IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The 9/11 Windowdressers, A response to Dwain Deets

onesliceshort
post Nov 27 2013, 04:30 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



This is a response to Dwain Deets' claims that there was an alleged impact at the Pentagon:

Dwain Deets' pdf:

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/...entagon_757.pdf

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Nov 27 2013, 04:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 27 2013, 04:32 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



The Boeing 757


Quoting from Dwain Deets' pdf:

QUOTE
One item in particular is pertinent to a Pentagon airplane is evidence of superior aviation automation in use by the airplane that crashed into WTC 2, a Boeing 767. The connection with the Pentagon airplane is, if the planners used this technique in another event that day, there is strong likelihood they used the same or similar technique at the Pentagon as well. This enters into the author's assessment in that it creates a "leading suspect" in favor of a Boeing 757, the sister airplane type with identical systems as the 767. Consideration of this airplane type, one based on reasonability, becomes a factor in a cumulative assessment method.


Pure speculation.

Fair speculation, but used as the jumping off point to diminish real evidence and to muddy the waters on many other outstanding issues with the official narrative. Used in isolation with no further avenue for investigation, it's a dead end.



QUOTE
Availability of this advanced equipment and likely use at least with the airplanes at the World Trade Center, the question of manually flying a plane precisely into the Pentagon will not be addressed herein. The assumption is that this aviation automation offers a plausible explanation.


Dwain Deets is on record as claiming that the aircraft speeds recorded for alleged Flight 175 are basically impossible. Controllability being a major issue.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraft_Speed_Deets.html

As we'll see, the entire Pentagon scenario, from alleged aerodynamics involved, trajectory and all directional damage, both exterior and interior, are illogically brushed aside based on this alleged "superior aviation automation".

He uses the same impossible official speed to compare the alleged impact to the Sandia test discussed in the next post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 27 2013, 04:35 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



The Sandia Test


Short video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIWGN-0Nqhg


From Dwain Deets' pdf:

QUOTE
The similarity of most importance to any Pentagon airplane is the high speed was in the vicinity of the official speed of the Pentagon airplane (480 mph for the F-4, vs. 527 mph for the Pentagon airplane.)


Yet in further discussion with Dwain Deets, he had this to say:

QUOTE
I didn’t consider the airspeed issue in my presentation or written verstion. However, my thinking on it was at the time I addressed the issue, and still is, that I don’t take the official airspeed as a given. I think the plane was flown as fast as the planners determined they could do so successfully.


So, how much slower was this alleged aircraft travelling at if not the official speed of 540mph? 100mph less? 150mph? 200mph?

In further conversation, Dwain Deets says

QUOTE
Results from the Sandia F-4 rocket sled test that shows what happens when a high speed aircraft impacts a massive reinforced concrete block (by extension, a hardened wall). The aircraft structure is decimated. This apparently is what happened to the entire upper fuselage, wing, and tail structure.


Rob Balsamo gave the following response (remembering that Deets already acknowledged that "the plane was flown as fast as the planners determined they could do so successfully" - not anywhere near 540mph):

QUOTE
Are you seriously trying to compare a roughly 35,000lb object impacting a 12 foot thick concrete wall at 500 mph to a 200,000lb object impacting a roughly 1-2 foot thick wall with windows at 530 mph? Really?


QUOTE
The nuclear power industry, which closely follows research results of the Sandia National Laboratories, has made no effort to clear up the misimpression left by the film of the test. Indeed, the test is a phony when it is used to demonstrate reactor containment survivability.

The Nuclear Control Institute now calls on the Nuclear Energy Institute and other representatives of the nuclear power industry, to disavow the Sandia test, to acknowledge its misleading results, and to apologize for recklessly misleading the public.

Here are some other details that dramatically illustrate just how misleading the film of the Sandia test is:

– The fuel tanks of the Phantom jet were filled with water, not jet fuel (this to permit Sandia to measure the dispersal of the water upon impact and thus project how jet fuel would be dispersed in a crash);

– The total weight of the Phantom fighter is only about 5% of a 767 jumbo jet;

– The Phantom’s engine weight is only about 1/3d that of a 767 jumbo jet engine (the Nuclear Control Institute has calculated a jumbo jet engine could penetrate six feet of reinforced concrete);

– The concrete test wall was 12 feet thick, compared with the 3.5-foot-thick concrete containment domes of nuclear power plants.

What is needed is a peer-reviewed design analysis to demonstrate whether containment domes could resist a full-speed crash of a jumbo jet. Until such a design analysis is completed by U.S. government scientists and regulators, the industry’s claims that containments could resist such a crash should be rejected.

Paul Leventhal
President
Nuclear Control Institute”



Of course Levathal has/had an "agenda". He wanted/wants accurate testing with accurate results to resist a jumbo jet impact. He recognized this cannot be accomplished by using an object which weighs nearly 95% less than the practical real world object being analyzed, using a wall which is 400% greater in thickness… on a frictionless surface. He understands physics. His agenda is Safety.

In other words Dwain.. if the wall were anchored.. and were only 2 feet thick… (with windows no less)… and a Jumbo Jet weighing 200,000lbs+ were smashed into it at more than 500 mph… the WALL would be decimated and the aircraft would be spread out in large pieces."


Don't forget to now significantly reduce the speed Dwain Deets cites.


Also this very relevant point raised by CIT:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/CI...atement/#sandia

QUOTE
To begin with, we as viewers can't "Hunt the Phantom" because the video does not show any aftermath photos. The videos all cut off as the dust cloud is growing, so we don't know what exactly remains after the dust has settled.


To further hammer the point home that Deets is grossly exaggerating the comparisons, he uses these graphics in his pdf:










Remember that the "confetti" argument is contradicted by multiple images of the area:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10809488

And that within this alleged "confetti", there is supposed to be, minimum, the cockpit, 60ft of fuselage and "tail section".

Where??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 27 2013, 04:38 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



The 42° and 31° trajectories



From Dwain Deets' pdf:

QUOTE
The primary airplane refers here as the plane striking the Pentagon at Col. line 14, the official center of impact.
[...]
Two possibilities for 757 impact pertain to two candidate impact angles with respect to a perpendicular to the Pentagon face, 42° (the official angle), and 31° offered as a better possibility by Sami Yli-Karjanmaa


Sami Yli-Karjanmaa's 2004 Pentagon damage analysis

http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/asce_en.htm

Why Dwain Deets chose these two trajectories is beyond me.



The downed lightpoles are denoted by red stars. The 42° trajectory is cited from the ASCE Report. The 31° trajectory was cited from researcher Sami Yli-Karjanmaa well before the NOC testimony came to light.

Both angles don't line up with the directional damage (the directional damage is from between 37-8° from the perpendicular to the wall).






Though it can't be distinguished in the above image, there is a very tall VDOT traffic camera to the south (left) of lightpoles 1 and 2.

Here's a still image of Route 27 caught by that very camera:

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6278/ack8.jpg

If you look along the 42° trajectory, you can see that it actually passes directly through it. Its shadow can be seen here:



And for an idea of the height and its relationship to lightpoles 1 and 2:

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9600/imageoovs.jpg
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/2882/imagecwf.jpg

The lightpoles on Route 27 are 40ft tall (to give an idea of how tall the mast is). That stretch of road where the VDOT traffic camera is, is @40ft ASL.

The aircraft would have to be around 100ft ASL to go over this mast 1.3 seconds before the alleged impact through the first floor! A fraction of a second before being low and level across the lawn.

It couldn't and didn't happen.

Flogging a dead horse here, but even Dwain Deets acknowledges another major problem with the 42° trajectory. From his pdf:

QUOTE
ASCE Report includes a satellite image of the construction area taken a few days before, with a drawing (Fig. 10) of a 757 shown just before impact, flying on a 42° angle with the perpendicular to the facade. If the ASCE illustration is correct, the plane should have made two holes in the fence, one by the right engine, and one by the fuselage.




[...]

The 42° is clearly a problem, as the generator was hit on the wrong side from this perspective. The tilt (bank angle) of the airplane as it passed the fence / generator is very much in question.


And not forgetting the corner pole of the generator fence, the height of which is given an idea of here:

http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/953...a8561e/4404.jpg
http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/22d...a2c6c5/4300.jpg


The alleged 31° trajectory is even more bizarre.

From his pdf:

QUOTE
Yli-Karjanmaa makes an argument for a 31° angle, although says this would mean “that aircraft must have turned in a way that is not easily reconcilable with its later tilt.”
[...]
Additionally, the 31° angle would create some upstream problems, in that light poles that would have been knocked down remained standing. To get around this problem, Yli-Karjanmaa proposes a turning skid into the 31° to just avoid poles that would otherwise be in the way. A diagram is shown in Fig. 12. The blue path situated between the two straight paths would avoid the standing light poles.


"A turning skid"??

Rob Balsamo analyzed the aerodynamics of an alleged impact from north of Citgo:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/North-Approac...t-Analysis.html

For a 757 to have impacted at 400 knots from the north of Cigo, this is the necessary manouevre:



Now condense that manouevre for this alleged 31° trajectory just over a second from the facade!

A sharp left bank followed by an immediate right bank.



Dwain Deets even acknowledges this fatal contradiction:



QUOTE
For the 31°, the tilt should have been in the other direction to be consistent with a correction to the right. In both cases, per these diagrams, the plane shouldn’t have hit the fence.


Incredibly, given the overwhelming physical and aerodynamical evidence which contradicts this trajectory, and which is even acknowledged in his pdf, Dwain Deets has this to say:

QUOTE
For an assessment on the 31°, there are significant questions, but not sufficient to possibly rule out a 757. The 31° case has been issued a marginal rating, that is, fence/generator could be an issue


It couldn't physically happen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 27 2013, 04:39 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



The Lawn Debris


QUOTE
No-Boeing-at-Pentagon advocates place major emphasis on the lack of lawn debris. It certainly is true, there is no visible lawn debris particularly in photographs taken from a distance.


Nor close up....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10809488


QUOTE
The many small parts of debris is apparent around and on the heliport surface...
Thus, both 757-angle candidates are given a check for this issue, that is, lack of lawn debris is not a significant issue challenging the prime suspect status of a B-757 as the likely primary airplane.


Really?

See the link above.

The main targets of Dwain Deets' piece is the evidence provided by CIT and Pilotsfor911Truth. Neither claims that there was "no Boeing at the Pentagon", as per NPT.

Cheap shot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 27 2013, 04:42 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



The facade and lack of extremity markings


From Dwain Deets' pdf:

QUOTE
The aircraft extremities, outer wing sections and vertical tail, are said by many to not have left marks on the limestone. Again, as the F4 rocket-sled test are available as empirical evidence in a similar situation, the F4 fuselage left 20 mm marks in the concrete target. If that is representative of what may have happened at the Pentagon, it is possible the ASCE investigators didn’t expect such faint markings, or didn’t look very carefully.


Yes, they should have looked more closely for the marks from a 40ft stabilizer striking a limestone facade at high speed (much less than 540mph, right Dwain?)

Maybe they should also have looked more closely for the remnants of that 40ft vertical stabilizer on the lawn too.

This is the image he used:



QUOTE
Impact by the vertical fin is a logical explanation for the crack.


First off, why not let the ASCE explain why they "didn't look very carefully"?
I mean, if we were to "fill in the blanks" for the official narrative, what the hell are we all doing here?



Secondly, Dwain Deets, although he completely ignores both the directional damage before the alleged impact zone, and beyond it, claims to believe that there were internal explosions (a claim which there incidentally is proof of). Aren't explosives the more likely culprit of the cracked facade?

1. There are no visible markings on the facade above the alleged impact zone, precollapse. The ASCE Report acknowledges this.

2. The alleged speed of 800fps would hypothetically have the vertical stabilizer making contact with the facade 0.2 seconds after the nosecone reaches it.

3. Given this 0.2 second timeframe (800fps/155ft length of 757-200), the lack of recognizable debris on the exterior and the necessary complete penetration and desintegration of the aircraft within the length of itself, how could the vertical stabilizer physically avoid striking the facade?

There is precedent for this as per the WTC2 impact hole showing the lower section of the vertical stabilizer and even wingtips marking the building:



Finally, a video showing the interaction between vehicles and solid obstacles:

http://youtu.be/LueZWCZOixk

And watch this clip from the Sandia test where the right wing tip that overlaps the width of the concrete barrier continues its path:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIWGN-0Nqhg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 27 2013, 04:45 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



NOC witnesses


Dwain Deets' treatment of the NOC witness testimony is just as shabby, dishonest and illogical as that of government loyalists, disinformationists and Barbara Honegger.

This is where, for me, the continued conversation (not contained in his pdf or presentation) stripped Dwain Deets of any credibility whatsoever in his approach to any debate regarding the Pentagon.

This is where he puts a "two plane theory" on the table.

I'll simply post what he said and leave it up to the reader to decide:

QUOTE
But, since “757″ and ‘NoC plus overflight’ are in direct conflict with each other, one can almost say they couldn’t possibly both be true. That is where the two-plane hypothesis comes into it. The 10% is a computed number, allowing a small overlap of the 50% and 60% associated with the two primary hypotheses, such that these two don’t add up to more than 100%.

Dwain Deets


Now, he claims that this "theory" of his has only a "10%" chance of being true.
In the same breath, he makes the following unfounded insults to our intelligence:


QUOTE
Yes, I say there were two aircraft, but not in the basin simultaneously. I accept the testimony of the NOC witnesses regarding an airplanes path..

[...]

"I don’t think the airplane that came in over the Navy Annex is the same as the one that hit the Pentagon."

[...]

"I don’t know if what the witnesses described as the explosion was due to this particular airplane strike, due to inside explosives, or something else."

[...]

"The problem is, North Path Flyover and 757 Impact are in direct conflict with each other. The only way they both can be true is if there were two planes.

Although I get lazy and say, yes, I believe the North path witnesses, it isn’t a 99.9% belief. Better to call it a high probability the North path witnesses are correct. Same with the 757 impact evidence.

In both cases, I think it is better than 50% probability for each is true.

[...]

I don’t know which was the “second plane,” as I don’t know what plane entered the basin first.

[...]

"Who saw it? I don’t know. [b]The fact that we know of no eyewitnesses to the upstream portion of the approach is not a fatal flaw.
Plenty of eyewitness of the impact, although none I would call solid."

[...]

I don’t know why you are baffled by the second plane possibility not being a part of the presentation. I took the approach of examining only physical evidence. I did, however, try to anticipate questions that may be raised from the audience. The second plane possibility at a different time than the first plane was part of the answer I would give if someones asked about the north path airplane.

[...]

I didn’t reject the CIT plane trajectory. I just see it as a different plane at a different time.



The same dishonest twisting of their testimony was attempted by Barbara Honegger. Discussed here ("The NOC Witnesses"):

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10809504

When pressed (and cornered) on the issue, he changed tact:

QUOTE
I can only give so much weight to witness testimony (or, the lack of witness testimony). It isn’t the end all to everything. In this case, there is physical evidence not supported by witness testimony, or more specifically, there is not witness testimony to support what the physical evidence suggests.

[...]

My second plane theory is not based on direct evidence. It is based on inference (where the evidence part is indirect). More importantly, I have little need for the second plane theory, as it comes into play in only 1 out of 10 situations, which I call 10% likelihood.


And this beaut:

QUOTE
No, it’s not that I want to discount all witnesses, it’s that I don’t want to discount (ignore totally) all physical evidence. Furthermore, we have what I will call negative witnesses. Witnesses who did not attest to a hypothetical event, in this case, that two planes flew in the basin at different times. We have a lot of these, and none of their complement. I won’t throw out physical evidence because all we have are negative witnesses.


Brilliant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 27 2013, 04:46 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



The alleged "right wing damage"


PART ONE


The full breakdown on the OCT "right wing damage" claims can be read here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10807804


We've already seen the impossible aerodynamics involved to change from a 37° trajectory (directional damage) to a 31° trajectory within just over a second, and the fact that the aircraft would have to execute a sharp right bank just before the alleged impact.

Even still, Dwain Deets waives these important factors away and insists that his 757 caused this damage (remembering that his 757 was tilted the wrong way:







He even quotes the false description attributed to Column 18AA by the ASCE Report ("Impacted. Large deformation with significant impairment in function") when it's clear that this column was intact precollapse

Discussed in detail here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10807805


I'm going to show, before Dwain Deets inevitably changes his "theory" to whatever other trajectory he "decides" on, that this "right wing damage" scenario doesn't stand up to scrutiny. And that on closer inspection, the damage is consistent with internal explosives.

The ASCE Report says:

QUOTE
Gashes in the facade above the second-floor slab between column lines 18 and 20 to the south of the collapse area suggest that the aircraft had rolled slightly to the left as it entered the building. The right wing was below the second-floor slab at the fuselage but above the second-floor slab at the tip, and the left wing struck the building entirely below the second-floor slab, to the north of column line 14.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6004/as...ummaryimage.png

ASCE Report


The ASCE Report also has this to say:



"The strength of the second floor slab in its own plane would have severed the right wing approximately at the location of the right engine"

Deets' 31° trajectory is dead in the water at this point but...


The image that follows throws a heavy spanner in the works re the alleged “right wing damage”. Using the official altitude across the lawn.



1) Notice the unmarked column and floor slab (marked) where the inner third of the wing should have struck.

2) remembering that the wing is swept back, what actually caused the visible pulverization?

3) how could the alleged deceleration of the outer section of the right wing leave the area (marked) undamaged? Not so much as a chip?

Dwain Deets even claims that his 757 was 3 feet higher to overcome the undisturbed spools that sat along the OCT trajectory.

This undamaged column and slab contradict this scenario even more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 27 2013, 04:47 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



The alleged "right wing damage"


PART TWO


Let's take a closer look at this alleged "right wing damage"



[1] The second floor column to the immediate right of the pulverized section is non conclusive of an alleged impact because the exact same damage can be seen at the opposite end, to the north of the alleged impact area:



Evidence of equal force at either end of the alleged impact zone. Explosive force.

[2] The missing window frame on the second floor to the right (above columns 18 and 19). This is also non conclusive as the exact same damage can be seen just below it on the first floor (also seen in the first image above):

http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/8043/ri...gfirstfloor.png

High resolution image of this area:

http://i.imgur.com/CZ3hx.jpg


[3] The following image is very important for deducing the direction of the force that caused this damage.

The second floor column (Column 19) to the immediate right of the pulverized section of facade, that is half broken or cracked has often been pointed to as evidence of a wing impact, but on closer inspection the rebar inside the column shows no sign of distortion by blunt force


Taken from the above image (http://i.imgur.com/CZ3hx.jpg)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 27 2013, 04:50 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



EXPLOSIONS V IMPACT


There are as yet unexplained features to the damage which contradict the alleged 757 impact scenario. These are to be found in AE Drive.



Column lines and directional damage trajectory included:


http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/4838/td5r.jpg

There were alleged multiple fatalities along the column lines from the alleged "right wing damage" (Column line 18) area through to one of these doors:



And there is allegedly no damage whatsoever to columns along this path beyond the collapsed zone either.


The two blown out doors in question:




What's also peculiar is that even though the alleged impact occurred completely within the 14ft high first floor, blast damage to window frames can clearly be seen on the second floor:


http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7449/pyoz.jpg


Even more peculiar is the lack of damage to the second floor window frames above the alleged "punchout hole":



Those are just some of the pointers to evidence of internal explosive events.


The ASCE Report underlines this by making two clear statements.

1) It claims that the fireball occurred completely outside the building. Even estimating the fuel loads involved:

QUOTE
The wing fuel tanks are located primarily within the inner half of the wings.The center of gravity of these tanks is approximately one-third of the wing length from the fuselage. Considering this tank position and the physical evidence of the length of each wing that could not have entered the building, it appears likely that not more than half of the fuel in the right wing could have entered the building. While the full volume of the left wing tank was within the portion of the wing that might have entered the building, some of the fuel from all tanks rebounded upon impact and contributed to the fireball. Only a portion of the fuel from the left and right wing tanks and the center fuselage tank actually entered the building.

Clearly, some of the fuel on the aircraft at impact did not enter the building, either because it was in those portions of the wings that were severed by the impact with the facade or with objects just outside of the building, or because it was deflected away from the building upon impact with the facade; that fuel burned outside the building in the initial fireball.


Based on images captured by the Pentagon security camera, which showed the aircraft approaching and the subsequent explosion and fireball, it is estimated that about 4,900 lb (2,200 kg) of jet fuel was involved in the prompt fire and was consumed at the time of impact outside the building.This leaves about 30,400 lb (13,800 kg) as the estimated mass, M, of the jet A fuel that entered the building and contributed to the fire fuel load within the building.

ASCE Report


Added to this, explosive events, even by fuel air sources, aren't mentioned at all in the ASCE Report. They attribute all damage to "impact".





More detailed breakdowns can be read here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10807824

Evidence that shows that the alleged "left wing damage" was caused by explosions:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10807808


All we have are images of the aftermath of an alleged impact. I see a simultaneous series of controlled explosions. The storyline was filled in later to explain what is basically, on closer inspection, blown out sections of a reinforced section of building. How difficult would it be to carve out the desired effect in a controlled environment like that?

That's why Wedge One was chosen.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 27 2013, 04:54 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Conclusion


Dwain Deets' theory is clearly a non-runner on multiple fronts. No matter how much he crudely chops and changes the official narrative and logical parameters of debate on the Pentagon issue, wordsmithery just isn't enough.

Having butchered the witness accounts (and then rejecting them wholesale, depending on the circumstance), completely sidelining the importance of the directional damage both before and after the facade, contradicting himself on the aerodynamics involved and the "physical evidence" (which was in the end "Dwain Deets' personal selection of physical evidence"), he still can't squeeze his 757 into the building.

Bottom line was when I repeatedly asked him what the point was of his theory. I asked him if it would get us any nearer to the truth. Or if it would hold people's feet to the fire. Open new avenues of investigation. Essentially, what was his next step? He refused to answer.

That's because there is no "next step". It's designed to be a dead end.

Another example.

Frank Legge and Warren Stutt tweaked and twerked a serial number void and contradictory data set from the alleged FDR of "Flight 77" while Pilotsfor911Truth held the NTSB's feet to the fire.

It's up to the NTSB to explain why there were alleged "missing seconds", or why their "impact time" was allegedly "out". Or to explain the multiple problems with it:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html

Nobody else.


It's no different from the futile debate here on this forum with troll Jeffrey Orling (SanderO) on WTC7. He argued that "oil fires" brought down WTC7 even though NIST publically distanced itself from this and claimed that "office fires" were the culprit. Nothing else.

If the authorities are cornered on issues, why provide an illusionary escape route?

"Yea, it was an inside job but my theory shows how the end result, which is subtly different (and totally unprovable) to the official narrative can "explain" what happened. Nothing to see here. Let's move on to another area (which is just as unprovable)."

These types of people are what I like to call 9/11 windowdressers. They are no different from government loyalists who accept the word, and word alone, of the official narrative (when it suits).

Government loyalists point to the official narrative as being sound, yet reject, alter and self censor that which contradicts itself.

9/11 windowdressers are those who try and tie up those same loose ends for government loyalists. Whether intentionally or not, it's exactly what they do.

FDR not working out? Send in Legge to distract and take the heat. Government loyalists will support his (irrelevant) interpretation of the official narrative.

Result: several avenues of investigation and demands for answers closed.

Eyewitnesses screwing things up again (as with TWA800, OKC bombing, JFK)?

Discard them as a whole. Seven years and not one single witness describes the necessary trajectory of the aircraft and all of the lies and bluster didn't pan out? Tie up those loose ends.

Enter (the latest in a long line) Barbara Honegger and Dwain Deets with two completely opposing theories, but unified in their treatment of the NOC witnesses. And in their long term plans for Pentagon research.

"Anything, however unfounded and purely speculatory, goes (except the NoC witnesses and aerodynamics involved)"

Result: All further roads for investigation and demands for answers closed. With the added bonus of confusing the crap out of people new to the information. And lazy so called "academics" completely ignorant to Pentagon research throwing their weight behind the "let's move on, we'll never know" brigade.

Did Dwain Deets or Barbara Honegger actually point to any of the multiple instances where they say perps were guilty of staging the Pentagon murders by way of internal explosives, an unmanned drone cum "757" or staged directional damage and hold these up as their central arguments to be considered as proof of an inside job?

No. All of these claims were mentioned in passing.

The official narrative is a secondary issue for them. The official narrative is too restrictive for any alleged impact scenario. They want to loosen the straps of the straightjacket that the NOC evidence and Pilotsfor911Truth has put on it.

What's ironic is that myself, CIT and Pilotsfor911Truth have to keep reminding this umbrella of people, from government loyalists through to the window dressers, of what the official narrative actually is. Anything that doesn't use the official narrative as it was released and remains to this day as the standard by which we give any alleged evidence the litmus test, is utterly irrelevant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Nov 27 2013, 07:00 PM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



This learned gent with the fake-sounding pseudo.... why in hades does s/he receive so much space for such utter drivel?

On 9/11/2001, an intrepid naval photographer working tirelessly for a whole hour from 0947 hrs onwards,, takes eleventy-nine extremely-well-focused photographs of the Pentagon, post-Hollywood-fireball. These photos show lotsa smoke but no mirrors. Out of 178 windows in an otherwise completely intact but smoke-blackened facade, there is only one solitary broken window.

So why do we give THAT much webspace to Doubtful Deets' idiotic argument that a Boeing 757 ingratiated itself through the open window? No treatise more emphatically deserves an ad-hominen response. However we won't ignore Dr Deets' implied challenge.

Let's remember the infinite wisdom of Chairman Barack's "Little Black Book": these immortal words, page thirteen, verse twain:

"It is easier for a plain bird to fly across the roof of the tabernacle, than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle"

This post has been edited by MikeR: Nov 27 2013, 07:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Nov 27 2013, 08:39 PM
Post #13





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (MikeR @ Nov 28 2013, 11:00 AM) *
This learned gent with the fake-sounding pseudo.... why in hades does s/he receive so much space for such utter drivel?

On 9/11/2001, an intrepid naval photographer working tirelessly for a whole hour from 0947 hrs onwards,, takes eleventy-nine extremely-well-focused photographs of the Pentagon, post-Hollywood-fireball. These photos show lotsa smoke but no mirrors. Out of 178 windows in an otherwise completely intact but smoke-blackened facade, there is only one solitary broken window.

So why do we give THAT much webspace to Doubtful Deets' idiotic argument that a Boeing 757 ingratiated itself through the open window? No treatise more emphatically deserves an ad-hominen response. However we won't ignore Dr Deets' implied challenge.

Let's remember the infinite wisdom of Chairman Barack's "Little Black Book": these immortal words, page thirteen, verse twain:

"It is easier for a plain bird to fly across the roof of the tabernacle, than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle"


Here's A link to the naval photog's good work .... please note that what the captions fail to tell us here is that the small part of the Pentagon that DID get demolished, that part was still standing intact in one of the photographers timed photos at 10.24 .... nearly one hour after the No-Boeing fireball strike.

http://publicintelligence.net/911-pentagon...olution-photos/

BTW An architect like me naturally does not expect trained Pilots for 9/11 to take my word for it .... so please check, conduct your own research ... but the artichoke reckons the explosives under the Pentagon facade must've got wet from Potomac ground seepage or the like.

Perhaps job of placing the gelignite was delegated to a Navy Team containing faulty Seals
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
panthercat
post Nov 28 2013, 12:29 AM
Post #14





Group: Core Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 14-April 07
From: Pahoa, HI
Member No.: 952



There's an article in the US Naval Institute Proceedings where an Army SFC rescued a Naval Officer that day in the Pentagon. Images were taken soon afterwards, which showed no indicstion of debris from a large twin engine transport. If not for the under sized hole in the wall, that office space could have passed inspection.

Three very sparsely populated office buildings with an enormous terrorist insurance policy were demolished, while the Pentagon had a hole blown in one wall. There were a couple of deaths and injuries, but that was it. Because those office buildings in NYC were called the World Trade Center, that was supposed to destroy our economy. Was poking a hole in the "five sided wind tunnel" supposed to debilitate us militarily?

It looks more like someone stuck C4 on the wall.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 28 2013, 06:44 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Hi panthercat.

Look at the similarities on the effects of an explosive device on this building in Iraq:


A bomb was detonated within a Church in Kirkurk, Baghdad.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44141575/ns/wo...a/#.ToDfl-zmtlc









The Pentagon facade (north):

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3886/dsc0495a.jpg

"Punchout" hole:

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/3637/6bpf.jpg

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Dec 16 2013, 11:24 PM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



Oneslice, I believe this is the thread you were suggesting I reply to?


QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 15 2013, 08:23 PM) *
Mike, that last comment of mine wasn't directed at you. Some people like to wind up here.


OK.

QUOTE
If you had followed that last link there is a break down of how we have been conned in to believing that the hole in the Pentagon wall was caused by an aircraft.

Plane + explosion + a sprinkling of unidentified debris + repitition= aircraft impact. How has it got to the point where that hole can in any way be attributed to an aircraft? That an aircraft could physically slot in there and not leave major debris on the lawn or marks on the facade from the extremities?



First of all I need to make some terms clear.
An aircraft is any man-made object that can travel in the air.
Therefore a jet plane, a prop plane, a helicopter, a hot air balloon, a hand-glider, a drone and a missile are all aircraft.

I am not advocating the hole at the front of the Pentagon was caused by an aircraft of any kind.
I don't have any firm convictions on this. It may have been caused by an aircraft and it may not have.

What I do know 100% is that a 757 aircraft did not cause the hole. It simply does not fit.

The video supplied by the government is a joke really. It likely was fabricated 'from the ground up'.

The only thing that needs explaining for me (perhaps you can do it) is the debris field near the heliport.

Why is there debris there and not in front of the hole?

QUOTE
As for the witnesses on Route 27, Mike Walter is a proven liar. His two coworkers Naranyan and Sucherman were describing an NOC entry point on to the road. The latter was (twice) claimed by the former to have been "on the other side of the Pentagon" (Route 110).
Steve Riskus is now a confirmed NOC witness.


I can go with that, no problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Dec 17 2013, 02:58 AM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Dec 17 2013, 12:54 PM) *
Oneslice, I believe this is the thread you were suggesting I reply to?


First of all I need to make some terms clear.
An aircraft is any man-made object that can travel in the air.
Therefore a jet plane, a prop plane, a helicopter, a hot air balloon, a hand-glider, a drone and a missile are all aircraft.



The only thing that needs explaining for me (perhaps you can do it) is the debris field near the heliport.

Why is there debris there and not in front of the hole?



I can go with that, no problem.



Dear NP1Mike

Whilst many argue about there being no aircraft involved at all in causing the damage including the initial hole at ground level evident in the western face of the Pentagon building, there definitely seems to be other holes evident at different levels in that general location, before the face of the building, "collapsed".

Lets say there was in fact some sort of aircraft involved in causing the damage to the building, and was the cause of debris particularly around the vicinity of the heliport.

What supports this possibility ?

There was evidence of light poles being struck by something, not at ground level but well towards the top of the poles.
There was scattered pieces of small parts of composite material and aluminium construction along this path reported, photographed and videoed.
There was some witness account that suggests some form of aircraft passaged low along this path at the time of the explosion at the west wall of the building.
There was a very large, and most likely quite heavy generator trailer showing every sign of being struck with something that was air borne with sufficient force to decapitate the trailer and it would appear to cause equipment that was in the trailer to be dislodged in the general direction of the path from the light poles to the trailer.
What ever hit the trailer appears to have done so with enough force to also slew the trailer around sideways, in the direction that would result from obtuse impact along the path from the light poles.

Whatever it was that caused this damage was not visible in the early shots of the result of the explosion at the western wall of the building, and with no evidence available to show it went into the building, it is highly probable as a result of deflecting off of the generator trailer then highly likely off of the wall of the building, it could have continued in a northerly direction towards the heliport, in broken sections which would have further disintegrated as it progressed northwards.

So what caused the holes in the face of the building?

Were they caused by explosives placed at the front of the building?
Or explosives placed inside of the building?

If so this does not explain the damage that is well documented by photographs that occurred deep into the building at ground level, nor the damage (that has not been documented but nonetheless evident and referred to by witnesses) very deep into the building along the general direction of the walkway between the rings located just to the south of the main area of evidence of damage to the outside wall of the building.

Does that mean there was a series of explosives set at these locations throughout the building?

Or was the deeper damage caused by projectiles with delayed explosive heads?

If so perhaps the projectiles did not go where they were originally intended particularly if they were brought to the scene by an aircraft that did not have the smooth approach that was planned for, possibly because it hit light poles and highly likely the ground before it whacked into a heavy generator unit.

The big line of people seconded to walk across the grass area from the southern end picking up small pieces of some sort of debris would undoubtably know, that what they were picking up had not bounced back or been projected there by explosions in the building, but were the result of the destruction of the wings and probably lower airframe components of an aircraft that was starting to disintegrate, after it had released projectiles either before or whilst it was hitting light poles.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 17 2013, 12:03 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Mike

Thanks for responding in here.

There was no aircraft, hot air balloon, kite or glider seen flying along the directional damage path.
Nobody saw the lightpoles being struck. In fact, if you look at the Route 27 witnesses in context, they generally place themselves beside the lawn area in front of the point of explosion, and say that the aircraft flew in front of them. And that they watched the approach of an aircraft that supposedly came in from the southwest on a road that runs northeast which would have come in basically from behind.

Having said all that, it brings us back to the "two plane" scenario. Nobody saw two planes. Nobody. Not the NOC witnesses (particularly Boger!), nor the Route 27 witnesses, 1 of which is a confirmed NOC witness (Steve Riskus) and (at least) another who can only be describing the NOC approach (Penny Elgas).

As for the alleged debris on the helipad, what debris? The "confetti"? That's been debunked earlier on in this thread.

There was one piece of silver coloured debris to the north of the helipad. How it got there or who put it there, I don't know. It couldn't have been from the aircraft seen flying from NOC.

Are you still saying that there were two simultaneous planes that day?

QUOTE (Robert)
There was scattered pieces of small parts of composite material and aluminium construction along this path reported, photographed and videoed.


Who "reported" this path? Witnesses certainly didn't.

Show the images of this Robert. I've seen images taken within minutes of the explosion that show no aircraft debris "along this path". I've seen scrap metal and building masonry blown out on to the road.

What's hypocritical about your post is questioning how debris got there yet in another post a few days ago you were pointing to NPT in Manhattan. How did the debris get there Robert?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Dec 17 2013, 03:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 17 2013, 12:06 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



It wouldn't hurt to read through this thread from the start. And the Barbara Honegger thread.

Here's a link to the alleged "helipad confetti"

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10809488

There are also posts on the alleged facade damage. And the convoluted, baseless argument for "two planes". It's all there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Dec 17 2013, 09:34 PM
Post #20





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 422
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 17 2013, 11:06 AM) *
It wouldn't hurt to read through this thread from the start. And the Barbara Honegger thread.

Here's a link to the alleged "helipad confetti"

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10809488

There are also posts on the alleged facade damage. And the convoluted, baseless argument for "two planes". It's all there.


Thanks oneslice. Now I get it. Those photos were helpful.
They must have been the pieces thrown out from the building from the planted explosives.
That's the only thing that makes sense.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th January 2020 - 03:26 PM