New Pentagon video

[Charles Drago]

Thank you, Greg. Very much.

And yes, the comparison is a compliment that, while welcome, is indeed premature.

[Charles Drago]

This seems like deep politics to me.


October 23, 2002
John Judge publishes Flight of Fantasy: Flight 77 Didn't Hit the Pentagon, which warned that

"There is no question that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Remaining agnostic on this point also gives ammunition to the perpetrators of the stand-down and serves to discredit the other good work that continues to be done about the reality of what happened that day. It is my feeling that this thesis was actually part of an intentional disinformation campaign that spreads red herrings to discredit the real findings."

Bait-and-switch bullshit!

This tiresome exchange was focused exclusively on the airplane seat/stewardess story as told by Judge and Carter. Without any comment on its tellers, I and others judge this tale to be mighty tall. There is too much wrong about it -- and I won't go through the now-tedious exercise of pointing out its flaws for the umpteenth time.

Now, thoroughly beaten down, you would switch us to another John Judgment -- one that, had you been more interested in learning about my positions on 9-11 in particular and disinformation in general rather than in casting aspersions on my work, past and present, you would know I tentatively and publicly made some time ago.

I don't know what hit the Pentagon on 9-11. I do know that the "no planes hit WTC 1 and 2" theory is precisely what Judge writes about in your switch.

And I do know that you wouldn't "know" deep politics if it were biting you on your ass.

[Gary Severson]

Bait & switch? JJ IS discussing why he believes the Pentagon was hit by an airliner in the art. & therefore why it is that they saw bodies, seats, etc. I don't know what hit the Pentagon either but I don't go ballistic when someone brings up views that don't agree with mine. When I experience someone doing that it feels like a cult is at work. Self righteous cults try to exclude/ostracize people.

[Charles Drago]

I don't go ballistic when someone brings up views that don't agree with mine. When I experience someone doing that it feels like a cult is at work. Self righteous cults try to exclude/ostracize people.

This is not some exercise in abstract, subjective debate.

Your "views" in this instance are wrong. Dead wrong. Measurably wrong. Rhapsodically wrong. OPERATICALLY wrong. FUCKING wrong.

Further, I never tried to "exclude/ostracize" you. I simply continue to point out how -- what's that word again -- oh yeah, WRONG you are in terms of your fatally flawed "analysis" of the Judge story.

It's not my OPINION that you're WRONG. In fact you are wrong. Beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude you are W - R- O - N - G!

Not to put too fine a point on it.

[Kyle Burnett]

Jim Hoffman provided the best reasoned analysis of what hit the Pentagon I've seen in The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows, which concludes:

In this essay I asked what conclusions about the Pentagon attack were supported by physical evidence -- primarily post-crash photographs of the site. I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757. At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.

As for the video in the OP, I stumbled across this version of it over a year ago, and the first thing that struck me is how vastly different the lighting is from all the indisputable images of the Pentagon shortly after the attack, looking more like early morning in the dead of winter rather than a sunny day in September. Then there is the point of impact, which is good bit further North in that video than center of the damaged area which can be elsewhere. Beyond that, the 2.35:1 aspect ratio is rarely used outside of professional films, which leads me to suspect it's footage ripped from a Hollywood movie with the vaguely missile-like blob and other touches to disguise its province simply edited in. Also, the pictures of the American Airlines branded cruse missiles, minus the American Airlines branding, can be seen here:

[Gary Severson]

I don't go ballistic when someone brings up views that don't agree with mine. When I experience someone doing that it feels like a cult is at work. Self righteous cults try to exclude/ostracize people.

This is not some exercise in abstract, subjective debate.

Your "views" in this instance are wrong. Dead wrong. Measurably wrong. Rhapsodically wrong. OPERATICALLY wrong. FUCKING wrong.

Further, I never tried to "exclude/ostracize" you. I simply continue to point out how -- what's that word again -- oh yeah, WRONG you are in terms of your fatally flawed "analysis" of the Judge story.

It's not my OPINION that you're WRONG. In fact you are wrong. Beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude you are W - R- O - N - G!

Not to put too fine a point on it.

How can I be wrong when I didn't have the experience. JJ & TC had it. I am just reporting it & trying to see if anyone has better evidence than them. Apparently there are people here who hadn't heard about it so it's good they found out so they think about it. I've known about the JJ & TC view since 2003 or so when I spent 6 hrs. with JJ and he said what he says they saw at the Pentagon. Subsequently I began to see the evidence of a missile. I in fact have been more a believer in the the missile or something other than an airliner but have always kept JJ's story on the back burner for chances to mention it to see what people think of it. But here you just get told it's wrong to even bring it up because it's so stupid. The resistance to even talk about it rationally and simply dis it because it is "an argument from authority" is W-R-O-N-G-O !!! If I invoke Einstein about the theory of relativity it is "an argument from authority". Some of Einstein may turn out to be wrong but no one says you can't invoke Einstein because you're using "an argument from authority".

[Phil Dragoo]

Post #10 on Page 1:



How do we explain away John Judge visiting the Pentagon the next day with his friend T. Carter who was supposed to be a stewardess on the plane that hit the Pentagon the day before. She was sick & didn't make the flight. She identified the fabric on the seats of the AA jet as the same as on the plane she would have flown on if she hadn't called in sick.



The following is John Judge in his own words:


At the end of her shift on Saturday morning, September 22nd, she was approached along with other attendants to visit the crash site. One declined, but she and two others took a van driven by the Salvation Army to the area. They were forced to wait almost 45 minutes at a safety fence around the area before being admitted into the area of destruction. As they waited, members of a psychological support group talked to them about their feelings. She will never forget what she saw there.



"How do we explain away John Judge visiting the Pentagon the next day--"


John Judge did not visit the Pentagon.


A friend told John Judge she visited eleven days after the incident.

http://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudg...AAF77.html

[Lauren Johnson]

Gary, you remind me of the guy who is being evaluated by a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist shows him a series of ink blot cards. Each time he reports seeing naked women. The psychiatrist tells him he has a sex complex. The guy answers back: What do you mean? You're the guy showing me all the dirty pictures.

[Gary Severson]

I missed seeing Charles' post below earlier this morning. After reading it I am now more sure I am up against some sort of paranoid delusions. At the same time it is just as likely the accusations that I am some sort of plant are just ways to lead up to an excuse to dismiss me from participating here. I can't be that convincing as a disinfo. agent because I am called stupid simultaneously to being a sly spook. Let's see, if one read my research on Della Rosa's site archived here one would see I did that research 12 yrs. ago & that it deals with my own humble experiences 48 yrs. ago with JFK as a 15 yr. old. Of course that could have been my sheep dipped legend in process to make me available to infiltrate sites like this yrs. later. I have probably been blackmailed or paid off $millions to quit digging into the JFK assassination.

Originally Posted by Gary Severson
I was asking what the govt. did to Charles personally not about the things you list that effect everyone.



Among other things, it sends touts to peddle its lies and wave its bloody flag.

The data is insufficient for me to make a determination as to the motivations for your advocacy for the forces that "did things" -- terrible "things" -- to all men and women of conscience. Are you their witting or unwitting stooge? In the final analysis, the question is moot.

Detectable in your posts is a pattern all too familiar to those of us who have been exposed to and/or targeted by disinformation games. You appear on the blog with blazing guns aimed at our common enemy. And then you begin a subtle pull-back. It begins with the use of ambiguous language sufficient to permit you to engage in semantic games.

Originally Posted by [B]Gary Severson [/B]
Magda, you [suggest] I don't know what there is to be pissed off about.



WRONG! YOU asked the question in the most provocative and bellicose and inartful of manners. You chose the language -- you or, perhaps, your handlers.

(How's that for paranoid!)

Then you get personal.
Originally Posted by [B]Gary Severson [/B]
I was asking what the govt. did to Charles personally[.]



You pick prime targets. You choose a thread on which at least two of those targets have engaged in heated argument, and you proceed to pour gasoline by offering a poorly composed series of posts (Sorensen) begging for clarification. Clarification is politely sought and politely provided. End of story?

Not quite.

Your next move is to post the Judge/Carter story in such a fashion as to make it clear to every seasoned observer of deep politics that you are endorsing a tale so absurd on its face (magically appearing airplane seats and jewelry that would support the official GOVERNMENT 9-11 conspiracy theory, extraordinary access to a crime scene, etc.) as to provoke belly laughs.

When you are sternly taken to task for your fatal lapses in judgment, you immediately cry FOUL. You plaintively ask after the whereabouts on DPF of polite, "I'm OK, you're OK" discourse.

And all the while you invite more of the same by posting the most poorly reasoned and ill-informed deep political "analyses" this side of the 9-11 Commission Report.
Originally Posted by [B]Gary Severson [/B]
Magda, you say cool it and then take Charles' side[.]



You bet your ASS Magda took a side! She is a warrior for truth and justice, and all of us are morally obliged to take sides in this war in which we are engaged.

To be charitable, you seem content to sit around campfires and tell sad tales of the deaths of kings.

To be analytical, you default to the side of your "government" -- whatever the hell that is -- for reasons that remain obscure. For now.

You're in over your head. Your endorsement of the Judge/Carter story is prima facie evidence for your inadequacies as an analyst of deep political events. You have been called out.

[Gary Severson]

[quote=Lauren Johnson]Gary, you remind me of the guy who is being evaluated by a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist shows him a series of ink blot cards. Each time he reports seeing naked women. The psychiatrist tells him he has a sex complex. The guy answers back: What do you mean? You're the guy showing me all the dirty pictures.[/QUOTE

That's funny Lauren. I like jokes about apples & oranges.