FBI Releases New Pentagon Photos

The FBI released more photographs from their 9/11 investigation at the Pentagon, including those plane parts the Truthers insist don't exist. This won't stop the demented from denying reality though. Paging David Ray Griffin.

Griffin On Barrett's Show

I downloaded this a few days ago (MP3 file), but it seemed almost quaint and trite to discuss in the aftermath of Bin Laden's death. David has apparently recovered enough from last summer's stroke to go back out on tour. This year's version is apparently to be entitled, "Why Does Bill Moyers Accept Miracles?" but you can be sure that Grifter will be performing all his greatest hits, including "Flight 77 Didn't Hit the Pentagon" and "The Phone Calls Were Voice-Morphed".

Here's a brief synopsis of the interview:

Opening-13:00: Griffin and Barrett discuss the origin of David's trutherism. He was "late" to the party, not getting into it until 2003 when a colleague turned him onto a website. What site is not discussed, but I suspect it's Eric Hufschid's.

13:00-18:00: LIHOP versus MIHOP. Griffin comes down firmly in the MIHOP camp, stating that the WTC controlled demolition evidence is very strong and therefore LIHOP is no longer tenable.

19:00-30:00: Griffin urges more time be spent on the Pentagon in the Troof Movement, precisely because it is so controversial. Brief discussion of the April Gallop lawsuit.

30:00-End: Faked phone calls. Yep, no kidding, Grifter spends almost half of the interview expounding on his view that the phone calls were faked. We get voice-morphing. We get Deena Burnett's caller ID showing her husband's cellphone was used to call her. And (most annoying of all) we get Grifter's speculation that they were not confident of Todd Beamer's voice morphing and so that's why he didn't want to talk to his wife. No, you lying con artist, that's not the reason why. Beamer explained to the operator that his wife was having a difficult pregnancy, and he didn't want her to lose the baby. Grifter closes up with the Barbara Olson phone calls.

I'd call him a maggot, but that would be an insult to baby flies.

J.O.N.E.S. Back from the Dead

The Journal of 9/11 Studies, which at one time announced that it was no longer going to publish, since truthers supposedly had made so many inroads to mainstream scientific journals that it had worked itself out of a job, has posted its first paper in 9 months. This paper, brace yourself, argues that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Gasp. Leave it up to the truthers to take 9 years to come up with the conclusion that everyone else figured out within about 20 minutes of the event. Next up on the horizon, a scientific study concluding that water is wet, and the Pope is Catholic....

All kidding aside though, I am not one for predictions, but I will predict that the next year or two in the nutjob community will evolve into a Civil War between the no-planer CIT, Rob Balsamo Pilots, David Ray Griffin, Loose Change crowd and the Planer Journal and 911 Blogger crowd, with the reality agnostics like Gage's group switching sides like a fickle Afghan warlord whenever the balance of power suits them.

Hey, at least schisms are entertaining. These guys have been pretty boring lately.

Update: I suppose I should also point out, since troofers will inevitably argue that Legge is one of the rational scientific fact-based members of the truth movement, that in a previous paper he, among other things, argued for those magical invisible GI Joe anti-aircraft systems hidden in the roof of the Pentagon. The paper has since changed of course, since even after passing "peer review", the paper underwent 7 rounds of revision.

Cockpit Door Sensor Proves "Truthers" Were Right All Along

I'm not going to be able to debunk this story:

Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR", cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act.

I kept telling our bosses at the New World Order that they had to be careful, because the Troofers only have to be right once, whereas Moloch has to be right all the time. How the heck could they release data that proved that nobody opened the cockpit door on Flight 77 at all? Worse still, the data show that nobody opened the cockpit door on the prior 11 or so flights. Apparently the flight crew never brought in a meal to the pilots, and the pilots never had to take a leak.

Yep, I'm convinced now that Occam's Razor tells us that there was no hijacking of Flight 77. Perhaps it is time now for the 9-11 Truth Movement to acknowledge that their best evidence is not superdupernanothermitate, but the Pentacon.

Paranoid about Droids

The Troofers' newest superstar is Dwain Deets, one of the geese in Gage's gaggle, who has been giving lectures, including a recent one in San Diego. Deets is a former NASA engineer, giving him some added credibility. Not, of course, that he actually uses his engineering skills; he does pretty much the same lecture as Gage, although I assume he's smart enough to say "freefall acceleration" rather than "freefall speed" like Box Boy.

But the paranoids who insist that the Pentagon was hit by a drone aircraft, or a missile, or anything other than Flight 77, have done some looking into his background, and in turns out that Deets worked a lot on unmanned vehicles:

What we see here is some of the earliest work on the remote piloting systems for airplanes.

Detailed as you can see, is a jumbo jet.

This image is found in a paper written by Dwain Deets in 1985, just prior to the Controlled Crash Test of the remote piloted jumbo jet at Dryden Research facility.

I think it would be fair to say that Dwain Deets is probably considered an expert on the remotely piloted flight control systems as well as a pioneer in the drone aircraft technology. There are probably more connects that I just have not found… yet, but he has been intimately involved in the development of this technology since 1974.

Of course, it's just the usual "connect the dots" argument from the kooks about other kooks. I am sure that Deets had nothing to do with the attack on the Pentagon. Honestly.

Yet More Incredulity

In a post over at 9-11 Flogger. Chris Sarns posts some pics that he claims shows evidence planted at the Pentagon. It's the usual "I don't believe it would look like that nonsense that we're used to hearing from the Troofers, this time about how the light poles should have caused more damage to the ground when they were hit by AA77.

How can you say those poles would just fall over after being hit by a plane going over 500mph and not leave any gouges in the grass?

I can't believe people would vote this into not showing.
You all are so fanatically married to the official flight path that you summarily reject any evidence to the contrary.

This is bleeping insane. Have a nice day.

Sarns himself claims to not be a believer in the flyover theory; one presumes he's a proponent of the missile theory. We get the usual nonsense about how nobody's ever seen a part at the Pentagon with a serial number on it. I am pleased to see that more of the Truthers are calling the Pentagon nuts "no-planers".

CIT-Heads Prove that Memories Are Vague After 7-1/2 Years

A laughable attempt by the CIT heads to claim that Lloyde admitted being in on the plot. Lloyde does seem to be a little off his rocker (like everybody else in the film); let's remember that in one of the videos, Craig and Aldo found a copy of a David Icke book in his cab.

Can we get some help from Stew or John-Michael on this one? Is this one of the crazy theories or is this something legitimate that requires debunking. I don't want to put any effort into this if our "rebunkers" are just going to say it's disinformation.

Update: Well, well. It turns out this got posted over at 9-11 Blogger despite Reprehensor's supposed ban on CIT theories and the response has been very positive. Perhaps it is time to remind Reprehensor why he initially banned CIT in the first place? It was comments like these from CIT groupie Domenic Dimaggio:

"Your support of government agent John Farmer and toilet scrubber Adam Larson and some obsessed clown named Arabesque exposes you for the gatekeeper you are Reprehensor. Let me guess you're just another anonymous clown in the gatekeeping world. Perhaps one of Randi's kids from the JREF Forum posing as a truther."

DEA Security Camera Released

It was focused on the front of the DEA's building, so it didn't capture the plane. It was repositioned to look at the Pentagon shortly after the strike and shows the incredible volume of smoke.

Still More April Gallop

James posted the other day about her lawsuit. Apparently it includes some mention of the CIT "flyover" nonsense, which generates some amusing commentary over at Truth Action Forum.

One of the overwhelming factors for those concerned about "disinfo" is the citing of witnesses who claim to have seen the strike happen. Indeed on 911 Blogger, this is exactly the case and has resulted in some voting down of those who are prepared to see beyond the implications of the infamous "honeypot" warning, as I believe Jim Hoffman christened it.

I examined a cited witness claim in detail to see what gives, and this is what I found. But I couldn't see a way to post it at Blogger so here it is here.

He goes on to parse the witness claim and shows an aerial which "proves" she could not have seen what she claims to have seen, and we're off to the races:

CIT have applied similar scrutiny to the oft-quoted "witnesses", but again of course, most of us are too lazy to double check, and accept words such as those of Ms. James at face value. God help us.

A couple of the responsible (I won't use the scare quotes this time) folks over there moan about the inclusion of the CIT nuttiness. But it's like trying to herd cats and before long the accusations are flying:

We know what highway she was on & we know where the trees are/were (trees take years to grow) & therefore we can prove exactly where or where not she might have EXACTLY been when she saw the plane & if she could or could not have seen it impact the Pentagon!It appears as if she could not have both had her view blocked by trees & seen a plane hit the Pentagon!Either way we have her pegged as a liar.

Another co-conspirator!

Thanks W, that was exactly the kind of rational response I was hoping for. Except perhaps for the liar part...

Somebody says that CIT's claims have been debunked by Frustrating Fraud (true), but Stefan demurs:

I haven't found CIT's claims to be debunked at all, by FF or Arabesque (who after all, just repeats FF's arguments).

And chek NI:

Rebutted to your satisfaction perhaps, but not to mine or apparently April Gallop's. And most definitely not "debunked". Repeating US Govt. "evidence" does not equate to being on 'solid ground'.
Have you even begun critically examining those alleged "100+" witness statements or do you just take it as read that someone else has?

Daniel (who just joined over there today) brings up the Great God Griffin:

No, you are definately *NOT* the only one. And recent polls indicate that as of 2006 at least 12% of Americans - 36 million - and a majority of 9/11 skeptics including leading researchers such as David Ray Griffen, do NOT accept the government's version that a Boeing 757 smacked into the Pentagon. However, it doesn't appear that this view is welcome here on this forum, so I'm afraid to say any more.

Leading researcher? Exactly what research has David Ray Grifter done?

Siddhartha attempts to be reasonable:

Do you feel the inclusion of missile and flyover theories strengthens Gallop's case? Or are you just cheering it because you support those theories?

But hastens to assure us he's solidly agnostic:

By the way, just to be clear, I don't adhere to any particular theory regarding what did or did not hit the Pentagon.

LOL! It's times like these that I almost feel sorry for the responsible "Truthers". Almost.

Update: The thread over there just keeps getting better and better:

Are we to pretend that internal explosions before the alleged impact didn't occur?
What the hell was going on between 9.32 and 9.38?

LOL! Yes, of course there were lots of explosions going on inside the Pentagon six minutes before Flight 77 hit.

I am talking about many honest researchers/activists who have been branded "disinfo", etc., for merely presenting *EVIDENCE* regarding holes in the government's Pentagon claims - folks such as PFT and many others who don't fall into your presumptuous box. Some of these people, including the CIT researchers, actually traveled to Arlington and gathered first hand evidence and interviews, which is way more than what many of those who have viscously attacked them have done for bringing any sort of clarity to this contentious area of 9/11 truth, I must say.

Aldo and Craig honest researchers? The guy goes on and on about "David Ray Griffen"; one would think such an acolyte would at least know how to spell the grand poobah's last name!

Pilots for 9-11 Truth R02 Flight Path Verified

And why that's pretty bad news for the CIT boys:

The P4T RO2 is the flight data recorder decoded, not a theory. The short of it, the distance from navigation aids (VOR's) has been confirmed as recorded in the RO2 (fdr). The positional data has been confirmed using multiple radar sites along the flight path to verify that data as well. There are no holes in the data, so contrary to some theories, the plane did not land in KY/Ohio/WV and get replaced by a drone of some kind. The radar and RO2 data ends at the Sheraton Hotel area (to the south). Projected forward, it corresponds to the downed light poles and impact area (south of the Citgo). There is no evidence of a "fly-over" or other such hypothetical outcome. The data ends at the Pentagon area.

(Bolding added)

Excellent work by 9-11 Files, and thanks to him for translating it into non-technical jargon for me.

A Discussion of the Flight Data Recorder Information for Flight 77

As has been requested several times by Bill Giltner, here's the thread at JREF going over the information retrieved from the FDR of Flight 77. IIRC the PfT Truthers like to say that the FDR ends with the plane still a couple hundred feet in the sky and this proves that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Anti-Sophist and several other people explain some of the potential problems:

1) Instrument Error
First, and foremost, if the sensor or instrument is giving the recorder a bad number, it’s obviously not going to record the right one. This type of error must be dealt with on an instrument by instrument basis. Any reconstruction should justify the precision used for each value attained. Please keep in mind that all other errors in this document are due to the recording system, and the lost information in the processed version of its data. The uncertainty caused by the data scheduling into a frame, plus the digital buffering, is in addition to any instrument errors.

False Claim: I already debunked the lagging altimeter nonsense!
(The recording-system errors discussed in this document are in addition to, and independent of, any instrument errors.)

2) Intra-frame Time Error
Since we do not have the frame descriptor, all we know is that N samples are taken during a 1 second period. This means that 1/N of a second is the possible error range for a particular data point. With the frame descriptor, this error would be completely removed if using the raw FDR data.

False Claim: The aircraft’s speed at 09:37:14.00 was 305.5 knots!

3) Digital Buffering Latency
One of the most important purposes of the DAU is to buffer digital outputs from things like the ADC (Air Data Computer). It is a reasonably safe assumption that the Air Data Computer updates the DAU at least once per sampling, and more than likely twice. This means that for a 1-Hz sample, recorded into the data stream, the actual measured time could have been anywhere in the entire previous second. This means, combined, a digital reading in the CSV file, like Computed Airspeed, which comes from the Air Data Computer, has an enormous error range, in the vicinity of 2 seconds, although 1.5 seconds is probably a safe estimate (0.5s for the buffering latency, and 1s for the uncertainty of when the sample was actually recorded). More then likely, the raw data stream has embedded the actual measurement times, so this error might be completely removed using the raw FDR data.

False Claim: The worst case scenario for the 9:14:14 frame’s airspeed is 9:14:14.00, then!
(Yes, that is the worst case time it could be recorded… not measured).

There's lots more, but it's even more technical. This is one of those cases where I bow to the experts and say "Have at it," because I'm clearly not going to understand the answer at any kind of a detailed level.

On the non-expert level, I just kind of roll my eyes at the thought that the Troofers have that the government faked FDR information for Flight 77 but screwed up and left the plane a couple hundred feet up in midair. What are we supposed to think, that the guy who was assigned to do it is secretly a troofer but doesn't want to lose his job, so he faked the data but left clues that it was fake. Now that PfT has exposed it, wouldn't he lose his job anyway?

South of the Citgo

Online Videos by Veoh.com

Great job of analysis by John Farmer and Adam Larson.

Correcting Arabesque

Posting over at Truth Action Forums, he (I presume) says:

The fact that the Pentagon was not evacuated is critical. The White House WAS evacuated, so there are no excuses for the fact that this did not happen at the Pentagon. This is treason. You don't even have to agree about what happened at the Pentagon to understand this.

Well, let's go to the Terror Timeline to find out when the White House was evacuated:

(9:45 a.m.) September 11, 2001: White House Evacuated after Secret Service Learns of Plane en Route to Washington

The White House is evacuated after the Secret Service receives what the Associated Press describes as a credible threat of a terrorist attack against it. [Associated Press, 2001 pdf file; CNN, 9/11/2001; CNN, 9/12/2001] Minutes earlier, in the White House Situation Room, Secret Service Director Brian Stafford informed counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke that an aircraft was heading in their direction, and said he was going to order the evacuation of the White House (see (9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

So the White House was evacuated after the Pentagon was hit. Now, in fairness, some evacuation of the White House was going on earlier, as noted:

In a 9:52 a.m. report, CNN White House correspondent John King will state that, “about 30 minutes ago,” the White House had begun slowly evacuating. This evacuation proceeds in an orderly fashion. But later on, around 9:45 a.m., those evacuating will be ordered to run (see (9:45 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

So I fail to see how this proves anything. Remember, it was quite easy to assume at 9:30 that morning that the WTC strikes were the entirety of the attacks. The WTC was the only building attacked in 1993 by Yousef. And the time is really indeterminate, because King is simply making an estimate of how much time went by. It could have been 15 minutes earlier instead of half an hour, which would fit with the 9:37 report of a plane headed back towards Washington.

And as John Albanese points out, if they had evacuated the Pentagon, they would have had a PR disaster on their hands as well:

Regarding the Pentagon - Arabesque indictates that their failure to evacuate the building indicates something - maybe even treason. I disagree. The Pentagon is the military command center. It is ridiculous to assume that the military would abandon its command center at a time of war when the USA is clearly under attack. This is akin to suggesting that soldiers abandon their posts. THAT is treason.

Can you IMAGINE the press associated with videos of Pentagon workers fleeing when america is under attack? LOL!!!

Exactly.

Pentagon Attack Could Not Have Been A Missile

I gotta hand it to Henry62; he really sweats the details:

The pictures show clearly that the missile is not designed to explode upon impact against the target (in this test, a reinforced-concrete structure). It must penetrate the structure, piercing its hardened outer shell, and then detonate inside it, producing a pressure and thermal gradient whose effect is actually enhanced by the resistance provided by the structure.

There is nobody doing finer work in 9-11 conspiracy theory debunking today. Simply magnificent!

Pentagon Landing Gear Photo Found by Italian Blogger

Our buddy Henry62 has located a stunning photo, which would appear to be the Holy Grail to Pentagon debunkers, of the landing gear of a 757 in the drive between the C-Ring and D-Ring.

Note: the original source of this photo is unclear. But it certainly looks like the area between the C-Ring and D-Ring, and the object at the bottom right is quite plainly the landing gear of a 757.

If anybody has any information on this photo, please leave a comment or send me an email. This is a big nail in the coffin for the Pentagon kooks.

Terrific find by Henry62!

Terrific Debunking Short Film!

Our buddy Undesired Walrus from JREF (who by the way was the guy who discovered that comic strip generator I've been using) has put his talents to work making a short film of quotes that work to debunk Loose Change on Shanksville, WTC 7 and the Pentagon. Highly recommended!

Mike Walter on the Pentagon Plane

Mike Walter, a USA Today reporter who witnessed AA77 crashing into the Pentagon, responds in this video to the conspiracy theorists who have taken his quote out of context to support their theories. This is the thing that still mystifies me about their theories, in order for them to be true, all the witnesses would have to be lying. How can you build a theory based off of ignoring most of the evidence?

H/T Alex in the comments.

Dylan Avery and April Gallop on the Pentagon Defenses

Apparently April Gallop will be appearing in Loose Change version 4, as Dylan is quoting interviews with her over at his forum, and using her to attack me:

Going through our interview with April Gallop, and a few lines immediately jumped out.

Btw, this is a rush transcript. Don't hate on the grammar.

---

APRIL DAWN GALLOP

I was quite surprised. You have to know that you know then you get integrated at the Pentagon you repeatedly told that this is one of safest buildings in all of the United States of America. So you know, I was in a location were I believe that if anything was gonna happen, you know nothing was ever gonna happened there. You know so you have that extra sense of security while working there that whatever you were doing that you were safe.

APRIL DAWN GALLOP

So again, I’m thinking you know, here we are believed that this was one of the safest places in all United States of America…and not one mechanism was working on that day. I mean what is the probability that nothing was working on that particular day. What about, you know, the defense system that was surrounding the building. What about the satellites that surrounded the building were supposed to be able to zoom in on particular places if it’s necessary and how all of a sudden on this particular day, this was able to happen. We were able to be attacked, so it led me to ask particular questions and to really try to get an understanding of what happened. You know, why did it happen and then those questions led to more questions.

APRIL DAWN GALLOP

We go to this briefing when you’re integrated. It is called reception integration when you come to the Pentagon and you do get a tour. And, you know, one of the most common statement is “This is one of the safest buildings in this world.” And so you wonder how on one particular day no mechanism, safety mechanism, alert mechanism, was functioning on one particular day in a building that you believe is one of the safest buildings in the United States. How in the world, you know, they said it was a plane I wasn’t outside, I didn’t see it but you wonder with the nature of the safety mechanisms, the things that they have to protect the building, how in the world that it get close enough to hit the building and we not be alerted, not warned. You know, the World Trade Center had already been hit, no get on stand by, nothing. Nothing.

---

And then I stumble upon this article...There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon by James Bennett, a person who, as far as I can tell, has never set foot in the building, and is relying upon Google.

Here's a good one:

"no reliable source has ever reported the existence of any type of anti-aircraft defenses at the Pentagon on 9/11, and those claiming that they exist can provide no proof, or even anything beyond vague speculation as to what and where they are."

--

-So, now the question I pose to James Bennett, Mark Roberts et al is:April Gallop. Honest 9/11 victim, or woman with an agenda? Remember, you laud the importance of the victims and how much you care about them.

The logical fallacy employed in arguing that there were weapons at the Pentagon is commonly known known as "argument from incredulity". People cannot understand how there could not be anti-aircraft weapons at the Pentagon, "It is the safest building in the world" and therefore that somehow proves they are there. Note that Dylan does not address a single argument that I make in a rather detailed 11 page paper, other than to express mocking disbelief.

To answer Dylan's question, no I don't believe Ms. Gallop has "an agenda". I do believe, however, that she has been quite traumatized by the horrible events she has had to witness, and is searching hard for a way to explain how this could have happened. She cannot emotionally accept that she has been a random victim of this tragedy. She is not, however, a military expert with secret inside knowledge. Her answers on this subject, both here, and in the interview I cite in my paper are inconsistent and bizarre, especially the comment about "satellites that surround the building". My heart goes out to her, but being a victim does not somehow embue someone with infallibility or omniscience.

Notice that other than vague comments about how it is the "safest building in the world" (would you expect them to tell new employees something else) she still has not specifically said that there are anti-aircraft missiles at the Pentagon, nor described them in any manner, so the quote from my paper that Dylan cites is still 100% accurate.

As for Dylan's quip about whether I have visited the Pentagon, no, I have not had the opportunity to be that close to the flagpole. I am not sure what difference this makes though, as hundreds of thousands of people have visited the Pentagon, and nobody has ever described seeing any anti-aircraft weapons of any kind. Would my visit be the one that somehow reveals this carefully hidden secret? I am willing to bet that I know a lot more about the military than Dylan does, or even SPC Rowe, the guy who claimed that the Pentagon attack could have been carried out by a shoulder launched anti-tank missile.

The PentaCon Video

Is here after long anticipation. They manage to find a few witnesses who claim AA77 flew north of the Citgo station, and from this they manage to "deduce" that the plane actually flew over the Pentagon. Unfortunately for their "deduction" they did not manage to find any witnesses who saw the plane fly over the Pentagon.

Update: What a trainwreck of a movie! They try fruitlessly to get people to say that they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon, which causes no end of consternation from the witnesses. The witnesses contradict each other on the color of the plane, the markings, etc, but they want us to believe they're absolutely right when it comes to where exactly the plane was. It amazes me that they claim this took them months to put together; that either tells me that film editing is not as easy as it looks, or that they're extraordinarily slow.

New Debunking Site

Welcome to the Pentacon.info, which is focused on debunking former Loosers Merc and Lyte Trip's fantasy documentary about the 757 flying over the Pentagon on 9-11, not into it. They've also got a forum, where Merc has threatened legal action if the site is not taken down. It is apparent from some of the claims that Merc makes that April Gallop is involved in this particular effort:

April Gallop will be THE spokesperson for the movie, she will be representing the unknown victims of the Pentagon attack.

Here's the trailer for this moronic film by a pair of 'tards who were originally going to have the whole movie released back in January:



Update: 'Tards is harsh, so let me specify that I'm referring to these two individuals and not to the 9-11 Deniers in general, many of whom are sincere if sincerely misguided. I do not believe that to be the case with Merc and Lyte Trip.