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

[Jeffrey Orling]

From a meta analysis perspective we might step back and observe what is going on with those leading the truth movement... and providing what they claim is evidence and analysis.

How can a someone... or a group of researchers exemplify sound logic and science in their study of one set of observations and show almost the opposite in another? Should this cause is to question the credibility of both the scientists/researcher and their work/findings?

It appears that many in the truth movement have lined up behind Chandler explanations of the destruction of the WTC based on some of his work... such as the trace of the descent of the facade of bldg 7 during the first 2.25 seconds of movement visible to the naked eye. This trace revealed that the descent was at free fall acceleration indicating that there was no resistance to it's fall. NIST was caught in a deception of not noting or accounting for this observation... and in fact being deceptive by starting the clock sooner, thus extending the duration of the movement which would hide the period of free fall descent. They were caught red handed by Chandler.

However the observations of what was taking place were much more complex and nuanced than simply the 2.25 second observation of the descent of the facade. And the conclusions drawn may have been incomplete or hasty... as it later turned out when other scientists looked in great detail at bldg 7 during its destruction. For example, careful observations revealed the following about bldg 7:

There was movement of the tower.. swaying back and forth for several seconds before the easily unaided eye observations of the downward movement.

There was the the observation of the descent of the East penthouse before the observations of the downward movement of the facade. This can both be seen as the East penthouse disappears *into* the roof and as its descent is telegraphed in the distortions of reflections on the facade windows. The East penthouse descent is evidence that something happened INSIDE the building before we observe the descent Chandler measured.

We observe various distortion of the facade/curtail wall descends... There is a marked inward bowing if the entire norith facade. The extend of this strongly suggests that there was nothing behind it to restrain it and maintain the facade in a flat plane as the structural system including the floors would do. The seems to indicate that there was nothing behind the facade/curtain wall during the observed descent. Some might see this as a dipping in the center of the entire facade... but had this been the distortion of the facade/curtain wall... the glass would have all shattered as the frames were distorted from rectangles to parallelograms. Inward bowing would allow the frames to remain rectalinear which the frames themselves *hinged* / rotated inward. Careful measured observations indicate that the entire shape of the facade/curtain was was twisting and torquing... being distorted as it descended.

The implications of the above observations and data.. is that what we are directly observing is the movement of the facade / curtain wall ONLY and not the entire building coming down. Yes the facade/curtain wall did descend at FF for 2.25 seconds....meaning it was not resisted and that whatever had held it up/in place was no longer there. But if the inside of the building was gone... before the observed facade/curtain wall movent we need to revise the statement that the BUILDING was decending at free fall to the FACADE / CURTAIN wall was descending at FF for 2.25 seconds.

This does not mean that there wasn't a controlled demolition INSIDE the tower. Something caused the *guts* of the tower to collapse or be destroyed leaving the facade/curtain wall with no support. We need to figure out what it was... And we need to use the best and most precise observations and science to inform our understanding.

My sense is that Chandler was very hasty in reaching the CD conclusion... only one possibility... however likely. He doesn't even discuss what's happening inside... leaps ahead to conclude the structure was CDed...because we see the facade drop at free fall acceleration.

The of course he takes this perspective and it filters all his other reports / observations. He seems to then be looking for the signs of CD instead of describing the observations (accurately please) and what forces explain them... and then propose what could have released or caused those forces. Chandler has led to way to looking for evidence to support a CD conclusion and most truthers seem to follow his lead. I am not impressed with his scientific rigor... but he did catch NIST is a big lie.

The best case that something is fishy is that the OCT is not credible and full of lies, deception and junk science. So we know that the government and the media lap dogs are peddling a cover story. We can't conclude this is cover FOR the government, or parts of it... or perhaps something else... like a coup d'etat which leaves the government in place but pulls all the strings (somehow) behind the scenes. So instead of the coups we are familiar with in say South America... there is the sort of coup which holds the existing government hostage and gets it to enact their policies they want... I am not proposing this as much as I am stating that it could be a possibility and would mean that it might not have been a MIHOP or even a LIHOP.

It's just hard to know but it's easy to create scenarios...

[Charles Drago]

The best case that something is fishy is that the OCT is not credible and full of lies, deception and junk science. So we know that the government and the media lap dogs are peddling a cover story. We can't conclude this is cover FOR the government, or parts of it... or perhaps something else... like a coup d'etat which leaves the government in place but pulls all the strings (somehow) behind the scenes. So instead of the coups we are familiar with in say South America... there is the sort of coup which holds the existing government hostage and gets it to enact their policies they want... I am not proposing this as much as I am stating that it could be a possibility and would mean that it might not have been a MIHOP or even a LIHOP.

It is the ONLY type of American coup that could succeed and avoid open revolution. The ILLUSION of continuity of government is the key.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Charles,

I think you are exactly right about this. So the question is how do we figure our who the coup is? If they manage to keep the status quo in place they remain hidden.

One possibility is that it IS actually part of THE government... elements of the national security state... sort of like the generals have a tete a tete with the executive and telling him... Look man... we're in charge and we will tell you want to say more or less or you have to get our approval for what you say... and keep your effin mouth shut or you'll have an unfortunate accident one day. This sort of inside coup is easy to wrap one's mind around.

But the coup could be "outsiders" or agent types from some special interest /segments who did the deed and then inform the gov... look guys... see what we did?... We can do whatever we want despite your DOD and Intel... we've got people allover the place... so just behave or else... make like everything's normal... and continue on with trashing the ME (for example) because we want it... for the obvious reasons... nuff said.

If there was this sort of coup... who pulled off 911... then it wouldn't be a MIHIP nor a LIHOP... but more like the US national security state was caught completely off guard, lazy in their belief that they were unbreachable and invincible. That would definitely have to be covered up... Could you imagine what would have happened if it was revealed that the entire national security state was gamed by some group behind 9/11... regardless of who it was...

My sense is that the cover up - OCT - DID conceal massive amounts of failure of our expensive national security state. I say so because it seems almost impossible that the whole apparatus was in on the coup... so much of it simply was caught with their pants down... and that could not be acknowledged... hence the cover up. Not a single person was held accountable for anything on 9/11. That is effin amazing.

[Phil Dragoo]

My sense is that the cover up - OCT - DID conceal massive amounts of failure of our expensive national security state. I say so because it seems almost impossible that the whole apparatus was in on the coup... so much of it simply was caught with their pants down... and that could not be acknowledged... hence the cover up. Not a single person was held accountable for anything on 9/11. That is effin amazing.


Jeffrey, John O'Neill of the FBI, The Man Who Knew http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/ was ignored, then ridiculed, sabotaged, sidelined. His briefcase of current cases was stolen when he was called to the phone at an FBI seminar. He died in the collapse of the towers.


Gorelick's Wall was a DOJ artifice to prevent exposure of China's compromise of 42. This prevented sharing of information which might have tipped off relevant agencies before the act.


FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley wrote a long letter to Director Robert Mueller criticizing the Bureau for ignoring warnings by such agents as herself of Middle Eastern men taking peculiarly truncated flying lessons.

Obama extended Mueller's stay beyond the ten-year statutory term. Mueller has pleased him in way Brennan did with the passports. Who created the legend.


There were watch lists and no fly lists and they did not stop the nineteen from flying.

I posit minimal targeted modifications were effected to trigger floor collapse on a retail basis, which collapse proved irresistible, going viral, down to the ground.

No, of course not: not "entire agencies" were involved, nor the managerial hierarchy; the organizational chart was completely disregarded.

Cheney and Rumsfeld, O dear. And the president a friend of the Saudis. Who needed a favor. Remove this stone from my shoe. This one, here in Baghdad.

And it would allow us to return to get the Taliban (our allies against the Soviets) off the poppy crop; we'll send in agricultural advisors and make lots and lots of heroin, which is better than gold in today's economy.

Obama follows along and keeps Robert Gates. Who did the 2004 CFR paper with Zbigniew Brzezinski (who may or may not have been a "mentor" of Obamahas most assuredly been an advisor beginning during the 2008 campaign) "Iran: Time for a New Approach".

Then we have the 2007 NIE saying Iran was not making nuclear weapons. Now this past year we have Russia and China stating in the strongest terms Iran must not be attacked.

We have the Arab Spring empowering Iran, clearing secular regimes for the installation of Islamist ones.

Of course there can be no continuity between the CIA which installed the Shah in 1953 and Brzezinski who enabled the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 and the immunity for Iran to suppress its dissenters in 2009 (when all other regional players are brought to heel).

Iran and Saudi come to the fore, their oil coveted by Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.

We have soma to die for.

The towers were the galvanizing symbol for the last decade's crusade.

What will be next.

As with Dallas 1963, careful planning, manipulation of perception, fear and confusion to herd the livestock into pens of stability figured as key elements.

When Greece and France collapse we will be shaken. When the internet is shut down we will be blindfolded and gagged.

Or not. The point being the cavemen could only breach the gates with the collusion of the guards, only sap the walls with the preparation of the miners.

The king continues the feast calling for his pipe, his bowl, his fiddlers three.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Phil... WOW just WOW... thank you for that...

[Dawn Meredith]

Phil... WOW just WOW... thank you for that...

Really!

[Jan Klimkowski]

Phil "Prescient" Dragoo...