9/11 Pentagon: Conflicting Evidence

Posted: May 7, 2016 in -, Vic Sadot
Tags: , , , , , ,

facade-intacte-s.jpg

 

Anyone who’s seriously delved into what happened to the Pentagon, that “act of war” which Dick Cheney made sure to label on the evening of 9/11, knows that it’s nothing but a throbbing headache.

Here you’ll see why if you’re interested. I find it sufficient to establish a COVER UP, and there are several associated with the Pentagon strike. Let’s not forget the CIA was hiding the alleged hijackers who supposedly crashed into America’s military headquarters. The Pentagon also had an hour and 16 minutes to defend itself according to the official story! And yet the Air Force apparently couldn’t defend its own headquarters. Sound like a justification for “Rebuilding America’s Defenses?

Vic Sadot sent this in:

The above video presentation is in dispute and is opposed by some, supported by others…

Dr. Timothy Eastman – Review of “The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted” by Victoria Ashley et al. [main author Wyndham]

        Though I was pleased to see that the authors conclude (p. 66) that “these events… are best approached with a commitment to… examining all the evidence, eschewing all personal bias and other personal considerations and by testing each hypothesis for its consequences”, this paper does not live up to its stated goal.

        It assumes the validity and integrity of official evidence while omitting compelling evidence against the official story compiled  by Ms. Honegger, and my reading revealed at least 25 direct or implied personal attacks on Ms. Honegger (e.g., p. 43: “Her contention here is scientifically naive…”;  p. 63: “Honegger’s scenario is divorced from reality”), all of which should be expressed in a neutral way in a scholarly paper.  While the authors make more than 20 claims as to how “scientific” this present work is and how Ms. Honegger’s work is “unscientific”, they apply clearly inconsistent logic in an attempt to refute a central pillar of her thesis, claiming that only clocks stopped earlier than the official story time are the result of minute hands having been moved due to dropping, but not also clocks stopped closer to the official story time. I find Ms. Honegger’s clock analysis more believable, in terms of overall coherence and consistency, than to assume that only the “9:37 clocks” should be believed and that all other timepieces — including April Gallop’s 9:30-stopped watch and the digital-clock time of 9:34:10 for the initiation of the black smoke cloud embedded in the Doubletree Hotel video —  should be dismissed.  Indeed, if there is as much failure associated with minute hands as the authors claim, why should we accept any clock readings?  Questioning of clocks should apply to all of them, not just to those not giving close to the official time.

            Most importantly, for a paper whose title is “The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted”, the authors seriously misstate that hypothesis, making much of the paper a series of straw man arguments. They falsely claim in the abstract and throughout the paper that Ms. Honegger attributes “all” damage and deaths at the Pentagon “solely” to pre-planted explosives, whereas her clearly stated findings are that the damage, fire and deaths are the result of both explosives and the explosion of a large plane at the heliport area further north and earlier than the official story time.  The other main difference is that the authors assume and state that the plane at the Pentagon was “likely” and “probably” Flight 77, whereas Ms. Honegger marshals the evidence the authors omit that it could not have been Flight 77 (i.e., that there was destruction, fire and deaths in the A and B Rings further in than the C Ring opening; that American Airlines’ press release stated that the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) reportedly found just inside the C Ring opening was the wrong kind for any AA airliner on 9/11 and thus that the FDR reportedly found near it, on whose data the authors heavily rely, also had to be of the wrong kind, etc.) Further, the authors base the majority of their analysis on a previous ‘Behind The Smoke Curtain’ video and not on the revised, updated second edition (https://youtu.be/VXBk8JqwFlw) published months before this paper was written and submitted, and do not include a citation to Ms. Honegger’s peer reviewed chapter in the “Toronto 9/11 Report” along with the links to the video presentations.

           In my view, the authors’ claim to have accessed “all the evidence” is also problematic for a number of reasons: (1) “all the evidence” is clearly not available because much evidence remains behind the “security curtain” or suppressed through extensive censorship; (2) the authors omit critical evidence refuting their position presented  by Ms. Honegger and others; (3) much of the witness testimony, which is ‘all over the map’ — it was a ‘large plane’, a ‘small plane’, a ‘757’, a ‘737’, a ‘747’, a ‘missile’, etc. – must be critically eliminated      in any serious analysis; (4) much of the available”evidence” is seriously compromised [e.g., as stated by the authors themselves “the FDR file…[has] various modification dates…[and] time stamps indicate the FDR data was downloaded four hours before the FDR was reportedly found” (p. 13), yet the authors claim “nothing would indicate the file had been tampered with”]; (5) as they note, “footage from the only two surveillance cameras with any known useful image information about the Pentagon event is fuzzy, vague and unsatisfactory”, and such poor quality affects a high percentage of all available data for the Pentagon event; and, finally, (6) “all the evidence” is itself ambiguous: do the authors mean just the direct quantitative data; that plus “all” qualitative data; all these plus “all” associated metadata; or the full context for available data?

        In my view, the overly ambitious claims made in this paper severely undermine its credibility.  Progress can be made on such issues but given the rather poor quality of most data, I think the authors should be much more sanguine about being able to apply “the scientific method” to reach any type of “proof.”

             More specifically, I do not agree with the central claim of the authors the E Ring opening was “big enough for the fuselage and most of the wings to enter” and that plane fragments “traveled as a highly focused stream of debris fragments that [created the C ring exit hole] (p. 27).”  The reasons are as follows: (1) direct eyewitnesses and photographs do not support the claim of a fuselage + wing-sized hole in the exterior wall, as shown by numerous researchers, including Ms. Honegger.

        In particular, I talked in person with a first responder eyewitness — a member of a fire department team that arrived prior to west wall collapse — who told me that there was no visible hole adequate for the entry of a large vehicle of any type, much less a large aircraft; and (2) at the Sept. 2013 Sept. 11 presentations held at the Pentagon Sheraton Hotel, a former NASA Director of Research Engineering,

        Dwain Deets, discussed experimental tests of a high-speed aircraft impacting a hardened concrete wall like that at the Pentagon. The results (Fig. 1)  showed either no penetration or at most only very minor penetration, precluding a significant portion of a large plane being the cause of the internal damage at the Pentagon as the authors claim, and any that did penetrate would rapidly be laterally dispersed in any case (Fig. 2, from the Purdue University simulation) and thus incapable of causing the near-round opening in the C Ring wall more than 300 feet into the building.

           Regarding the Daryl Donley photos cited by the authors, he began taking these “within a couple of minutes of the plane crash” and its massive fireball. His Image 14 captures a major explosion clearly later than that initial fireball [i.e. “a couple of minutes” plus the time required to take 14 successive photographs] — as the black smoke cloud is already well established in the photo — just where the official story claims a plane impacted. This Image 14 clearly documents an explosive event well after the initial fireball and I do not find plausible the authors’ speculation dismissing it as a mere “minor secondary explosion” (p. 59).

             Given the above many serious concerns with this draft paper, I do not recommend publication in anything like its present form. With some major revisions to correctly state and analyze Ms. Honegger’s hypothesis, base the analysis on her most recent work, consider all the relevant evidence including that which weighs against their position, mitigate inflated “science” claims and eliminate personal attacks, I would be willing to entertain a second look. At the very least, whether in its present or revised form, this paper should be accompanied by a simultaneous reply by Ms. Honegger, to advance the dialogue about these critical issues.  Unfortunately, the present paper is more focused on polemics than on advancing an unimpassioned scholarly debate among the community of researchers.

Given the above many serious concerns with this draft paper, I do not recommend publication in anything like its present form. With some major revisions to correctly state and analyze Ms. Honegger’s hypothesis, base the analysis on her most recent work, consider all the relevant evidence including that which weighs against their position, mitigate inflated “science” claims and eliminate personal attacks, I would be willing to entertain a second look. At the very least, whether in its present or revised form, this paper should be accompanied by a simultaneous reply by Ms. Honegger, to advance the dialogue about these critical issues.  Unfortunately, the present paper is more focused on polemics than on advancing an unimpassioned scholarly debate among the community of researchers.

Related “Big Jet Plane Hit Pentagon Theory” Debate Posts:

Jenkins misleads by linking Pentagon plane impact theory to AE911Truth October 19, 2015 By Craig McKee in his Truth & Shadows Bloghttp://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact

NCA911TA Film Festival organizer Ken Jenkins—who along with Chandler wants the rest of the Truth Movement to believe a large plane actually hit the Pentagon as the official story claims—tried in his brief talk to link his Team’s Pentagon theory with the widely supported position advanced by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that the World Trade Center towers were brought down in controlled demolitions. If you liked controlled demolition, you’ll love a large plane hitting the Pentagon! It was six minutes of pure spin and cleverly worded manipulation.

Going full debunker: Chandler devotes most of Pentagon talk to boosting 9/11 official story

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/chandler-goes-debunker

More absurd arguments on the Pentagon: ‘propaganda team’ sets its sights on Griffin 7-16-12 by Craig McKee in #TruthAndShadowsBlog” “ In Chapter 7 of David Ray Griffin’s most recent book, 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed, Griffin makes a strong case for no plane impact and shows how weak the positions of Chandler, Legge, Cole, and Hoffmann really are…” http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/more-absurd-arguments-on-the-pentagon-propaganda-team-sets-its-sights-on-griffin

Comment by Craig McKee at this blog: Craig McKee July 17, 2012 at 3:24 pm Truth & Shadows Blog.

Here’s what Griffin wrote on page 265 of “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” about the witness accounts compiled by CIT: “This testimony, besides throwing into doubt the testimony of Don Mason and the other people who claimed to have seen the light poles clipped, suggests something even more important: that the five light poles were staged to provide evidence for the official story. If so, then we must suspect that other evidence for the official story was also planted. If any of the evidence is demonstrably planted, in fact, we must doubt the truth of the entire story.” There it is.

Pentagon debates expose emptiness of large-plane-impact scenario by Craig McKee in Truth and Shadows Blog March 16, 2016http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates

Excerpt: “Those who are determined to push the impossible claim that a large plane really did hit the Pentagon on 9/11 – despite the absence of a plane at the “crash” site – go to incredible lengths to try and make their case. They speculate, hypothesize, assume, and concoct imaginative and “plausible” scenarios that they claim “fit the data” or are “consistent with an impact”. They focus on minor details as if they are conclusive, they mention the “witnesses” as if the word alone makes their case, and they come up with some of the most colorful re-imaginings of the laws of physics you will ever hear… It would not be unreasonable, I think, to suggest that articles posted in recent months on Truth and Shadows about the Pentagon have played a role in bringing renewed attention to the subject. Two of those articles were critiques of presentations given by researchers David Chandler and Ken Jenkins at the 9/11 film festival held in Oakland, CA. in September. Both presentations were part of a continuing effort by a small team of researchers to get the 9/11 Truth Movement to abandon some of the most powerful evidence that exists that 9/11 was an inside job…”

Vic Sadot Expelled from Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance in Quickie Vote on 6-04-15 Truth Troubadour Blog.  However, Vic Sadot, Dave Heller, and others were able to win months long campaigns to get the organization to do the right thing by apologizing to Mazzuco and by creating a set of Protocol Guidelines that NCA911TA members could use to monitor in the future how they were being “represented” to film directors and authors in the 9/11 Truth movement. His explusion was blamed on his not telling Jenkins that Honegger might attend a public meeting of the NCA911TA in person, which she did in order to find out about a “deal” made among the members to make her 2013 film wait until 2015 without ever consulting her about it. She was able to get her film screened in 2015 as a result of her interaction in person with group members.http://truthtroubadour.blogspot.com/2015/06/vic-sadot-expelled-from-northern.html

 

Comments
  1. Adam Syed says:

    Thanks for this timely answer to the latest garbage from the Propaganda Team.

Your Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s