911 Pentagon

[Richard Stanley]

I agree that it's important to recognize that some of the opposition is paid. But, how does it help to speculate about the motives of particular individuals? The downside is that if you're wrong, you risk insulting and alienating people who generally share most of our views & objectives. And even if you're correct, you come off sounding like an illogical and unreasonable person. You're rejecting all the innocent psychological explanations for irrational behavior, which are just as likely as the snitch-jacketing explanation.

As to allocation of time -- I agree that it eventually becomes a waste to engage in circular arguments, especially if you find yourself feeling that somebody is acting like a spook.

First of all, where did I say to accuse anyone of such? I merely said to be aware that there is logically an organized propaganda effort to deter bringing the perpetrators to account. It is illogical and unreasonable to argue otherwise.

I just proved, via my list, that I am not rejecting all the innocent explanations.

Isn't that an argument based on facts and logic?

Yes, my argument is based upon facts and logic. If the fuselage made the hole, then where is the necessarily intact fuselage? If an engine made the hole, then where is the engine?

We know that those military folks are obsessively tidy, yet if they went to the trouble of pulling either the fuselage or an engine or two back into the building, then why did they leave all the other loose debris on the ground in front of the hole. How did 'that specific debris' make such a clean oval hole?

Are you saying that the fuselage made the hole, then disintegrated? Jim Hoffman said that the plane disintegrated (imploded, not exploded) just before entry into the building, so that it could fit into the dimensions of the hole.

And our old friend, Russell Pickering, found a photo of what shaped charges can do to a brick wall. That is, make a perfectly circular hole, so I think it is safe to say that shaped charges can also make an oval shaped hole as well.

To counter a decent explanation (of pure demolition fakery), the spurious argument was then raised that the plane fuselage created a laser-like, collimated, vortex of air, the exact same cross-section of the fuselage, and this air vortex is what created the clean oval hole, while the same fuselage was shredded. Thank Allah that the path of the magical vortex was dead center between the two structural columns.

 

[Suchender]

Why this discussion of an 'airplane' hitting the Pentagon at all ?

If you realize that there was no real airplane swallowed by the ground at Shanksville, then it's clear there were NO airplanes involved in this event other than phantom planes !

 

[Jerry Russell]

First of all, where did I say to accuse anyone of such?

I'm sorry, I was misunderstanding your line of argument. Where you said: "I think that it's important for anyone who is interested in making (slow) progress on such a task to clearly understand the nature of their opposition", and then named Victoria Ashley as "Rasputina", I thought perhaps you were making some sort of insinuation. Just as it's been insinuated, on much better evidence, that Rasputin was some sort of spooky gigolo in Tsarina Alexandra's court.

Yes, my argument is based upon facts and logic.

Your facts and logic are absolutely undeniable. The only reply I can come up with, from the 757 impact advocacy perspective, is that the C ring hole might have been punched through by a firefighter or rescue team sometime after the 757 impact, and had nothing to do with the aircraft.

But in that case, the location of the hole (directly in line with the alleged flight path) is a remarkable coincidence.

My point, in mentioning facts and logic, was related to your earlier statement that "we all need better strategies and tactics, not just 'facts and logic'." And I'm not necessarily opposed to better strategies -- just pointing out that I'm very fond of facts and logic, and so are you.

If you realize that there was no real airplane swallowed by the ground at Shanksville, then it's clear there were NO airplanes involved in this event other than phantom planes !

Suchender: as I remember, there was some eyewitness testimony that the Shanksville plane was shot down, and that pieces of the plane were strewn over several miles. So, I don't find this argument convincing.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Why this discussion of an 'airplane' hitting the Pentagon at all ?

If you realize that there was no real airplane swallowed by the ground at Shanksville, then it's clear there were NO airplanes involved in this event other than phantom planes !

The issue is altering enough peoples' minds to the extent that it will make a difference. And, the majority of Americans and more think that something is wrong with the JFK assassination official story, but nothing will be done about it, so there is a double burden to overcome. After all, we're talking about the hidden power structure of Western Civilization as the perpetrator(s).

Suchender: as I remember, there was some eyewitness testimony that the Shanksville plane was shot down, and that pieces of the plane were strewn over several miles. So, I don't find this argument convincing.

There was some eyewitness testimony that a 757 hit the Pentagon as well. Pieces were strewn about? Where are the pics. We've got great pics of recent airliner debris in crashes in Africa and such. Maybe these rural Americans were so poor that they don't have cameras, even working for government agencies? When federal officials go there they sell their cameras, or what?

 

[Jerry Russell]

There was some eyewitness testimony that a 757 hit the Pentagon as well. Pieces were strewn about? Where are the pics.

There's not just "some" eyewitness testimony about the 757 at the Pentagon. There are dozens of highly reliable witnesses, many of whom claim to have seen the impact. So our theory crucially requires an actual 757, precisely timed with the explosive demolition, to create the magic show that explains the eyewitness testimony. And as Ruby has just shown us, the magic display only fooled some of the onlookers: there are also witnesses that saw the 757 fly over the Pentagon.

There are also lots of pictures of 757 pieces strewn about. If there was no 757 crash at the Pentagon, then there was a massive effort to simulate all aspects, including at least enough debris to support plausible deniability.

Maybe these rural Americans were so poor that they don't have cameras, even working for government agencies?

Remember this was 2001. The Blackberry smartphone wasn't even released yet, a decent VHS camcorder cost at least $500 bucks, and most photographers were still shooting film. Rural Americans weren't walking around with cameras in their pockets.

There were at most a couple of eyewitnesses to the Shanksville debris field, if I'm remembering correctly. And didn't they say most of the debris fell conveniently into a lake?

I'm not saying this is super-strong, bulletproof evidence -- but it's enough to cast doubt on Suchender's logical syllogism that if the plane wasn't swallowed up by the field, there never was any plane to begin with.

Want more evidence that there were large airline-style jet planes involved in 911? I don't have much patience for no-plane scenarios.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Want more evidence that there were large airline-style jet planes involved in 911? I don't have much patience for no-plane scenarios.

You know that I think that the two Air Force KC767 prototypes were employed at the Twin Towers, so don't go there with me. Interestingly, the Corbett Report video on the war games had Ruppert mentioning remote controlled airliners involved in such 'games' and these tankers would have been outfitted with the most precise military GPS and flight controls.

This is precisely why I do not like to spend significant time with 9/11 or JFK or .... anymore. All except Jesus of Nazareth, and repeating Millennial End Times, of course. Or, if you can convince me that 9/11 has something to do with the latter contrived dramas, then that's a game changer.

At least there were no 767's at the Cruci-fiction, only 666's!!! Even the Muslims gnew that was a technological hoax (to bolster getting us back OT).

That said, as I have stated before, the numerous claimed approach circumstances to the Pentagon preclude an airliner as an impactor. However, if you are saying that a 757 as a fly-over takes away a no-plane scenario then I have no problem. But there was no plane as an impactor, there was plenty of debris available from the prior South American 757 crashes. And the Shanksville circumstances are just beyond ridiculous. They are so ridiculous that, as I have opined before, it seems to have been intended as a subliminal message to the public that all this is being done with impunity, so unless you want to "Let's Roll" with the patriots, then STFU.

Witnesses are well known as the worst evidence, especially when circumstances point to the likelihood of corruption.

 

[Suchender]

Suchender: as I remember, there was some eyewitness testimony that the Shanksville plane was shot down, and that pieces of the plane were strewn over several miles.

Totally unbelievable !
This was given to the gullible as an escape from facing reality !
.

 

[Suchender]

Want more evidence that there were large airline-style jet planes involved in 911? I don't have much patience for no-plane scenarios.

Here are your 'airplanes', Jerry :
.

 

[Suchender]

.....it's enough to cast doubt on Suchender's logical syllogism that if the plane wasn't swallowed up by the field, there never was any plane to begin with.....I don't have much patience for no-plane scenarios.

.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Witnesses are well known as the worst evidence, especially when circumstances point to the likelihood of corruption.

In a court of law, which is the best fact finding institution ever invented by our pathetic human race, eyewitnesses are the primary evidence. Absolutely nothing else can even be introduced, unless an eyewitness will vouch for it.

As bloggers, the best we can do is to look at the evidence provided by others.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Here are your 'airplanes', Jerry :

Suchender, I'm not buying that there is such a thing as a 7D amusement park in Japan.

Of course modern photoshop-style video editing software can produce a virtual reality such as depicted in this you-tube. But that's a different thing from a holographic technology that could project realistic-looking airplanes visible from all over the city.

Video: Conclusive evidence the 911 planes were not real

I'm well aware of this argument. But, the physics of the impacts, as depicted in the videos, looks plausible to me. The airplane is a sturdier construction than the relatively thinner sheet metal wall of the building, and it has tremendous forward momentum. So it should go through the WTC walls, like a bullet through cheese. The situation is very different at the Pentagon, where the walls were thick, heavy masonry.

There were way too many eyewitnesses, for the Pentagon planes to be fake.

 

[Richard Stanley]

In a court of law, which is the best fact finding institution ever invented by our pathetic human race, eyewitnesses are the primary evidence. Absolutely nothing else can even be introduced, unless an eyewitness will vouch for it.

I think you might want to reconsider this, and that is an understatement. Evidence is constantly introduced in court without eyewitness vouching. You're saying that a murdered dead body found in the forest can't be introduced into evidence because no eyewitness saw it being murdered. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable and are responsible for frequently getting innocent people convicted.

Here's what you said back in the day about eyewitnesses at the Pentagon: https://www.911-strike.com/PlaneBomb.htm

However, in my view, the combination of a very high incidence of severely contradictory reports, and the high level of "insider" connections, should be sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt over these eyewitnesses. After these witnesses are taken out, there are surprisingly few remaining to support the 757 story. ​

The situation is very different at the Pentagon, where the walls were thick, heavy masonry.

Not really. This is a common misimpression, and there has been a disinfo campaign, similar to the crap that fake 'collectivist' was trying to peddle here about the 'tank-like' WTC construction. At the end of the day the Pentagon is an otherwise ordinary office building, of 1940's construction, beginning on 9/11/1941. The outer brick and masonry walls were so flimsy that it was decided to reinforce them (from terrorist attacks) during the wedge upgrades, which provided cover for the demolition staging. If they were so robust as to survive an airliner impact, as some claim they should have, then there was no need to re-inforce them.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I think you might want to reconsider this, and that is an understatement. Evidence is constantly introduced in court without eyewitness vouching. You're saying that a murdered dead body found in the forest can't be introduced into evidence because no eyewitness saw it being murdered.

Whoever found the body would need to testify as to the circumstances of the discovery. And somebody who knew the person, would need to identify the body. Or if it was being done by DNA, then witnesses would be needed to establish the DNA chain of custody.

Remember the easement case that I was involved with, settled on the day of the trial? We were ready to bring a parade of witnesses to introduce every photograph and drawing and email that we needed to prove the history of the easement. It was maddening, and VERY expensive. And the reason the case settled, is that our opponent could see that we had lined up all those witnesses.

However, in my view, the combination of a very high incidence of severely contradictory reports, and the high level of "insider" connections, should be sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt over these eyewitnesses. After these witnesses are taken out, there are surprisingly few remaining to support the 757 story.

Yes I did write that. In an actual trial, the judge or jury evaluates the trustworthiness of each witness. When I wrote this, I wasn't referring to all the witnesses, just the ones that had insider connections, and/or whose accounts were internally contradictory.

I also said:

Advocates of "no 757" theories who would like to continue to contest the eyewitness issue, need to understand how high the barrier that has been raised.​

And:

It is indisputable that many eyewitness accounts argue very passionately in favor of a 757 crash.​

And:

There is also the fact that this is recent history -- so most of these eyewitnesses are still potentially available for further questioning. There is a clear opportunity to do real oral history and/or true gumshoe journalism, to get the full story from these people who were at the scene, and to further separate truth from fiction. ​

Which is what CIT did. And thanks to their work, the case for their overflight is much stronger than it was when I wrote that essay.

At the end of the day the Pentagon is an otherwise ordinary office building, of 1940's construction, beginning on 9/11/1941. The outer brick and masonry walls were so flimsy that it was decided to reinforce them (from terrorist attacks) during the wedge upgrades, which provided cover for the demolition staging. If they were so robust as to survive an airliner impact, as some claim they should have, then there was no need to re-inforce them.

But you do agree that they were brick and masonry, and that they had just recently been reinforced. The heavy mass of that style of construction might have been an important factor in crash behavior, regardless of the mechanical strength. It's all a great imponderable, unless we can get verifiable construction drawings for both the wall and the plane. Then we'd have to run a big finite element model (and convince everyone to believe the results) or run a bunch of experiments with airplanes & buildings.

 

[Ruby Gray]

There is also the fact that this is recent history -- so most of these eyewitnesses are still potentially available for further questioning. There is a clear opportunity to do real oral history and/or true gumshoe journalism, to get the full story from these people who were at the scene, and to further separate truth from fiction. ​

Which is what CIT did. And thanks to their work, the case for their overflight is much stronger than it was when I wrote that essay.

CIT did a great job in compiling personal interviews which have crystallised the way we view the events at the Pentagon. Nobody else ever bothered to go to the horse's mouth as they did. They certainly deserve credit for this. I agree that we should now do more research in the same vein while there are still surviving witnesses whose valuable accounts can contribute to the big patchwork quilt of truth.

I did some time travel through Abovetopsecret forum this morning, specifically in Aldo Marquis' January 2006 thread on why Lloyde England's cab had been "moved". This was a flawed assumption based on ambiguous perspectives gained from varous photos of the cab taken on the bridge. Aldo thought the cab had been moved several feet from one position to another, still on the bridge. Storm in a teacup.

However, many pages and only a few days later, he posted an interesting find on Jason Ingersoll's photo DSC_0420 of the cab on the bridge, including a view of the northwest cloverleaf across the top of the stone wall.

Aldo rightly pointed out that part of a trailer can be seen at the left edge of this image, and astutely conjectured that this was the very trailer on which Lloyde's cab was transported from its location where the staged damage was inflicted on the cab, to the photo opp site on the bridge.

Just so happens that this is one of many avenues of research I have worked on in my LetsRollForums thread "LLOYDE ENGLAND VINDICATED WITH NEW EVIDENCE ON PHOTOS AND VIDEO." From memory, I think pages 10 and 11 feature this subject.

I posted this evidence to Aldo, which he may or may not read. I pointed out that had he followed this line of enquiry to its logical conclusion all those years ago, the outcome of CIT's work would have been far more authoritative. As it is, much of their research around Lloyde England and several other eye witnesses was compromised by subjective wild assumptions and unwarranted character assassinations against those who could have potentially advanced their cause far beyond their dreams.

The video and photo evidence supports the idea that this orange trailer was indeed the instrument of transport for Lloyde's cab on its 350-yard journey from cemetery wall to bridge.

Jerry, I am not au fait with the mechanisms on this site for embedding images, or I would include some to illustrate this theory of Aldo's which he unfortunately did not run with all those years ago. If you deem it helpful, I am happy for you to post relevant image/s from either my thread or my Flickr account.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Whoever found the body would need to testify as to the circumstances of the discovery. And somebody who knew the person, would need to identify the body. Or if it was being done by DNA, then witnesses would be needed to establish the DNA chain of custody.

Eyewitnesses are not witnesses, they are a category of witness. You are referring here to evidentiary witnesses, after or before the fact of a crime.

What you are suggesting is that if one person murders another person, and there are no witnesses then there is no crime. But now you say that if some 'other' witness can state that the dead person was known to them and another person states that they found the dead person that this is sufficient to prove a crime. But the last two witnesses didn't see the crime.

But you do agree that they were brick and masonry, and that they had just recently been reinforced. The heavy mass of that style of construction might have been an important factor in crash behavior, regardless of the mechanical strength. It's all a great imponderable, unless we can get verifiable construction drawings for both the wall and the plane. Then we'd have to run a big finite element model (and convince everyone to believe the results) or run a bunch of experiments with airplanes & buildings.

Brick construction is very weak in tensile strength, and the 'thin' masonry is considered a veneer layer, also not 'structural' in nature. Only the steel reinforced columns spaced 10 feet apart on center on the outer wall are "structural" in nature. The 'alleged' wall reinforcements were for the purpose of making the brick and masonry more capable of withstanding more typical, smaller scale armaments (say like a hand-held rocket launcher or bazooka) and explosive blasts. As such, I don't think that they would amount to much of anything against the kinetic energy of an airliner moving several hundred miles per hour.

As I remember, one of the elements was installing a layer of special fabric to the interior wall surface and then that was covered over with a finish layer. I have some photos of this, or at least I used to. But this doesn't prove that any of this reinforement was installed at the 'impact / demolition' site.

 

[Suchender]

The airplane....should go through the WTC walls, like a bullet through cheese.

911 ABC reporter Dan Dahler - an eye-witness saw no plane, only an explosion but NO engine noise ???

.

 

[Suchender]

The airplane is ...... fake.

Were you ever looking for the vortex, Jerry ?
Where is the vortex ???
.

.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I did some time travel through Abovetopsecret forum this morning, specifically in Aldo Marquis' January 2006 thread on why Lloyde England's cab had been "moved".

Here's the thread:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread191416/pg1

Ruby's contributions are at page 24 of that thread.

Jerry, I am not au fait with the mechanisms on this site for embedding images, or I would include some to illustrate this theory of Aldo's which he unfortunately did not run with all those years ago.

FYI, there is an "insert image" button in the edit window tool bar, represented by a little square containing an image of a sunlit mountain. This allows you to either provide a link to the image at another hosting site, or to upload an image directly from your computer. It works better to provide a link to the image, if that's possible.

If you provide a link, the software will copy the image to a local buffer, so that it doesn't disappear if the link goes dead. But if you upload an image directly, the forum will display a postage stamp version unless the user is logged in. Very strange behavior, but I can't find a way to reconfigure it.

Embedded videos using the "insert media" button are streamed from their source host (almost always Youtube). So if they get purged in some Google censorship rampage, they disappear here too.

If you deem it helpful, I am happy for you to post relevant image/s from either my thread or my Flickr account.

Here's one:

Unfortunately, I can't make out the towtruck, trailer & cab in the video clips. It might help for me to look at the original video, which I haven't done yet.

Here's the trailer in DSC_0420, along with the trailer seen at CIT's VDOT tour:

 

[Jerry Russell]

Eyewitnesses are not witnesses, they are a category of witness. You are referring here to evidentiary witnesses, after or before the fact of a crime.

What you are suggesting is that if one person murders another person, and there are no witnesses then there is no crime. But now you say that if some 'other' witness can state that the dead person was known to them and another person states that they found the dead person that this is sufficient to prove a crime. But the last two witnesses didn't see the crime.

Thanks for this clarification about the difference between an "eyewitness" and an "evidentiary witness".

I didn't say that evidence of a dead body is sufficient to prove a crime, I just said that witnesses are necessary to introduce the body as evidence. Crimes can get proven based on circumstantial evidence, but even circumstantial evidence needs to be introduced & verified by witness testimony.

The 'alleged' wall reinforcements were for the purpose of making the brick and masonry more capable of withstanding more typical, smaller scale armaments (say like a hand-held rocket launcher or bazooka) and explosive blasts. As such, I don't think that they would amount to much of anything against the kinetic energy of an airliner moving several hundred miles per hour.

Getting back to the context: the damage to the Pentagon (as shown in various photographs) indicated that the brick & masonry were penetrated by the fuselage, inner wings and engines. The hole was "too small" only in the sense that the wingtips & the tail didn't penetrate the building. So, only the wingtips and tail were too light & frail to penetrate, but must have reflected instead.

Or: if there was no 757 impact, then the perpetrators did a credible job of imitating the damage that a real 757 might have done to the facade.

 

[Jerry Russell]

911 ABC reporter Dan Dahler - an eye-witness saw no plane, only an explosion but NO engine noise ???

Perhaps Dahler was too far away to hear the engine noise? Or perhaps he was wearing heavy, sound blocking headphones? Perhaps he didn't see the plane because it was behind the buildings from his vantage point?

At any rate, this is cherry-picking: trying to build a case around one witness, rather than looking at the broad picture.

Where is the vortex ???

How long does a vortex persist after the airplane passes? How long did it take for the explosive clouds to take shape after the impact?