Strange Obsession: 911Blogger and the Pentagon Mystery

gretavo's picture

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/volume/2010/Wyndham1.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_NOC_Refutation.html
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/12/27/addendum-to-the-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

John D. Wyndham's blog
Login to post comments

»

Login to post comments
0 votes

Feedback

Dr. Wyndham:
Thank you for your hard work. I'm still in the process of reading your entire paper. One thing that interests me is the following part in the paper,
"Large Plane Impact Theory: The low-flying large plane impacted the light poles causing the observed damage."

Some have doubted that a plane coming in at such a high speed, like +400 mph, could have simply tipped over the pole. A quick google search can show pictures of the poles' base. There appears to be no radial cut or anything that would suggest an explosive tipped over the pole and somewhat into the direction of the coming plane.

I guess calculating the the motion history of the pole after being hit with the plane isn't necessary but it is fascinating to imagine the dynamics of interacting objects, especially at high speeds. It's like a rigid rod being is fixed at the bottom and is hit at the top and its top acquires the tangential speed of ~400 mph. We know the moment of inertia of a rod and we can set it's initial condition of its angular speed as well and I guess it simplifies to a 2nd order ODE that can be solved via Runge-Kutta. But it's difficult to estimate the energy converted at the base during the deformation but hopefully the following reasoning helps in settling the matter.

From the pictures, it seems like some of the poles are slightly bent near the alleged aircraft-pole impact region. Bending the poles in those areas is tough for explosives to do. One could assume an elastic collision here but I think the greater factor is the pole rotating and its top hits the ground at a high speed which is countered by a strong frictional force from the pavement - which gives the appearance that it simply just tipped over.

All the best and keep up your excellent research Sir !
Submitted by carbon on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 5:49pm.
»

Login to post comments
1 vote

Yes

performing those calculations would be interesting but you would have to know that the bases of these poles are specifically designed to "break away", hence the bases of these poles are called "breakaway base".

Moreover, some pole pictures were taken long after they were uprooted, so the position they were in at the time they were photographed will likely not correspond with the position they were in just after they were struck.
Submitted by SnowCrash on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 6:19pm.
»

Login to post comments
1 vote

transparency

I find the CIT pursuit to be highly directed to a particular outcome, which is a shame. Their interviews are convincing but a lot of it can be explained.
On the other hand, there is a large sentiment which says this sort of pursuit detracts, in some way, from the movement. That's ludicrous. It may be wrong but it's not wrong-hearted. I appreciate the whole-hearted attempt to reason out the probabilities of these sorts of things. I think it's crazy to fight each other though. I'm not going to convince anyone, obviously, though I know I'm right. Your ends are wrong.
Quite frankly, this type of intense analysis completely misses the point, which I don't have to repeat here because it's so obvious.
Personally, I'm not convinced a plane hit the Pentagon. I don't see the requisite damage. I see damage that can only be caused by a missile. Perhaps that's cognitive dissonance because we usually see such a complete and open investigation in these types of crashes. But, if that's the case, then I have a right to be unconvinced and it serves us well. It serves us well, because the real deficit here is information and transparency and if anyone tries to prove anything in spite of that fact, quite frankly, they're wasting their time and mine. The real outrage here is lack of transparency in a case that affects us all.
Submitted by anditico on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 6:26pm.
»

Login to post comments
5 votes

What Hit the Pentagon?

What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug... (PDF)

Read it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Why read it? Because you said this:

...I have a right to be unconvinced and it serves us well. It serves us well, because the real deficit here is information ...

It will serve us better if you convince yourself of some truths and work with that. Information is actually quite abundant, you just sound OK not looking into it. You do have a right to be unconvinced, just like all the people you want to pay attention to you.

So, what path will you choose?

I will echo your comment on transparency, we need a lot more of that from our elected officials.
Submitted by Nor Cal Truth on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 6:38pm.
»

Login to post comments
5 votes

Physical

Plane and related debris at the Pentaton shortly after the 9/11 Pentagon attack

Nobody saw a missile.

The notion of a missile is just outside of all evidentiary considerations.
Submitted by SnowCrash on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 6:39pm.
»

Login to post comments
4 votes

Light poles

And of course the five light poles that were severed strongly support an object that has the width of a large airplane. I have a hard time imagining a zigzagging missile.
Submitted by Vesa on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 7:31pm.
»

Login to post comments
4 votes

Anditico you are right - lack of transparency is the outrage

It is a pity however that you allow yourself to be defeated by it. The authorities have made it hard to find information because they want us to keep arguing. As long as we argue, they win.

There is however enough evidence to enable us to achieve consensus. You say the damage could have been caused by a missile but not by a plane. I suggest you read the papers you a criticizing before you respond again. You will find reference to a video released by FOIA which shows the damage on the face of the Pentagon matches the shape of a 757. Then you had better ask yourself how your missile, spearing through the C-ring wall could stop itself in mid flight to avoid damaging the outer wall of the B-ring.
Submitted by Frank Legge on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 8:04pm.
»

Login to post comments
0 votes

"you had better ask yourself

"you had better ask yourself how your missile, spearing through the C-ring wall could stop itself in mid flight to avoid damaging the outer wall of the B-ring."[Quote]

Easy,a missile can be designed so that it's explosive payload doesn't detonate until after it's penetrated 'x' number of feet into the building (look up bunker busters). It detonated upon striking C ring (destroying itself),making a nice circular hole & their wasn't anything left of it to damage the outer wall of B ring. This is exactly the sort of thing we would expect considering we know they were concerned about limiting damage to the Pentagon (Wedge 1 renovation) and considering the military leadership was also present at the Pentagon (though admittedly as far as possible from wedge 1). They wanted to take out the budgeting office & not endanger themselves. This would be exactly what we would expect.
Maybe you ask yourself how the leading edge of debris from an aircraft would have the energy punch a hole through C ring,yet not enough to even reach B ring?
Submitted by waitew on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 1:55am.
»

Login to post comments
-2 votes

John D. Wyndham and Frank

John D. Wyndham and Frank Legge probably are not explosives experts. See the following links:

1) Pentagon C Ring Exit Hole Mystery Article by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer, June 10, 2006:

http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/art_ExitHole.htm

2) Video : Mystery Of The Pentagon C Ring Hole:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7364619849681669102

3) historycommons.org: (9:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001: ‘Experienced Combat Arms Officers’ at Pentagon Think a Bomb Has Exploded There:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a938combatofficers#a938co...

Quote : “A group of Army officers at the Pentagon initially thinks that a bomb has gone off in their building when it is attacked. Army Major Craig Collier and his colleagues are in their office on the second floor of the Pentagon’s C Ring, about 200 feet from where the building is hit. Collier will later recall: “[T]he building jolted and we heard a muffled boom, then a rumble.… All of my peers in the area are experienced combat arms officers, and we quickly agreed that it sounded and felt like a bomb.” Numerous other Pentagon employees also initially think a bomb has gone off, and apparently only a few guess a plane has hit the place”

4) historycommons.org: (9:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Some inside Pentagon Think a Bomb Has Exploded There:

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timelin...

5) historycommons.org: Context of '(9:38 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Some Officers in Area Where Pentagon Is Hit Think Bombs Have Exploded':

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a938bombsexploded
Submitted by tit2 on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 4:13am.
»

Login to post comments
1 vote

Source of this disinformation?

I'm not going to comment on this tripe, except to say that we seem to be periodically spoon fed a NEW theory explaining the the logic of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Since this is an absurd conclusion I am forced to ask, what is the real source of this disinformation? Who is behind it?

While we're at it, what will the NEXT theory be, sixth months from now, explaining how it was possible, indeed likely, that Hani Hanjour actually did fly that plane into the Pentagon, how it was not that difficult a maneuver and the difference between a Cessna (which he could barely fly) and a 757 isn't all that much after all!
Submitted by NYCGuy on Mon, 01/09/2012 - 12:32am