlate numbered plane parts against maintenance logs to positively identify the plane in question because "the identity of the aircraft was never in question"); close-by eyewitnesses that saw what they would had to have seen, FDR data that corresponds, feasible aerodynamics, etc. BUT we don't have that. We have a conundrum -- and whenever I see a conundrum this deep, this complex, this so closely tied with "revolutionary change" in both domestic and foreign policy -- I come to the conclusion we're dealing with a coup d'état level crime of State.

But, then, maybe people like bolo are right and people like me are just insane.

Or, then again, perhaps we're meant to think that.

How's that for starters?

Forgive me for typos, etc.

[OnTheOtherHand]

80. hmmm

I'm not sure how neatly you should expect the pieces to fit, given that we're talking about at least one large object hurtling by at very high speed and smashing into a building. We may have different priors there. In social science, we don't expect all the data to dovetail very well.

The FDR anomalies are interesting. I can't make any sense out of forging data that don't match the physical evidence -- I suppose a deliberate effort to sow confusion is a plausible hypothesis -- but I doubt I will have time to cultivate expertise in interpreting those data.

In general, I think it's reasonable to point to anomalies and insist (if it's true) that they are unexplained, and that can be a useful activity. However, multiplying anomalies without coherent hypotheses to explain them flirts with the "god of the gaps" fallacy. It's interesting that while intelligent design is often invoked to explain order, you are invoking it to explain chaos. (I'm not saying that you are obviously wrong, just that it is an interesting move.)

ETA: To make that less abstract: if you aren't going to deny that people actually saw an airliner, simply remaining agnostic about what happened to the plane isn't all that useful. You can try to demonstrate syllogistically that it couldn't have hit the Pentagon, but your evidence isn't nearly good enough for syllogism. You actually need an hypothesis that fits the data -- as a whole -- better than the prevailing hypothesis.

[Beam Me Up]

84. I will offer two points.

First, in regards to evidence fitting neatly: We're not talking about a difficult sociological question here. It is quite simple. It is stated a specific, large aircraft crashed into a building. Now, this isn't the first time aircraft have crashed or crashed into buildings, although it is the first time an (allegedly) hijacked commercial airliner has done so. That is the only "difference" -- and I question whether it is a "difference that makes a difference," using Bateson's phrase.

We've all seen pictures of airline crashes, including pictures of airline crashes into buildings. As a general rule they're quite messy with a lot of BIG debris. As a general rule there isn't a lot of controversy about what happened or which plane was involved. In fact, short of questions about what may have caused an aircraft tragedy, generally speaking the event is obvious. So what I'm saying here is it would seem to me this ought to be fairly obvious. Close inspection of witness accounts should be verifiable. Data from FDR's should obviously coincide with physical damage -- so on and so forth. But what we find here is that is not the case. I'll point out, although I don't want to go far down this road because it could get confusing, that in all four instances on 9/11 where commercial airliners were reported to have been used as WMD, these murder weapons are for the most part "missing." No obvious debris at Shanksville. Very little debris in NY, although given the magnitude of the tower decompositions, this is hardly surprising. And so little apparent on the scene at the Pentagon that highly credible witnesses on the scene at the time saw none at all.

What I'm saying is, we're not proposing that what needs to be shown or proven is that a UFO hit the pentagon. Simply that what we have been led to believe did. I should think, given that it is tremendously bigger than a bread box and much of it made of rather stout material, and that in most other known instances it IS obvious -- that this should follow that patter more or less as well. That it does not, and that it does not on four occasions on the same day is anomalous in the extreme. It is not what would be expected but IS what IS.

That is one point.

The second is reply to the question of chaos and its origins. In thinking about this question perhaps what needs to be studied is not FDR data (although this has been an interesting excursion for me, not being a pilot) but strategic counter-intelligence operations. If one admits that such operations exist, that there are people who plan and execute them at the "national security state" level, if one admits there is a long "artful" history to this sort of "operation" and if one analyzes the nature of such operations (which are often full of apparent internal contradictions), a pattern begins to emerge.

Think of it very simply. If you are going to commit a murder and you want to get away with it, you will need a "disposable" or "untraceable" murder weapon, a "patsy" who can be blamed, an alibi for yourself, and perhaps enough "contradictory" evidence to keep the investigators from coming up with alternative (to the patsy) readings of that evidence. If you were a particularly EVIL SOB, you might even round up patsy's and torture them to illicit false confessions just to stop the torture. But, of course, no one we know would ever do such a thing.

"Controlled chaos." Didn't someone just recently write a book about predatory capitalism that talks about what wonderful opportunities "chaos" in the system are? How much of a stretch is it to move beyond the natural unpredictability within a system to intentionally inserting more of this "chaos" into an otherwise effective system? Could this not also describe the kind of economic predicament our current, new, President finds himself in -- stuck between having to face the people who elected him, respect him, and are turning to him for real hope on the one hand, and the demands of a predatory system that is out of control on the other?

[OnTheOtherHand]

89. OK, responses

It doesn't have to be a difficult sociological question (although I suppose disparate eyewitness testimony can be considered in that way).

As has been suggested elsewhere on (I believe) this thread, I would not expect a crash site in which the pilot is trying to crash at top speed to look like a crash site in which the pilot is trying not to crash. (As for the FDR data, that may be a fair point, but I don't know, and I doubt that you do either. I will reserve judgment on that score.)

To your second point: I see no need for the "'contradictory' evidence." The baroque touches might be nifty in a movie, but they serve no obvious political or criminal purpose, none obvious to me at any rate. (As for economic chaos, I think that's a separable issue.)

[Bolo Boffin]

83. "people like bolo are right and people like me are just insane."

I have never, ever said you were insane. I couldn't begin to make that assessment, a) not being qualified, and b) not having enough evidence over a broad span of your activities. I have no illusions whatsoever that a person, any person can be judged by their writings here in this forum.

But I have sufficient evidence about the theories you choose to promote to call them insane, crazy, out to lunch, because they are. This theories do not deal with the actual evidence. They are exercises in illogical, faith-based thinking, something that everyone is susceptible to. It is YOU who continues to take that and make it personal, and I have no evidence to the contrary that you intend it in any way but to pretend I'm smearing you. Such certainly could be seen as evidence of a persecution complex, but again far more evidence would need to be amassed in more areas of your life before such a conclusion could be rendered by a competent professional.

In fact, I don't think many people here are insane, even down here in the dungeon. What we are, mostly, are a bunch of cranks berating each other's positions on this one issue. And I most definitely include myself in that. Hey, everybody needs a hobby.

I do lots of other things, too, just like you. If you took a look through my journal here and at Daily Kos and the Smirking Chimp, you'd see a lot more we probably agree on than disagree. I have never, ever questioned your passion or your sanity or your actual political beliefs. I don't have to. This isn't that kind of discussion for me.

However, my passion and actual political beliefs are questioned again and again and again by you and by others. It's disgraceful. I'm not that hard a person to find out about. You can know what I think about most issues. But you'd rather insinuate I was here as a Republican plant to keep you guys quiet than deal with the facts about me.

As if the "conspirators" would need to keep the September 11 forum down! Think about this. Do you think I believe that it's because of my efforts and the efforts of other debunkers that the 9/11 Truth Movement can't convince a majority of anybody in this world of their theories? Hell, no. I think we've done our part, but that's not even a fifth of the reason why the 9/11 Truth Movement can't catch on. It's because YOUR THEORIES ARE WACK. Most people look at them (Flight 93 didn't crash in Shanksville? The buildings were controlled demolitions?) and just walk the other way.

Most of this stuff debunks itself. The only thing I see myself doing is making sure that the way to the truth remains clear. I'm making sure people who do want answers can find them. And then hopefully they can get back to real issues like finding justice for those tortured at Guantanamo and for the people they may have harmed (if at all) before getting there, getting health care coverage for every American, getting jobs for people, providing education for children, and reforming and regulating the financial industry.

Forget what the people who hate me have emailed you about me. Judge me by my actual deeds. And know that whenever you type a sentence like the one titling this post, it is YOU beating up on yourself.

[BeFree]

93. Geez

Talk about whining!!

The man gave detailed and convincing reasons to continue questioning this event and you go off the ledge whining about yourself and how people mistreat you.

You had me for a second there, I actually felt sorry for you. But then I went back and read what you were replying to and then your reply again, and wham, all that was gone. Bolo, this is not about Bolo. You try to make it about Bolo, but it's not about Bolo.

An honest reader after looking at what beam me up wrote about why the investigation needs to remain open, would have to understand that there is a lot more to the story than what we have been told. And given that Bushco is the weaver of their tale and knowing what the Bushco background is, simply has to, if they want the truth, demand that officials release everything they have to the public.

That's what this is all about.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. You aren't worth the time to reply to. n/t

[BeFree]

106. This is not about you, bolo

But if any really want to remain ignorant by ignoring any alternative to the Bushco OCT, then we have to keep trying to get them to stick to the subject and not let them wallow in self pity and ignorance.

We must continue to force feed them. We must do all we can to keep the BS from spreading. Think of it as pollution. Think of it as dirty air coming from the Bushco smokestacks where the thousands of innocent bodies killed by the hand of Bushco are being burned. Don't think there are innocents being burned? Then you must have ignored Iraq.

So we do all we can to stop people from supporting Bushco's power plant, work to end the stream of bodies going in, then the plant has to shut down. That's our goal - end the industry by stopping the flow of resources. And the only way to do that is through education and exposure, and reaching out to the ignoring few.

Don't you agree that is a worthy goal?

[Bolo Boffin]

111. You say vicious things about me and when I defend myself, you say "this isn't about me."

Prove it. Stop all the personal chatter. Stop all your whining about being in the dungeon, stop all of your catty personal attacks against me, and deal with the facts and the logic solely.

Prove it. Less time attacking me, more time presenting your evidence. I'll bet you can't do it.

[BeFree]

116. Ok

I just decided to follow your lead on how you go about this 'discussion' and oddly enough it does make me ill to do so.

So, you quit showing me how it's done and I'll quit using your tactics.

The facts are that there is a great body of confusing and conflicting evidence on nearly all the facets of 9/11.

Can we agree on that as a basic discussion foundation?

[Bolo Boffin]

120. You continue to say vicious things about me while pretending to forswearing it.

Stop playing stupid games

[BeFree]

122. Ok

I'll take that as NO, you don't think there is any conflicting evidence.

So we continue on.

Frankly, tho, we aren't gonna win many fans. In fact, the reason many people have been turned off of discussions here is quite evident in our little foray. I don't like doing it that way but am left little choice, as I want people to take part in the discussion freely and without regret. On edit: Meaning that I don't want folks here to be viciously attacked.

My efforts are in that regard. My apologies to those innocents so offended, but a guy's got to do what he's got to do.

[Bolo Boffin]

129. You continue to make attacks while decrying it.

That's called "speaking out of both sides of your mouth."

As long as you keep doing it, you are contributing nothing but bad faith to this discussion.

[BeFree]

136. Now why would I attack you?

And not attack anyone else?

If you had read my previous post, really read it, you would have known that I learned the art from you and am using to further my agenda here.

I hate to have to do it this way, but you leave me no recourse.

[Bolo Boffin]

137. You continue to attack me. n/t

[BeFree]

138. Remember this?

In another thread you told me to quit whining?

Well, I'm learning real good, thanks for the lessons, they sure do have come in handy.

[Bolo Boffin]

139. You need to get over your obsession with me.

Right now.

ETA: "You continue to attack me" is not whining. It is a statement of fact. You even admit it. You claim it is "my tactics." You are being factually inaccurate.

[wildbilln864]

135. but I'm replying to your reply. nt

[BeFree]

141. There you go again, bill.

Butting in with humor. "Replying to your reply". Gawd, man, get over yourself. This is not about you, bill. And quit your whining.

Check your pm.

[wildbilln864]

143. oh snap!

just read it. thanks! :hi:

[planeman]

100. But witnesses did not see the plane approach along that "approach line"

[Beam Me Up]

22. "relies uniformly on witnesses who *saw* an airplane *hit* the Pentagon" -- NOT

That is incorrect. Since the CIT information has been around this block before, you ought to know this. That you don't indicates you either don't wish to know it or haven't paid attention.

The witnesses interviewed by CIT uniformly BELIEVE the plane they saw hit but did not actually SEE it hit. You can sit in a magic show and believe you saw a woman "sawn in half" and then "put back together" -- but did you really see that? Logic insists you did not -- only that you were fooled into believing something that could not have happened -- regardless of how the slight of hand was accomplished.

There is no difference here. Logic dictates that what these witnesses BELIEVE happened could not have happened. The knocked down light poles were hundreds of feet south of where they plane they saw flew over the freeway and aligned along an approach path tens of degrees at variance with what these witnesses saw.

Now, perhaps this isn't "much of a big deal" to you and perhaps you want to insure it doesn't become "much of a big deal" to anyone else. Detract, trivialize, dismiss: Nothing to see here we haven't all seen before, folks, so keep moving along.

It isn't working.

[jberryhill]

23. "The witnesses interviewed by CIT uniformly BELIEVE the plane they saw hit"

That's a charming point, but a lot of witnesses had to be discarded in order to get down to these select few.

You know, if CIT wanted to do a comprehensive study of what everyone who witnessed a plane saw, then you might have something.

Maybe someday I'll understand the "logic" of flying a passenger jet - with actual passengers on it - in a "near miss" at the Pentagon in order to perform some sort of David Copperfield act involving placing their DNA into the Pentagon along with airplane wreckage, for the purpose of making it "seem like" the plane hit the Pentagon.... instead of simply flying the plane into the building.

Anywho, I had to hit quota this week, or AZCat was going to dock my pay.

[Beam Me Up]

26. Derisive, dismissive.

No one has made this claim: Maybe someday I'll understand the "logic" of flying a passenger jet - with actual passengers on it - in a "near miss" at the Pentagon in order to perform some sort of David Copperfield act involving placing their DNA into the Pentagon along with airplane wreckage, for the purpose of making it "seem like" the plane hit the Pentagon.... instead of simply flying the plane into the building.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. You're lucky you get anything at all more than derisive and dismissive.

Seriously. Flight 77 denial is ludicrous. It's not worth talking about, it's so wrong.

If this is the worst thing you can find that Bush did, you just aren't looking.

[jberryhill]

31. Yes, absolutely

You nailed it.

Explain to me the purpose of this shell game, complete with breakaway trick light poles and dozens of witnesses who were completely fooled into believe a plane flew into the Pentagon, and complete with missing passengers and nobody who saw a plane on the other side.

It would make a great Chris Angel episode, but why not just fly the airplane into the building?

[Beam Me Up]

36. I could ask you the same question from the other angle.

Explain to me the purpose of hijacking four aircraft and targeting buildings. Why do that? Bush's explanation: "They hate us for our freedom." Does that sound "logical" to you? Why target symbols of imperialism? Why not aim for a few unprotected nuclear reactors that would cause infinitely greater devastation and terror? Why do any of it at all if one were smart enough to know that the consequence of doing so would be to give "the great satan" all the excuse needed to pursue already stated aims for an expanded war in the Middle East? Why claim that bin Laden is responsible and that you're going to get him "dead or alive" only to later state you're no longer pursuing him as an objective? Why invade Iraq lying about the reasons which change from month to month? So on and so forth.

Most truthers focus on the events in New York but I've been focused on the Pentagon for a number of reasons. Why give the controls of this plane to someone who it is reported could barely fly at all? Why risk taking the extra time required to do the "official loop" prior to descent exposing the aircraft to possible interception or shoot down? Given the size of the Pentagon and exposure from the air, why not dive-bomb across and into the roof causing far more damage, death and destruction? Why risk an approach that brings the plane so close to the ground that one risks hitting the lawn and thus losing much of the force of the impact? Why go to all this effort to target the one side of the Pentagon reinforced against precisely this kind of attack? Why not hit the other side of the Pentagon where the big brass have their offices?

The point being that one can speculate endlessly about why this or why that. The question is, what actually happened?

What amazes me is that so many people here at DU know that the Bush administration lied about everything -- and yet about 9/11 they didn't lie. Never mind that they stonewalled having any investigation at all. Never mind that they tried to put Kisinger in charge of the Commission. Never mind that the investigation they did have was overseen by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow">a Bush operative whose academic field of expertise included the role "public myth" and "public presumptions," beliefs thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), have in securing consent to policy decisions. Never mind that members of the Bush cabal have been deeply embedded in the national security state apparatus (Rumsfeld, Cheney, et. al.) since the Ford administration. Never mind that this was THE catalyzing event called for by PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses." Never mind that so little evidence has been brought forward to validate the OCT that even the FBI doesn't include 9/11 on bin Laden's profile.

How much further on do I need to go?

Look, I'll be completely honest with you. I was anticipating a terrorist event of the magnitude of 9/11 from about 1996. This anticipation was based on a history of observing the trend toward fascism in this society, primarily based on how the War on Drugs was being used to militarize our domestic police forces nation wide (among other things). That there is a deep connection and crossover between intelligence agencies, organized crime and the international drug and armaments trades is hardly a secret here on DU. Since we were made witness to terror attacks (Murrah, WTC 93) and since we were being told on television that bigger attacks were "inevitable," it made perfect sense to me: They're going to either allow or stage a massive attack on this country for the purpose of driving both domestic and foreign policy in a particular, more fascistic direction. I was livid when they put Bush in the WH in 2000 because I already knew of the close ties the Bush family had not only to the national security state (through Poppy) but to the rise of Nazism in Germany (through gramps) -- matters never or seldom discussed by the corporate media. As the events of 9/11 unfolded I was beyond livid. The images of those buildings coming down in rapid cascade with explosive force pulverizing them to dust left no doubt in my mind what I was witnessing. A) They shouldn't have collapsed at all but B) if they did, it wouldn't have looked at all like that. It took a bit longer for the Pentagon to come into focus for what it was: A staged event with the immediate environment completely under control by agents yet to be identified.

But all that is me, my perception based on my swimming in a particular information stream (Peter Dale Scott, author of http://www.amazon.com/Road-11-Wealth-Empire-America/dp/0520258711/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238221878&sr=1-1">The Road To 9/11, Wealth, Empire and the Future of America is an acquaintance dating back to the mid 90s) for years prior to 9/11 itself. From this stream of information, the idea that elements within the national security state apparatus could orchestrate and carry out an black-op false flag attack on US citizens for the purpose of putting in place the infrastructure for a domestic police state while simultaneously using it as a pretext for imperial excursions abroad is no big stretch of the imagination. Quite the contrary, it is business as usual.

What amazes me isn't that they did it -- and I have no doubt they did -- but rather how easily they've gotten away with it -- and how so many people, otherwise intelligent, progressive and left of center people, fain utter shock and incredulity -- if not outrage -- when those of us who have been attempting to read the entrails of the underbelly of American politics for years dare to ask the difficult questions. Anyone who asks the question "well, why did they do it one way and not some other way," appears to have NO IDEA how covert counter-intelligence, "black" operations are constructed. To them, there is no "deep" politic. ALWAYS such events are compartmentalized so that even those who have some role (often an unwitting one) never know enough to implicate anyone else. ALWAYS it is "plausible deniability". ALWAYS it is a house of mirrors occupied by wild herrings in pursuit of red geese -- the proverbial riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. ALWAYS it is layer upon layer of disinformation so that even if one "fact" can be established, never enough "facts" can be established to generate a conclusive whole that might be prosecuted.

And what amazes me even more is how those who profess to stand in genuine opposition to fascism, even knowing all that we here on DU know about the Bush cabal and what they did to this country over the past two-term maladministration, steadfastly REFUSE to help those of us who have been trying -- sometimes well and sometimes badly -- to uncover the actual facts of that day. Truly, it has caused me to loose faith in many of my fellow progressives. A crime of state has occurred: Mass murder, treason, war crimes and crimes against humanity -- in broad day light -- and the real perpetrators have walked. NOT ONE PERSON in a position of authority has even been so much as reprimanded for any of the events of 9/11 -- even if one accepts the OCT. Worse, almost everyone in a key position has been rewarded either monetarily or in rank or politically. It is an outrage. And here we are in the DU dungeon going on eight years after the fact playing "guessing" games about why this and why that.

It is beyond disgusting. It is sickening.

edit a couple minor typos

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. a few things

A) They shouldn't have collapsed at all but B) if they did, it wouldn't have looked at all like that.

How do you know?

And what amazes me even more is how those who profess to stand in genuine opposition to fascism... steadfastly REFUSE to help those of us who have been trying -- sometimes well and sometimes badly -- to uncover the actual facts of that day.

I don't see anyone refusing to help you attempt to uncover the actual facts of that day. I see people disagreeing with you about the actual facts of that day -- cf. A) above.

[Beam Me Up]

44. Reply

A) They shouldn't have collapsed at all but B) if they did, it wouldn't have looked at all like that.

How do you know?

Not meaning to be flippant but how can you NOT know?

And what amazes me even more is how those who profess to stand in genuine opposition to fascism... steadfastly REFUSE to help those of us who have been trying -- sometimes well and sometimes badly -- to uncover the actual facts of that day.

I don't see anyone refusing to help you attempt to uncover the actual facts of that day. I see people disagreeing with you about the actual facts of that day -- cf. A) above.

Well, I see a lot of posters on this thread who have resorted to attacks, name calling, any number of things that are anything but "helpful". But dwelling on this point will not get us anywhere, will it? The question is, how do we establish fact? How do we separate fact from opinion, belief and fiction?

[AZCat]

48. Are you claiming that intuition trumps engineering analysis? n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

54. a remarkably naive question, over seven years in

Not meaning to be flippant but how can you NOT know?

You're making a faith statement. I don't share my faith. In March 2009, you ought to be able to muster a better argument than that (not that I think a very good argument is available to you).

The question is, how do we establish fact? How do we separate fact from opinion, belief and fiction?

An excellent question. One way would be to support your assertions.

[Beam Me Up]

58. But I'm sure you've already been presented with the evidence

that contradicts the gravity driven collapse hypothesis many times over and you've rejected it as "faith based" or what have you. So what would be the point of my going around this with you or anyone else for the umpteenth time? Your mind is made up and despite your protestations that you don't "share" your faith, clearly this is false. You have faith that the NIST report is a full and accurate account. I do not share that faith with you. All the characteristics of controlled demolition are apparent to even the untrained observer and none of the characteristics of gravity driven "collapse". But you reject this based on an unproven hypothesis that plane impact sufficiently dislodged fire proofing material that an uncontrolled, oxygen starved fire was sufficient to cause instantaneous pulverization of building materials and global structural failure at a rate of approximately ten floors per second, hurtling multi-ton steel beams laterally hundreds of feet and leaving molten material and near molten temperatures below the rubble for weeks afterward. There is an energy deficit throughout these observed events for which no hypothesis other than gravity acting upon mass has been put forward to support -- and this is every bit as much true today as it was eight years ago. But, of course, you don't believe that because you and I both know what it means.

[OnTheOtherHand]

61. this is nonsensical

You have faith that the NIST report is a full and accurate account.

No, I most certainly do not. Isn't it interesting that your most expedient recourse in this discussion is to make stuff up about me?

All the characteristics of controlled demolition are apparent to even the untrained observer...

How is an "untrained observer" supposed to know what "all the characteristics of controlled demolition" are? This assertion is facially risible.

But you reject this based on an unproven hypothesis that plane impact sufficiently dislodged fire proofing material...

What, you think you're a mind reader?

I reject this, in the first instance, based on my observation of the towers falling, which doesn't remind me in the slightest of controlled demolition. Thanks for your interest in my beliefs, but maybe next time you'll check with me first. Or maybe not.

There is an energy deficit throughout these observed events for which no hypothesis other than gravity acting upon mass has been put forward to support....

Hey, if you want to debate the physics, step right up. No one is stopping you. (Again, this particular statement is strange, because the prevailing hypothesis is that gravity provides all the energy required.)

But, of course, you don't believe that because you and I both know what it means.

I don't believe it because no one has ever given me a reason to believe it -- and you aren't even trying.

[Beam Me Up]

64. Are you saying you are completely unaware of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

If so, you have my apology again (as you have it up thread). My assumption is that all the nay-sayers here have been through this muck for years (as I have). I don't think I'm allowed to link to their web site by DU rules (maybe, not sure) but if you google the organization name you'll find the link. The video of Richard Gage's (AIA) presentation outlining all the characteristics of controlled demolition compared to those of collapse by fire or other causes is outlined in painstaking detail. I believe you can watch it from the web site or youtube.

Again, my apologies are sincere. I'm so used to people in this "dungeon" having been around this repeatedly it shocks me to come across someone who has not. It was an assumption on my part and I beg your pardon.

[AZCat]

66. AE911Truth has yet to produce any substantive arguments.

Mostly all they do is handwave.

Gage himself is an idiot, as anyone who watched his "cardboard box" example would know.

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. well, they provided enough substance to warrant a debunking site

The argument (ETA: about characteristics of controlled demolition) just always makes me think of an old folkie gag, about how such-and-such is "the only children's song we've ever encountered that has the three essential characteristics of each and every children's song."

[AZCat]

72. Nothing new, though - just recycled claims.

I haven't looked at Gage's slide show in a while, but the last time I checked it had no real original work. He just resurrected the same tired old claims the "truth movement" has been passing around for seven years. One would think that an organization purportedly composed of building professionals might be able to support its claims with something more rigorous.

[OnTheOtherHand]

82. yeah, it kind of amazes me too

You would think folks would at least have some aesthetic sense of what a technical argument should look like, whether or not it makes any sense.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. Plus, Richard Gage is getting all chummy with Jew-haters recently.

He gave an interview to American Free Press, that rag that published the anti-semitic lies of Christopher Bollyn (until he assaulted a police officer and fled his sentencing after being convicted). And then there's this, from their "secret stash" of Powerpoint slides:



Now one could say they're just repeating bin Laden's words without endorsing them. But why else would that despicable quote be highlighted the way it is on the slide? Bin Laden appears to be point the finger at Israel there -- is that what Richard Gage believes? Does he think Israel pulled this false flag to get America into wars in the Gulf?

Totally despicable. No wonder he keeps this slide out of the main presentation. But you can find it there right now, if they haven't moved it. PM me for the link and I'll provide it. I'd do it here, but DU's software would turn it into a hotlink.

[AZCat]

74. Yeah, I saw that.

I was browsing over at JREF and saw that thread. I can't say I'm surprised. We've all been around long enough to see the numerous ties between the "truth movement" and Holocaust denier/jew hater groups.

[OnTheOtherHand]

67. no, I'm not saying that

Perhaps I should have said in my last sentence that no one has ever given me a convincing reason to believe it.

The video of Richard Gage's (AIA) presentation outlining all the characteristics of controlled demolition compared to those of collapse by fire or other causes is outlined in painstaking detail.

So am I to infer that you are relying upon Richard Gage to enumerate the characteristics of controlled demolition, whereupon they are apparent to untrained observers?

What qualifies Gage as an authority? What qualifies you to evaluate his expertise or his arguments? Perhaps more to the point, in the debate between Gage and NIST (or Gage and Bolo, or whatever), on what issues have you have done the work to satisfy yourself that Gage has the better of the argument?

Pardon my meta, but I've been told many times that Steve Freeman makes a compelling argument that the 2004 exit polls were accurate and Kerry should have won. And I've done the relevant work to know that that (ETA: i.e., that the argument is compelling) isn't true. I don't know nearly as much about building collapse as I do about polling, but I know more than enough not to be impressed by your ability to link to someone who told you something that you found convincing -- especially when you seem to have been predisposed to believe it anyway. That's not how scientific debate is supposed to work.

[Beam Me Up]

75. Do you have to be an astrophysicist to understand the sun doesn't rise in the East?

Yours is what is called the "appeal to authority". Indeed, who are any of us to come to any conclusion about what is or is not real. Physics would now persuade us anything we experience is "just so" because we looked, perhaps?

I'm not going there with you. If you want to take that truly "holier than thou" attitude, then there is nothing further to discuss. You don't find Gage's arguments compelling. Fine!

You still have an energy deficit for ALL the phenomena observed -- and that is a physical fact. Oh, indeed, I can't do the math -- but you know, I don't need to be able to "do the math" to get up out of my chair, move around, drive my car -- any number of complex things that can be described mathematically by physics. It doesn't take an engineering degree to figure out that gravity acting on mass is insufficient to do all the work required to account for all the phenomena observed. Ten floors per second overcoming all resistance all the way down, pulverizing anything that isn't a steel beam, and leaving a high-heat footprint for months.

Sorry!

Again, you're free to "believe" whatever you want. I don't have to "believe" along with you -- not when common sense is adequate.

[AZCat]

76. You claim this is a physical fact, yet can't provide any proof?

How did you determine there was an energy deficit if you can't do the math? You say you figured it out, but how? Are you making an argument from personal incredulity?

[OnTheOtherHand]

78. beg pardon?

Funny, but from where I sit, you appealed to Gage's authority. Maybe you need to reread my post once or twice, carefully, especially this sentence:

Perhaps more to the point, in the debate between Gage and NIST (or Gage and Bolo, or whatever), on what issues have you have done the work to satisfy yourself that Gage has the better of the argument?

And this is what you bring:

You still have an energy deficit for ALL the phenomena observed -- and that is a physical fact. Oh, indeed, I can't do the math...

So what is this? an appeal to ignorance? It certainly isn't the sort of argument that anyone could reasonably be persuaded by.

Yeah, fine, believe what you want.

[Beam Me Up]

85. Have to go hear a presentation by Gage in Berkeley --

Seriously! LoL

Have to get back to you on this one later.

(In brief, in what sense is an appeal to common sense an appeal to ignorance?)

[OnTheOtherHand]

87. no more "common sense" than an I.D. argument is

Most people had never thought about anything like what happened to the twin towers. They didn't think it was possible, or impossible. When they saw the tops of the buildings falling and crushing the rest of the buildings, well, that's what they saw -- except for those who saw a series of explosions from top to bottom, or Directed Energy Weapons, or whatever. I have my views about which interpretation is more commonsensical. Regardless, at the point of obvious disagreement, appealing to "common sense" basically amounts to saying that one knows s/he is right but doesn't know why. That's not necessarily illegitimate -- we're all entitled at least provisionally to believe things that we can't support -- but it doesn't offer much basis for reasoned discussion.

[Beam Me Up]

98. Back.

None of us saw the upper floors falling, crushing the lower floors below. This is especially evident watching the North tower where the floors above the impact area begin to disintegrate as the roofline with the antennae begins its decent, the whole section multi-story section "decomposing" within the first three seconds.

The first video shows this disintegration beginning at the 32 second mark. By the 33 second mark the roofline with the antennae has descended several stories while the structure below the line of fire on the right remains visibly stationary. By the 34 second mark the height of the upper stories has been reduced to about half but the line of fire, now billowing outward, shows no sign of descent. By the 35 second mark the entire upper section has disintegrated, consumed in pyroclastic clouds of hot gases, smoke, dust and rapidly ejected debris:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btftaMMav4I&feature=related

The second video shows the same event from a lower angle looking upward beneath the cascading debris "umbrella" beginning approximately where the 35 second mark of the previous video leaves off. There is no block of upper floors crushing the structure below. This is what was obvious to me on day one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related

[OnTheOtherHand]

105. ?

If you mean that no one got a clear look at what "really" happened, I'm happy to concede that.

The claim that the entire upper section has "disintegrated" is puzzling: you seem to be asserting the ability to see through "pyroclastic clouds." I'm given to believe that one of the supposed ways in which the collapses resemble CD is that the towers fell into their footprints. Are you suggesting instead that most of the mass went overboard? Or that once it has "disintegrated" (whatever specifically that means) it is no longer subject to gravity? Or what?

What was obvious to you on day one (1) was not obvious to others on day one and (2) is not obvious, and indeed (3) is believed by many competent professionals to be dead wrong. So the appeal to "common sense" fails on multiple grounds.

[Beam Me Up]

117. Basically, you have it.

No, the towers didn't "fall into their own foot prints". Now, WTC did and is a perfect example of a classic controlled demolition more or less from the ground up.

But not the towers. Look, I admit I'm not a physicist and don't do "physics speak" very well. But what we are dealing with here is so basic -- grammar school level -- it should be easy to understand. Once an object is in motion it will continue in motion until it meets a resistance equal and opposite to its momentum -- at which point the kinetic energy of the first is "absorbed" by this other object.

As I understand it, the impact of the North Tower was between the 92nd and 98th floors. If the structural integrity of the building wasn't compromised above or below that point then we have a block of about 10 to 18 floors above the impact zone. If we do an inaccurate but possibly useful thought experiment and imagine 10 floors of structural integrity suspended above 90 floors of structural integrity with 8 floors magically missing, then drop the upper 10 onto the lower 90, what might we reasonably expect? The kinetic energy of the upper 10 will accelerate due to gravity during the roughly 100 foot gap but will maintain their structural integrity until they impact the top of the 90 floor column below. At that point much of the kinetic energy will be translated both downward into the lower structure and simultaneously upward into the falling structure and to some degree outward as well. A very simplistic and inaccurate model would be a tower of card houses 9 blocks high below, 1 block high above, and dropped from a distance of one block. Now, what will happen? IF (impossibly) the card houses have no structural integrity, all the blocs will come crashing down to the ground fairly rapidly. However, if we 'weld' the corners of these houses of cards together with Elmers glue, that isn't what we're going to observe at all because the amount of kinetic energy represented by the top block will be insufficient to overcome the resistance of all 9 blocks below. The dropped block will 'bounce off' (retaining its own integrity more or less until it hits the ground) where the 9 blocks below will remain standing IF it is secured to its base (if not, it might fall over).

Simplistic and inaccurate as it is, this model shows all the fundamental physical principals at work, right? The differences are primarily quantitative and qualitatively in the sense that the structural components of the WTC towers is different from that of a block of cards welded together at the corners. The WTC is MASSIVE -- both in the block above and the "9" blocks below having far greater kinetic energy but also meeting far greater resistance. For the "official account" to be correct, the acceleration of the distance dropped by the upper block has to be such that it can 1) overcome the resistance of the upper block/column below AND 2) accumulate sufficient mass (and therefore kinetic energy) to continue this 'chain reaction' all the way down to the base at a rase very close to free-fall.

As a reasonably intelligent and intuitive person, the above scenario is, to me, impossible on its face but it is perfectly reasonable to point out that this "intuition" may be wrong. Certainly in such a scenario we're dealing with enormous quantities of energy and the results would be dramatic to say the least -- but the question is very simple: Would the available kinetic energy in the falling mass be sufficient to do the work required to fulfill the problem? Although I'm not the person to do it, this ought to be calculable. (A model, by the way, NIST did not construct though they clearly had the resources to do so. What they did not have was the imperative to do so, their assignment only being creating a hypothesis for "collapse initiation," not what would physically follow after that "initiation".)

But of course this thought experiment is inaccurate in a profound way. For the model we're imagining here to work at all, 8 to 10 floors of structure (resistance) would have to "magically" not exist. But it did exist and there-in lies a big problem (not yet to mention another problem I'll bring in shortly). The impact damage to this area was not symmetrical. The structure was weakened in the area of impact only. Some hypothetical (and I believe, inaccurate) computer modeling of this impact damage has been done but the overriding point is that this structural weakening was not symmetrical. When a structure is weakened in some areas and not in other areas then if the structure above is set in motion, that motion is going to be in the direction of least resistance. In some video of the South tower initial collapse we actually observe this in process as the upper twenty some floors begin to tilt at an angle of 20 some degrees before, "magically" changing direction and NOT following over into the street. But I want to stick with the North tower as it is easier for us to comprehend (I think). In the first video I posted above what we see is that the upper structure begins to "compact" and it does so uniformly (straight down). We can easily follow the base of the antennae at roof line and match it against the horizontal fire zone as I pointed out on the right below. That fire zone does not move down ward. In other words, at that location in the structure no "compression" is occurring. However VERY rapidly, within three seconds, the upper portion is doing what? Everything we are observing it do requires the transformation of kinetic energy into work. It isn't tilting sideways it is moving straight down against the lower structure which, for the first three seconds is not visibly "going" anywhere but doing precisely what it was designed to do: remain vertically static. In a sense what we are observing is the upper section "liquefying" (not to be taken literally) -- which is why I use the term "decomposing". That is it is uniformly losing its structural integrity and all its components are RAPIDLY being transformed into hot gasses, dust, heavy material components that are being shoved laterally with violent force such that, indeed, by the time this event begins to reach the horizontal fire zone (which bursts outward in a fire ball) much (not all, but much) of its kinetic energy is being transformed into the work necessary to produce the phenomena observed. By the time the fire area is engaged (as we see in the second video) much of the structural material is not only "cascading" (in essence "spilling") over the sides (not accumulating) but, worse (for the official account) showing signs of extreme acceleration (requiring energy). Very quickly we see enormous sections of external frame steel not only "falling" but being accelerated downward faster than the rate of free-fall. Look at it closely (turn off the commentary) and just watch. These large heavy objects aren't just "falling" due to gravity, they are being propelled by a force that is neither accounted for nor expected, racing toward the ground ten stories in front of the near free-fall "mushroom" of debris. Moreover, there is nothing approaching a "solid mass" above, pushing downward. ALL there is is a cascade of energy being transformed into work to produce ALL of the observed phenomena.

The question is and has always been, what is the source of this energy? My contention as stated above is that gravity operating on mass is utterly insufficient to do this work -- to overcome ALL the resistance, transform most everything in its path to dust, eject massive steel girders and beams literally hundreds of feet and then, all end up in the sub basements where even surface temperatures on the pile remained in excess of 1000° F for three weeks. Note I haven't even commented on the explosive squibs which are plainly visible and can not be explained by "compaction" and expulsion of air (there is no compaction visible beyond the first two seconds).

Ground Zero is littered with smoking guns. All one has to do is look and be ready to deal with the psychological ramifications of what it means.

Thank you for reading. Please pardon typos as I'm in a hurry -- have to go to work.

[Bolo Boffin]

119. .

[OnTheOtherHand]

126. setting aside "absorbed," here's the first big problem I saw

The WTC is MASSIVE -- both in the block above and the "9" blocks below having far greater kinetic energy but also meeting far greater resistance.

Do you really think that the capacity of the blocks below to withstand the force from above will be proportional to the number of blocks? I don't. By and large, the top block will have to bear the brunt on its own, if it can. (In the case of a house of cards reinforced with Elmer's glue, that may not be a big problem!)

(A model, by the way, NIST did not construct though they clearly had the resources to do so. What they did not have was the imperative to do so, their assignment only being creating a hypothesis for "collapse initiation," not what would physically follow after that "initiation".)

The quantity of falling mass increases as collapse continues. This math has been considered, and in fact I believe has been presented here.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying about the initiation of the North tower collapse, but the fire zone clearly is being affected at the 0:33 mark, very soon after the antenna begins to fall. As for your statement that "all its (the tower's) components are RAPIDLY being transformed into hot gasses, dust, heavy material components that are being shoved laterally with violent force," my impression is that most of the mass is still falling within the footprint.

These large heavy objects aren't just "falling" due to gravity, they are being propelled by a force that is neither accounted for nor expected, racing toward the ground ten stories in front of the near free-fall "mushroom" of debris.

Propelled toward the ground? By an explosive pointing down?

I don't really know what you're seeing here. There are at least two reasons why you might see large heavy objects racing ahead of the debris mushroom: (1) they started to fall sooner and have been accelerated by gravity for longer, and/or (2) they are less affected by air resistance.

[Beam Me Up]

160. Reply.

Do you really think that the capacity of the blocks below to withstand the force from above will be proportional to the number of blocks?

No, except to point out that the lower structure should, logically, offer more resistance than the upper portion.

The quantity of falling mass increases as collapse continues.

Where do you see the quantity of falling mass increasing in any of the videos? There is no snowball rolling down hill turning into a gigantic lump at the bottom. Quite the contrary. The majority of the structural components (steel) is found scattered outside the footprint of a tower in a diameter up to 600'. Some of it shot into the sides of neighboring buildings. How can a mass "increase" while simultaneously "scattering" (not to mention being turned into heat, gas and dust)? Moreover, you're not addressing the problem of "falling mass" having to overcome resistance. These buildings weren't constructed out of tinker toys.

If you have an empty coke can and you drop another empty coke can the distance of one coke can onto the first, will it be squashed flat? Of course not. How far up would you have to take that coke can to get sufficient acceleration (lets do this in a vacuum to get rid of the variable of air resistance) before the one could flatten the other? I don't know either but I think we'll both agree it is "a lot".

Perhaps another way to try the same experiment is just measure gravity on mass without acceleration. How heavy would an object have to be to flatten the coke can just gravity acting on mass, no acceleration? Again, I don't know either but it would be a lot.

How is this situation any different? Where did the energy necessary to produce ALL of the observed phenomena come from? I understand some here are saying it came from gravity acting upon mass and that it increased in its descent. I get it. I understand they say they have an equation which proves it (while I only have my lying eyes). But there is NO EVIDENCE that this "accumulation of mass" occurred! Quite the contrary -- abundant evidence that it did NOT occur. Worse, you still have super-heated material below the pile for at least 21 days after the event. WHERE is the energy for that radiant heat coming from? Steel does not compost. Fires without an oxygen source GO OUT. This is why we say there is an "energy deficit". It isn't just the collapse, it is that and ALL the other observed phenomena.

[OnTheOtherHand]

171. hmm

"...the lower structure should, logically, offer more resistance than the upper portion."

I don't understand what you are comparing. Are you simply saying that because the lower part is larger, it should 'win'? But if the tower is failing one story at a time, why does it matter at all how large the lower part is?

"Where do you see the quantity of falling mass increasing in any of the videos?"

?! Is it possible to come up with such high estimates of mass shedding or scattering that the quantity of falling mass doesn't increase? I suppose so, but it is far from obvious by observation. (I'm not sure it even matters, absent some estimates of how many floors-worth of mass one needs within the footprint to keep the 'domino effect' going -- which will depend on the velocity of the falling mass.)

"Moreover, you're not addressing the problem of 'falling mass' having to overcome resistance."

Well, there's the mathematical formalization, or there's the T-shirt short version: gravity wins. There could be something wrong with the mathematical formalization, but the problem isn't that it ignores 'resistance.'

"If you have an empty coke can and you drop another empty coke can the distance of one coke can onto the first, will it be squashed flat? Of course not."

I daresay we'd be better off thinking in terms of "tinker toys" than aluminum cans, although we're probably best off not to think of either. Trying to work with your analogy at least a bit, I would expect the upper can's force/mass relationship to be a lot closer to linear than the lower can's 'resistance'/mass relationship. (Aluminum tends to crumple; a piece of aluminum that is ten times as long isn't ten times as crumple-resistant.) When we shift from aluminum cans to real building elements, I expect the force to outstrip the 'resistance.'

Stepping back, I'm puzzled: are you asserting that in order for the building to have fallen, each floor must have been blown up, one by one? I believe you said a while ago that the collapse of the towers evinces all the characteristics of a controlled demolition, but I've never heard of a controlled demolition that worked that way.

"But there is NO EVIDENCE that this 'accumulation of mass' occurred! Quite the contrary -- abundant evidence that it did NOT occur."

I find this remarkable. Is it really wildly counterintuitive that as more and more of the building falls down, more and more of the building is falling down? (Even if I grant you that "the majority" of the steel fell outside the footprint, which is more than I know, I still don't come to your conclusion.)

"Fires without an oxygen source GO OUT."

Where are we required to believe in fires without an oxygen source?

[Bolo Boffin]

79. "You still have an energy deficit" -- Bullshit.

Bazant Zhou demonstrates that there is enough kinetic energy present in the upper section to do everything observed on 9/11 seven times over. Stop swallowing Gage's horseshit.

[William Seger]

112. Gage still uses Gordon Ross' "energy deficit" calculations...

... which have been disproved. The largest error in that analysis is that Ross deducted the kinetic energy lost in the "inelastic collision" and then separately deducted the energy that buckled the steel and crushed the concrete. The problem is, the energy lost in the inelastic collision IS the energy that buckled the steel and crushed the concrete -- that's why it was lost from the kinetic energy -- so Ross was counting the same energy twice. Another large error was assuming that columns 20-some floors below the impact floor would have been compressed during the time that the impact floor failed, carrying the attached floors with them and thereby converting a lot of the kinetic energy into momentum on those floors. Dr. Bazant pointed out the logical error in that assumption: A column can't transmit more force than it takes to destroy the column. Those aren't the only errors, but if Ross ever gets around to just correcting those, his "energy deficit" disappears.

For some strange reason, AE911truth doesn't seem to include any competent engineers.

[Beam Me Up]

121. I will ask Gage about this next time I see him.

It would help me if you would provide links to the above as I'm not familiar with these calculations.

Thanks.

[AZCat]

123. Gordon Ross has a website.

Gordon Ross website

I don't know if he's hosted all of his publications there, but a cursory examination shows the article in question is here.

We've gone over his calculations several times in this forum, so please ask questions if you don't understand something - we should be able to help out. Or, you could try the forums over at ae911truth - maybe someone you trust more than us could answer any questions you have.

[jberryhill]

124. That's not really much of an answer

It sure is a lot of words, but the point is not "why did anyone/anything attack/bomb/whatever on 9/11".

The question at hand is why go through all that trouble to make it look like a plane hit the Pentagon, when one had (a) a plane and (b) the Pentagon right there.

Obviously, the point wasn't to spare the lives of the people on the plane, since they've never turned up anyway, including quite a few children.

So your point seems to be that either we all agree with you that no plane hit the Pentagon, or we are all PNAC/Bush supporters. Is that it?

[Beam Me Up]

157. Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't know anyone in this forum personally. Have no idea who or what you and everyone else are -- only that it is very odd, to me, how many left of center people who KNOW Bush Cheney lied about EVERYTHING, continue to buy this 9/11 "we were all caught with our pants down" crap. I live in the SF Bay area. ALL of my personal friends are WAY left of center. However, many of them can't wrap their heads around 9/11. Of those i know personally, I'd say I've managed to educate 75% of them through looking at a wide range of evidence such that they at least QUESTION what happened and agree that a transparent, non-partisan investigation of the WHOLE event is warranted.

Still, there are a few who can not go there, for whatever reason. They "don't believe in conspiracy theories" or can't believe the media wouldn't tell them or that the truth wouldn't have come out already or that "radar altitude isn't that accurate" (!!!), etc. My take is they're afraid to look at it and see it for what it is because http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_203.shtml">the ramifications of deep-state politics is just too unsettling. They prefer to ride their high-horses pooh-poohing those of us who see WAY TOO MANY exceptional anomalies for this to be what we've been told it was.

As to speculating about WHY they didn't hit the Pentagon with a plane -- all it could be is speculation. I would think the answer is they targeted a very specific area of the Pentagon. Unlike the WTC, they weren't intending to demolish the entire complex. The risks of missing this precise target with a real plane were too great. The official flight path is such that it is nothing short of MIRACULOUS that it didn't hit the ground, losing most of its velocity upon impact. We're talking a matter of what, three to six feet (engines being lower than the body itself)?? But the whole thing is absurd given the size of the target and how much easier it would have been to just plow into it from above rather than spiraling down for the "Lucky Hani Hanjour" maneuver into the ONE area of the Pentagon reinforced against precisely such an attack. <-- that makes NO sense at all.

Also, I don't believe the plane that was seen contained any "passengers" but, again, I have no problem freely admitting this is pure speculation and nothing more. That witnesses said they saw what they were recorded saying is factual, so far as I'm concerned. What that means, now that is an open question as far as I'm concerned.

[jberryhill]

163. "continue to buy this 9/11 "we were all caught with our pants down" crap"

I don't buy that crap.

I don't buy the no-plane crap either.

I'm just not in the crap buying business, regardless of whose crap it is.

Hitting the Pentagon from a level flight is much, much easier than diving into it as you suggest, and you might want to check that out with a real pilot.

Why you and others believe it is somehow impossible to fly a plane at an altitude of ten feet, as opposed to a thousand feet, remains a mystery. Planes fly at whatever altitude you care to fly them at.

[Beam Me Up]

166. You're joking, right?

In solution to your "mystery" I have two words for you: terrain and obstacles.

[BeFree]

168. BMU

Please start an OP along the lines of what you wrote here. What you have to say is far too important to be buried here.

I'd give it a go, but I'm rusty as heck and not a good enough writer. But a nice outline of 'Why' is very needed, Thanks....

[AZCat]

35. You're lucky you still have a job.

With the new regime in town, we've had massive cutbacks at NWO Central. The Torture Department is running on fumes, and Chemtrail Dispersion is axed for CY2010. I thought about shifting you to the OCT (Obama Conspiracy Theory) Department but we have plenty of volunteers to handle the work already.

Next week I'm eliminating the cheese table from the lunch buffet. No more Gruyere for you boys!

[Realityhack]

47. Oh man... not the Cheese table!!

I love that thing.

[planeman]

104. Disprove this witness.

[AZCat]

110. Wow. That was... underwhelming. n/t

[Evan Sent]

172. Perhaps you are overwhelmed

Do you want to tell that to Roosevelt Roberts?

[William Seger]

118. Gee, that was easy

Here's a screen grab from Google Earth with a line drawn from the roof of the NRC Library building to the Pentagon, about 2.5 miles away. (The light blue building on the right is the MCI -- now Verizon -- Center).

Take a guess why the line disappears as it passes through several buildings along the way....

[AZCat]

125. You can do 3D lines in Google Earth?

That's pretty cool. I'm glad they released SketchUp for free. The number of building models in Google Earth is growing quite rapidly.

[William Seger]

127. When you use the ruler...

... the end points are placed at the elevation Google has for that point. Normally, that's the ground, but if you place it on a 3D building, then it uses the elevation of the top of the building.

[AZCat]

128. Gotcha.

It doesn't allow you total freedom, but it's still pretty cool.

[planeman]

150. talk about desperation the witness never saw your 7000 feet to 2000feet

descent in 3 minutes or whetever it was.yet he did see the c130 or flyover plane .interesting.

[William Seger]

154. "c130 OR flyover plane" ?

So, were you trying to pass off a C130 witness as a "flyover" witness?

My Google Earth screen grab simply raises some doubt about the Pentagon being "clearly visable" from where he was, that he could have seen the "flyover" being discussed here, unless Google Earth has the building heights wrong. So I'm not sure what "talk about desperation" is supposed to mean (unless your post was out of desperation?).

This guy says he didn't see any planes circling D.C., but there are several reports and at least one video of the "mysterious white plane" which is now believed to be an Air Force's E-4B communications plane. So, it doesn't seem this guy was very observant, but I wouldn't expect him to see 77 "circle D.C." anyway, since the NTSB flight path puts the descent loop west of Rt. 7 in No.Va., and the closest part of that loop would have been at least 6 miles from the NRC Library.

He also says he heard a "large explosion followed by a large mushroom cloud." Being 2.5 miles away from the Pentagon, perhaps he could have heard the explosion, but at that distance "large" sounds like it might be a bit of an exaggeration. More to the point, at that distance the sound would have taken about 12.5 seconds to reach him, so if he didn't notice the mushroom cloud until after he heard the explosion, he must not have been looking in that direction until well after the 77 crash.

So, what exactly are you trying to get at with this witness?

[Evan Sent]

158. NOT a c-130 witness

I think he is referring to Roosevelt Roberts. He is NOT a C-130 witness.

The C-130 was there over the scene 3 minutes after the explosion and was at a very high altitude 1000+ ft. The commercial airliner jet Roosevelt describes was flying around the south parking lot, 50-100 ft over the light poles less than 10 seconds after the explosion, a more accurate time would be "7 steps out" from the edge of the south loading dock-the time it took him to get out to the edge.

[William Seger]

167. Sorry, but that's simply not possible...

... not if it was the same plane that "CIT" claims faked the crash. In Roberts' 2001 interview, he said he ran outside "looked up" and saw a plane "flying over the south parking lot" and doesn't say anything more about it. That seems odds that he wouldn't have said more about such an extremely low-flying plane. But the real problem is, even if we assume it was only 5 seconds from when Roberts heard the plane crash until he was out on the loading dock looking "up," the plane that "CIT" claims faked the crash would have been at least 2/3 mile away, not over the parking lot. And if it was "less than 100 feet" above the ground, as he now says, he wouldn't have "looked up" to see it -- it would be 2/3 mile away just a little above the horizon. The only way he could have "looked up" to see the alleged flyover plane flying 100 feet "over the south parking lot" would be if he was already on the loading dock when the "fake crash" happened, and it's clear from both his 2001 and "CIT" interviews that that's not what happened. And then, it really isn't possible to tell from Roberts' "CIT" phone interview where he thinks the plane was, but essentially none of the (confused and conflicting) details that he does provide can be made to fit the "north of the Citgo" path which "CIT" has been claiming must be accurate. That doesn't deter the "CIT" of course; they just fudge his description and add an impossibly tight turn over the Pentagon to try to make their previous path assertions fit. But unfortunately for them, there simply isn't any way for them to put Roberts on the loading dock in time to "look up" and see the plane "flying over the south parking lot."

The posting above from someone who says he was on top of the NRC Library is even harder to fit to the alleged "flyover" plane. He says he heard the explosion, then saw the mushroom cloud, then at some unspecified time later saw a plane fly through the smoke. But being 2.5 miles away, it couldn't have heard the explosion until 12.5 seconds after it happened, so even by the time he heard that, the alleged "flyover" plane would have been well over a mile-and-a-half away from the Pentagon, not flying through the smoke.

Sorry, it's just not possible. There just isn't any way to interpret what these people say they saw in a way that will remove these timing impossibilities.

[SDuderstadt]

153. Just so you know....

I now have the power to bestow honorary Freemason membership upon anyone. The really great news is that we HAVE a cheese table. If you really prove worthy, I will let you in on our secret plan for world domination.

[AZCat]

165. Don't be trying to steal my people!

The NWO has a hard enough time keeping up with the world without losing people to Freemasonry.

[SDuderstadt]

170. Well, maybe you ought to change the name...

and work the word "free" in there somehow. There's your problem. Remember the old adage...sell the sizzle, not the steak.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Open mind???

For Flight 77 denial?

:rofl:

"So open your brain falls out" is about the size of it.

The CIT thought pattern is a perfect example of conspiracism gone horribly wrong. It could be written up in textbooks.

[BeFree]

33. Heh

"So open your brain falls out"

Wow. That's some discussion you have going there. What brilliance!

Who can match you, Bolo? You are simply the best. It must have taken you years to get this good at discussions. Did you train? What school did you go to?

Eh, you aren't worthy of me getting any of my posts deleted, so it looks like you failed again. Try again later.

[William Seger]

27. "supercilious superiority" ?

My parents have a neighbor who saw the plane hit -- one of no doubt a large number of witnesses who don't have any published interviews. He was driving west on 395, coming around the Pentagon south parking when he saw it in a shallow dive, right into the building. Below is a picture I took from that road; I can't say it was exactly where he was because there is about a 1/4 mile stretch of the highway that has a similar unobstructed view. He would have been about perpendicular to the flight path, and the plane hit the wall around the left corner of the building. At that time of morning, that highway would have been pretty crowded. Perhaps not all of them saw the plane before the crash, as he did, but most of the people on that road would have looked over immediately after the crash.

Now, look at that picture carefully and try to convince yourself that my parents' neighbor and all the other people on just that one road wouldn't have noticed a 7-fucking-57 skim over the roof of the Pentagon and fly away -- that they would have been "confused" by the fireball into thinking that it just looked like the plane hit the building.

(And then, try to imagine that anyone would be stupid enough to concoct a scheme that absolutely depended on nobody noticing the plane fly over the roof.)

From where my parents' neighbor was, it would have looked exactly like a very low-flying plane had bombed the Pentagon. When I told my parents' neighbor about the "CIT's" fly-over theory, he looked at me for a second as if he thought I might be pulling his leg, and then he said, "They're full of shit."

You say in one post that it's not very plausible that so many witnesses could be mistaken about the flight path -- completely ignoring (as does the "CIT") that those witnesses don't really agree with each other, so they can't all be right. For some strange reason, you (and the "CIT") can't apply the same "so many people" argument to the much larger group of witnesses who saw the plane south of the Citgo. You find it easier to believe that all of them were mistaken about the plane hitting the building than that some of them were mistaken about the path that they saw for a couple of seconds. You find that so implausible that you prefer to believe that the entire path of damage and all the evidence inside the building was faked, right in front of the eyes of hundreds of people, by means that the "CIT" refuses to discuss in anything but the vaguest terms.

You say you don't care about "people in denial." Well, I don't much care about your opinions, either; all I care about is the crap you post on this board. I completely agree with my parents' neighbor -- the "CIT" is full of shit -- and I couldn't care less if you think that's "supercilious." Their theory is beyond idiotic and well into pathological.

[arcadian]

32. Photographing the Pentagon is illegal.

[Beam Me Up]

34. Are you're parents' friends willing to be interviewed on camera?

I'm not doubting you or your parents or their friends. All I can tell you is I've heard this kind "a friend of a friend saw the plane impact" twice before here on DU. Each time I've asked to be contacted via PM so that hopefully a follow-up interview could be arranged and each time I've been ignored.

If my understanding of the photograph you've presented is correct, we're looking essentially North West across the south parking lot. The impact would have been on the face that we can not see, facing the hill with the trees (Arlington cemetery). Is that correct? If so, are you willing to acknowledge at this point that, even if the plane they saw was on the official approach path, they could not have seen the actual impact? If not, why not?

I agree with you that from this spot they could have seen a fly-over aircraft. But there-in lies the rub. We need to know exactly where they were. Were they stationary or nearly so? Were they looking continuously out their left side windows or looking ahead as their vehicle is facing West? Did they see the plane approach from the direction of the Navy Annex? From their vantage point, could they differentiate between a SOC/NOC approach? From the angle you've taken this photograph the plane would had to have appeared about the level of the tower like structure immediately to the left of the far left corner of the Pentagon. If it was much higher than that it could not have hit the (40' tall) light poles atop the Columbia Pike/Washington Blvd cloverleaf.

I'm not interested in speculating beyond what can be established with some factual basis regarding this event. You are correct, the witnesses interviewed by CIT do not agree in every detail about what they saw. I have no problem with granting that fact. Clearly this is factual. However, these eyewitnesses all agree about one point -- and that point is the approach path was over the Navy Annex and North of the (then) Citgo gas station (NOC). It is a fact that they agree about this point, however much they may not agree about other details.

I see no need for going beyond this point. To me it is a very simple thing in the sense that we, as reasonable people, ought to be able to agree on one simple idea: The NOC flight path is irreconcilable with the physical damage. Do you agree with this point or not? I'm not asking you to agree that the NOC has been established as factual -- I'm asking whether or not you agree that the NOC flight path is irreconcilable with the physical damage?

To me, all the rest of it -- why would perpetrators do this as opposed to that is irrelevant. It would be like me asking you, why didn't Hani Hajour crash into the roof of the Pentagon where it could have done far more damage and possibly killed far more people than fly the plane into the one side of the Pentagon that had been reinforced against just such a possibility. We could speculate on that endlessly and all we would have is our opinions.

Either the NOC is irreconcilable with the damage path or it isn't. Either the NOC can be established as factual or it cannot. Beyond that point I'm not willing to go. CIT does go there, I understand, but you're talking with me -- Michael, aka Beam Me Up, who has been a member of this forum for many years -- not Craig and Aldo.

[William Seger]

37. There's no good reason to even ask him to do that

After what those "researchers" did to Lloyd England and Stephen McGraw -- actually, to any and all witnesses who unequivocally contradict their crackpot theory -- there's no way I'd ask my parents' neighbor to identify himself with an interview and expose himself to harassment from people whom I consider mentally ill. And there's no good reason for it, anyway: Hardly anyone takes the "CIT" seriously -- for good reasons -- and there's absolutely nothing this guy could say that would change their minds, so what would be the point? Furthermore, it really doesn't matter whether or not you believe his story: Unless you think that all the roads around the Pentagon were deserted at 9:30 AM, then you should wonder why nobody called a TV station or newspaper and said, "No, the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. I saw it fly over and drop a bomb."

To answer your questions: Yes, the wall the plane hit is around the left corner of that photo. From his description ("rounding the curve at the parking lot" or words to that effect), I don't believe he was far enough west that he would have seen the plane actually enter the building, but I didn't specifically ask him that. He said he first saw it "just a couple of seconds" before it hit, headed downward directly toward the building, then he saw the fireball and did not see the plane fly over the building. So, it's quite reasonable that he (or any other sane person) would say he saw the plane "hit the building" whether or not he could see that wall. Take another look at that picture and see if you think someone could be confused about whether the plane "hit the building" or flew over it. I don't think so. He was driving, alone, and the plane would have been about 45 degrees or less from straight ahead, not off to the side. And no, he doesn't know the exact path. I asked him specifically if the plane flew over the bridge on Washington Blvd. and he said he didn't "remember." But he only saw it for a "couple of seconds" which means, if it was really only a second or so, it may have already been past the bridge before he saw it. And as I said, he would have been about perpendicular to the flight path, so even if he had remembered some perception about the path, his perception would not necessary have been accurate. (Which, btw, is also the problem with all of the "CIT's" maintenance building witnesses: They were perpendicular to the path and saw the plane in the air, not rolling along the ground, so their perceived path on the ground would depend strictly on how far away they judged the plane to be -- a notoriously difficult thing to do for a flying object. A large plane could easily appear closer than it actually was.) He did say he didn't see the plane hit any light poles, but I doubt he was close enough to the bridge to tell whether or not it did, and as I mentioned, it's impossible to know exactly when he first saw the plane.

And btw, one of the original four witnesses does not put the plane north of the Citgo. Watch the first video carefully and take note of where Edward Paik places the plane (before the "researchers" coach him into putting it farther north, anyway). Paik indicates that the plane came from somewhat south of Columbia Pike, and at one point he indicates that the right wing at least was still south of the road when it passed over his head. He does say that it flew over the corner of the Annex building, but that could have been an illusion; it might have just looked that way because the plane disappeared over that corner, but it might have actually been past the building before it was that far north. But even if you believe that the plane flew directly over that corner of the Annex building, look at a map and see what kind of maneuver would be required to get from Paik's path to north of the Citgo and then back to fly over the Pentagon. And while the "CIT" accepts Sgt. Lagasse's path as gospel, they simply dismiss his claim (among others) that he directly saw, not assumed, that the plane hit the building, and even described the tail turning sideways when it did. (That's not an exhaustive list of the problems with the accounts and how the "CIT" brush them off, but it's good enough to make the point.)

And no, there isn't any way to reconcile the "north of the Citgo" path with the damage. But most people don't have any problem solving that "mystery," given that many witnesses saw the plane hit the building, and exactly zero saw it fly over. The title of this Rock Creek Free Press article should have been, "Some Pentagon Eyewitnesses Contradict Other Witnesses and the Physical Evidence."

The entirety of the "CIT" argument can be summed up as this: While some witnesses say the plane flew over the bridge and hit the light poles, other witnesses say it flew north of the Citgo. All witnesses say they either directly saw or inferred that the plane hit the Pentagon, while no witnesses saw the plane fly over the building. All physical evidence indicates that the path was indeed over the bridge and into the Pentagon. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the plane must have flown north of the Citgo, that everyone who says anything different must be mistaken or intentionally lying, that all of the physical evidence must have therefore been faked, and that the conspirators must have found some way to make the plane completely disappear after it got to the Pentagon. Futhermore, this conclusion is so solid, anyone who says they doubt it must be lying.

So as I said, I completely agree with my parents' neighbor's assessment of the "CIT."

[Bolo Boffin]

45. And of course for these crack researchers

the fact that your friend did not see the plane contact the Pentagon means he isn't a witness to the plane hitting the Pentagon. Never mind that from his angle he could clearly have seen the plane fly over the building if it had done so. Never mind that he saw the plane approach the Pentagon at a high rate of speed, disappear behind the building, and watched the explosion happen at the exact time it would have if the plane had hit the building. No, for these strenuously objective researchers, your friend did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.

And since you will not submit his name to them, they will dismiss his testimony as something they don't have to deal with. Because the world revolves around them. They only have to believe what they want to believe. All of their witnesses in a position to have seen the plane hitting the Pentagon (actually, for real) report the plane as having done so. They say that they were tricked. They have no flyover witnesses whatsoever for a flyover that happened in the center of a snarl of rush-hour traffic. That doesn't matter to them. There is no physical evidence that would convince them. There is no eyewitness testimony they cannot handwave away.

You're right in not giving them this person's name.

[William Seger]

50. Yep

That was pretty much Craig Ranke's response when I told him the story. It's definitely hearsay, and I certainly don't have any way of knowing whether or not the guy actually saw what he says he saw. But I do know that that road would have had a lot of traffic at that time of morning -- I lived around Alexandria and Arlington for over 30 years, and traffic is one reason I left -- and I can see with my own eyes that the CIT's "magic trick theory" just won't work for anyone on any part of 395, or northwest of the Pentagon on Washington Blvd, or east of it on Jeff Davis Highway. If the plane had flown over the Pentagon, there would have literally been hundreds of witnesses. The "CIT" dismiss all of the crash witnesses, whether or not they had published interviews, but they can't produce a single witness who actually contradicts those stories.

[Beam Me Up]

49. Your hostility toward CIT is duly noted.

In post 11 above you said, "My parents have a neighbor who saw the plane hit ..."

Now, in post 34 you say, "Yes, the wall the plane hit is around the left corner of that photo. From his description ("rounding the curve at the parking lot" or words to that effect), I don't believe he was far enough west that he would have seen the plane actually enter the building, but I didn't specifically ask him that. ... So, it's quite reasonable that he (or any other sane person) would say he saw the plane "hit the building" whether or not he could see that wall.

I understand that it may be a reasonable assumption drawn from preceding observation but the fact is, without further questioning, that is all it is -- an assumption, however reasonable it may seem. Certainly one can say all sorts of reasonable things that aren't factually accurate. We all say "I saw the sun rise" or "I saw the sun set" even though factually these statements are inaccurate.

But if we are to communicate here we have to establish facts. The fact now established by you is that although your witness said he saw it hit and although this may be a reasonable assumption from observation, he may not, in fact, have actually seen the impact. Moreover, you don't know because you haven't asked.

Do you agree those are established facts?

[Bolo Boffin]

51. Right on cue, with precisely the lines I predicted.

It would amuse me to know that Beam Me Up has me on ignore. He wouldn't know, then, that I'd predicted his entire game plan.

Well, predicted is hardly the right term, because I've seen it again and again. This is textbook conspiracism. The paths of denying the facts are well-established. The belief can be falsified, funnily enough, but the method of dealing with the facts ensures that the belief is never challenged.

This is what it looks like, fellow "dungeon" denizens. This is what you become when you chase the rabbits of CT advocacy. You end up arguing that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. Let the CIT team be your cautionary tale. Here There Be Life-Sucking Brain Rot.

[BeFree]

57. The life sucking brain rot of Bushco

Comes from taking Bushco at its word without question.

And your post reeks of utter hypocrisy.

Dealing with facts outside your belief system requires an open mind.

You don't deal well with anything outside your belief system.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Pardon me, but are you seriously saying I believe everything Bushco says

because I'm quite sure that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

:rofl:

And I'm the one who doesn't deal well with anything outside my belief system?

:rofl:

You must be joking.

[BeFree]

73. Quite sure?

Not absolutely, beyond a doubt, sure? Well we are making headway, then.

Nah, I'm sure there are a few Bushco things you don't believe, I just haven't see the first bit of evidence. And no one has told me otherwise, but I keep an open mind.

On edit: know you don't say no with a k.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Quite sure, as in

The only way to be more sure is to have been there and seen it myself.

Quite sure.

Perhaps you should do a little investigating about me.

Like, for example:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040816/williams

[BeFree]

86. Investigate you?

Why in the hell would I do that? I know you from your words here. That's quite enough, thankyouverymuch.

Besides, investigating Bushco is what is important. Should I send you a few links about all the elaborate lies they've told? How it's almost never ending lie after lie after lie? How they obstructed the 9/11 investigation and how the Widows feel about the way they were treated? Now that is something it seems you need to investigate, eh?

[Bolo Boffin]

97. "I know you from your words here. That's quite enough"

People who brag of their ignorance deserve any treatment they get.

[BeFree]

107. Eh?

What treatment is it that I deserve? And who is going to dish it out?

Is ignorance of who Bolo is some kind of crime that deserves a "treatment"?

Gawd, you really think lowly of yourself if you feel people who don't want to know anymore about you than what you write here deserve some kind of "treatment."

Well, Bring. It. On.

[OnTheOtherHand]

108. stop stirring the pot

Yes, Bolo is easy to goad. And yes, once again, you create the kinds of discussions you want. Congratulations again.

[BeFree]

109. You've come to his rescue

How nice of you, I'm sure he appreciates it.

But what is this 'treatment' I deserve? You seem like a smart fella, can you figure out what that means?

[OnTheOtherHand]

113. actually, I am trying to rescue you

And I'm fairly sure you don't appreciate it.

OK, let's try reverse psychology: keep stirring the pot, dude! Go for it!

[BeFree]

115. Rescue me? Rescue me from what?

What treatment are you trying to rescue me from? Is there a plot that you know of that is going to 'treatment' me?

Good lord, you guys need to get a grip.

[BeFree]

142. Crickets

I only hear crickets. Is that my 'treatment'? Ignore me? No, wait, I haven't been ignored, so that's not it. I hear nothing but crickets.

[OnTheOtherHand]

148. adjust your hearing aid n/t

[William Seger]

52. I don't believe he could have seen the "actual" impact

I took the photo a couple of days after I talked to that guy, and I haven't spoken to him since. So no, I haven't specifically asked him if he saw the "actual" impact. (However, I'm visiting my parents again this summer, so I may get another chance.) But I'm not sure it really matters what his answer would be, anyway: Just by looking at a map, by the time he could have "actually" seen that wall, he would have had to look to his right and toward the rear, which doesn't fit his description and doesn't seem very likely since he was driving. So, yes, I do believe he "only" inferred that the plane hit the building -- because that's the only inference that makes any sense whatsoever: Plane diving toward the building; huge fireball; no more plane. I really don't think it's too much to ask that anyone who has doubts that conclusion should at least offer some remotely plausible alternative. Got one?

[Beam Me Up]

55. "Remotely plausible" ... hmmm.

I'm chuckling at that.

If I understand you correctly so far, for the NOC flight path to be considered "remotely possible" your witness would had to have seen the fly-over. Is that correct? As I understand it, your witness not only did not see such a fly-over but is emphatic about not having seen any such thing.

The question for me then becomes, how reliable is that statement? Again, I'm quite willing to accept that you are reporting your conversation with him accurately and that he is emphatic that he did not see a fly-over. The very idea seems preposterous to him. It is only a question in my mind because, so far as I can tell from your description, you aren't certain precisely where he was located at the time. I'm also not clear whether he was stalled in traffic (stationary) or whether he was moving forward and if the latter at what rate and whether or not any of that could have affected his ability to see such a thing. I grant you that it would seem "highly likely" and "perfectly reasonable" that he would have -- but if we were in a murder trial with an important witness, cross examination would attempt to remove all reasonable doubt. If, for example (and this is hypothetical) he was moving forward at 55 miles an hour inheavy traffic and he witnessed an explosive event to his right at the Pentagon, coinciding with having seen an airliner on a "diving" approach which he assumes impacted, then what does he do? Does he pull over to the side of the road immediately and get out of his car to look? Or does he remain in his vehicle and continue on such that the event that has caught his attention to his right (and increasingly behind him), is sporadic because he also has to attend to the road in front of him? Given the shock of the moment and his orientation on the roadway, could he have missed something that wouldn't "make sense," given the assumption about what must have occurred?

Without answers to these kinds of questions, how can I access the accuracy of this witness? Must I accept your account of his account as the only "remotely plausible" explanation without answers to these kinds of clarifying questions? How can we proceed here, carefully, step by step, respectfully of one another, establishing facts as we go without either of us assuming we know what happened already?

[Bolo Boffin]

56. "reasonable doubt"

Your doubt isn't reasonable.

[BeFree]

59. Here's a chuckle

On another thread an 'eyewitness' to a post of mine couldn't even recall the words in my post, even after I had repeated my own words!

[William Seger]

81. Whatever

Keep clinging to those straws. Giving this fly-over nonsense any attention at all creates the false impression that this is a controversial topic, and that I'm trying to convince you that the fly-over theory is absurd. If you can't already see that for yourself, I doubt you ever will, regardless of what this witness or anyone else says.

[BeFree]

88. Coulda fooled me

It did attract a lot of attention. Brought a bunch out of the woodworks, it did. Tells me there must be something about it, the way everybody carried on.

Its nice to see not too many deleted posts, eh? It almost seems yall are able to at least begin to discuss these important theories, and that's a good thing.

[William Seger]

90. "Important theories" ?!

The fly-over is an "important theory" to you?

That's sad.

If you can't even figure out whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon, I'd say your prospects for figuring out anything about 9/11 are pretty bleak.

[BeFree]

91. I knew that would get you going

So closed minded and sensitive, eh? Too bad, otherwise you seem real nice and smart.

It is important to discuss these theories, otherwise why even log on here? If through the discussion yall can prove these important theories to have no basis you just might influence some change of ideas. Isn't that why we are here?

I know some people feel that most of yall's stuff is just more Bushco type obstruction, but don't let that smear any of you. How to keep off the smear? Honestly discuss things.

Oh, telling people that they can't figure out things is just f'n idiotic, eh?

[William Seger]

92. No, it isn't

Not when it's the truth.

[BeFree]

94. That's not true anymore

Are you so closed minded that you would attempt to try and limit what people may or may not do or learn about something that interests them?

That you judge anyone and tell them they'll never get it is not and never has been anywhere near any truth. It is, however, obstruction.

[William Seger]

95. You're really hung up on this "open minded" jag, huh

But I don't see any indication that you recognize a distinction between being "open minded" and being crudulous or gullible. When you're talking about matters of fact, rather than subjective opinion, being open-minded doesn't mean being non-judgmental. I open-mindedly considered what the "CIT" is selling (http://shop.thepentacon.com/main.sc">literally, btw), and I gave them ample opportunity to convince me that they're on the something. I judge it to be patent bullshit.

And, yes, I'll say it again: If you can't figure out whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon, then you're not likely to figure out anything truthful about 9/11. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

[Evan Sent]

176. How else do you recoup costs?

Besides your resentment of CIT for trying to raise funds for their efforts and satisfying requests from people who want DVD's while releasing ALL PRESENTATIONS FOR FREE ONLINE, what else irks you to the point that you can't believe the overwhelming amount of eyewitness evidence that proves the plane did not hit?

Were you familiar with all the new north side witnesses?
http://thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

39. "Has this dungeon become nothing but a stinking troll hole ...?"

In a word, yes. Just look at who/what has responded to your OP.

[wildbilln864]

13. Thank you !! nt

:hi:

[rollingrock]

28. More witnesses

www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JQL4esHFg

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xtEJ4zrIPM



Sorry, the evidence does not support the official story in any way.

[victordrazen]

62. Officer Medairos - No plane pieces

There wasn't any plane hitting the Pentagon, these "witnesses" are further attempts to obfuscate while pretending to seek the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiT8n1bCXYo&feature=related

[rollingrock]

65. Total media blackout.

Since then the media have done an excellent job of covering up the truth.

[Evan Sent]

149. Please explain

If the witnesses said the plane hit, then please explain how it hit the light poles, appeared low and level across the lawn in the video, and caused all the directional damage.

Plus, Sgt Brooks said that CIT's findings were "eye-opening" and "anything is possible" when it came to him being fooled regarding a flyby. Sgt Lagasse also admitted the fireball prevented him from seeing what the plane actually did.

[Beam Me Up]

159. Your question confuses me.

The witnesses assumed the plain hit. They didn't say they saw it hit. The whole point is their recorded account and the official account are irreconcilable. Or perhaps I don't understand your question.

Yes, I know what Brooks said.

[Evan Sent]

162. I'm on your side

I am asking the "skeptics" how the plane did all this if it approached on the north side of the Citgo.

[AZCat]

164. Your question might be better received...

if you posed it to one of the "skeptics" rather than the OP.