Strange Obsession: 911Blogger and the Pentagon Mystery

[Ed Jewett]

Strange Obsession: 911Blogger and the Pentagon Mystery

Submitted by gretavo on Mon, 2012-01-09 13:34. Below I copy a recent blog post on 911B by John Wyndham, part of a recent two-pronged (along with yet another Legge/Chandler piece) attempt to convince the 911 Truth Movement that AA77 was the cause of the damage to the Pentagon, and that it is that theory, not any other, that is accepted by a majority of real truthers. I post it along with a few of the comments which show that despite being overrun by apologists for the official conspiracy theory, 911Blogger still attracts a few people who are wise to the manipulation being attempted (see for example the comments by anditico and nycguy.) Specifically, some people (aside from me and those who read this site) are aware of the strange obsession on the part of people who otherwise claim to value consensus with the issue of what actually caused the damage at the Pentagon.
Why is this a strange obsession? Because these proponents of the official conspiracy theory vis a vis the Pentagon claim, unreasonably, that we who refuse to accept the OCT at face value on this or any other count are the unreasonable ones, and that we are hurting the movement by our refusal to accept their arguments as sound. If indeed vocalizing wrong ideas about the Pentagon hurts the movement, why can't they move on and let the movement focus on issues where there *is* consensus, specifically on the undeniable facts surrounding the explosive destruction of the WTC? It is obviously more important to them to get people to believe the OCT than it is to present a strong united front. It is, in short, apparently their goal to hold back the movement by arrogantly insisting that others share their point of view instead of agreeing to disagree.
If their arguments were as strong as they would have us believe *we* might be rightly blamed for holding the movement back with our unreasonable refusal to accept their version. But their point of view is inherently flawed because it is based not as they claim on real physical evidence but on easily falsifiable evidence, namely alleged eyewitness testimony and flight data recorder information provided by the suspects themselves.
We need not delve into the convoluted arguments in the papers that they produce on a regular basis (no doubt because they realize their efforts to date have failed to convince the movement) since being based on possibly fraudulent data (and here I include their refutations of both Pilots for Truth's own FDR analysis and CIT's "north of Citgo" witnesses which are both based on potentially falsified data) they are drawing attention away from all we really need to know (and publicly proclaim) about the Pentagon--that a story full of inconsistencies and improbable events has been offered to the public in the absence of airtight evidence that should be readily available in spades--here I mean both the many videos that should exist of the event and apparently do not as well as the collection of wreckage that--if it ever was assembled--has also never been shown to the public.
We as truthers don't need to prove what happened at the Pentagon. Our role is instead to be properly skeptical and demand the highest quality evidence before accepting the veracity or even the likely veracity of the official claims. Those who seem hell-bent on gaining a consensus based on anything less doom us to the kind of bickering that Cass Sunstein's "cognitive infiltration" outlines as a method of dealing with crimethink. It is especially tragic that someone like David Chandler who has so much to offer to the cause of truth with regard to the WTC demolitions has been roped in by wolves in sheeps' clothing to lend an air of legitimacy to this calculated distraction.
By their fruits we shall know them.
The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact by John D. Wyndham
Submitted by John D. Wyndham on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 3:42pm
pentagon
In ongoing research into the Pentagon attack the following peer-reviewed paper has now been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
"The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact" by John D. Wyndham.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volum...ndham1.pdf
As stated in the abstract, this paper shows that, of all the theories about what caused the damage and debris at the Pentagon on 9/11, a large plane impacting the Pentagon is in best accord with the majority eye witness testimony and main physical evidence, and is by far the most plausible theory. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory.
This work is supported by recent papers by Frank Legge and David Chandler:
http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Chandler_N...ation.html
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011...-paper-ref...
In these papers, Legge and Chandler show the path required for the flyover theory is impossible as the wing loading is excessive and the bank angle would be far steeper than anything reported by the many observers.
John D. Wyndham
January 8, 2012

http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/3320