Saturday, March 30, 2019

YES, A PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON ON 9/11!!!!!!! <--- That is 7 exclamation points! <--- 8

TTR Episode 24: JM Talboo Interviews Physics Teacher David Chandler on the Upcoming 'Conference on the 9/11 Pentagon Evidence'

Show Notes/More Info:

Announcing: Conference on the 9/11 Pentagon Evidence:

Achimspok’s Channel / UA175 –  the last 12 seconds; UA175 – the last 12 seconds – part2; The last 12 seconds of the alleged flight UA175 – refined (Achimspok’s analysis provides a 3-dimensional model of the final approach of UA175 to the South Tower consistent with all of the video footage, a direct measurement of the actual high speed of the plane, and reason to believe it was not being controlled manually.) 

They REALLY oughta know better: Critiques of claims made by several prominent and semi-prominent 9/11 debunkers:

No Flyover Witness:

The CIT Rebuttal Letters: Debunking the National Security Alert Video Misinfo/Disinfo (Random Correspondence on the Issue, Specific Analysis, Thoughts):

Craig McKee: Liar for 9/11 Truth:

Craig McKee Still Lying about the Pentagon:

Why the CIT Analysis of the Pentagon Event on 9/11 Should Be Rejected Outright:

The following is a reply to Craig McKee's response to the above link by Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Ziggi Zugam:

In simple terms, Chandler notes the following about the Ranke process. Hemphill's testimony before Ranke starts messing with him is this:

- He saw the jet to his right

- he confirms it was in the direction of the VDOT tower. Ranke asks him if the jet was to the south of the tower but Hemphill says something like probably not that far south. This does not rule out that he saw it that far south, but indicates that it may have been more like over the tower or near it.

- he saw the jet over the bridge

- he saw it clip a light pole

- he saw it hit the building

All of the above clearly spells south side approach and confirms the official flight path plus the crash.

There are also two slight inconsistencies, he says it flew over the Annex building and the gas station.

A proper researcher would want to check into that.

The first inconsistency does not seem major because although Hemphill says over the annex he also places it towards the VDOT tower, so the over the annex claim does not seem to be very firm, more like maybe over the annex or slightly to its south. This does not seem a major problem for the official story because the guy is going by memory years after the event, without looking at a map, and this testimony puts the jet in the right southern direction - it is only a matter of how far south. But Ranke should have looked into this.

The second inconsistency is more glaring because over the gas station does not fit well with the official flight path, and more importantly it does not agree with the rest of his testimony either, especially the over the bridge and hitting the light pole. Ranke should have asked Hill about this and maybe offered him up a map to help clear things up.

But what does Ranke do then?

He by-passes all that and cherry picks the over the gas station bit and starts asking over which side?

Hemphill answers:

"You know it’s hard to say, it looked like it went right over the top to me, you know, because of the way its flight path was, but you know you would have come pretty much right smack over the top of it, right over the bridge there, it takes you over to I think on the right if I did all those years ago, I said 110, I meant 27."

Hemphill was sure about seeing the jet to the right, seeing it over the bridge and hitting the light pole and the building, but now we have one more data point that he is not sure of that contradicts the others.

Ranke simply cherry-picks this "unsure" bit and allows it to over-ride the sure bits, and instead of noting to Hemphill how the contradiction he starts to talk to him about how this matches other testimonies and all that. He leads the witness. And Ranke makes no effort to ask about or clear up the apparent inconsistencies. He does not say "wait a minute...over the gas station does not seem to match over the bridge and hitting the light pole."

Also note that even in the paragraph (above) where Hemphill says not sure about the gas station, he also repeats the claim about over the bridge, and adds a bit about on the right of road 27, which is a glaring inconsistency.

Ranke simply ignores all this and takes the only claim that Hemphill is not sure about, and lets it over-ride the other claims that Hemphill was actually sure about.

Craig McKee does not manage to point this out in his 50 thousand word rant...the guy rants on and on without addressing the real issues. I do not think he is an agent, he think he is fucking stupid, and dishonest. The problem with his supporters is that they do not read Chandler's work themselves, they read Craig's articles about what Chandler says and thus of course they do not understand the issues at all because McKee is not smart enough to spot them himself or honest enough to admit that.

What Craig does is to parrot what Ranke does, cherry-picking the one claim that Hemphill was not sure about and letting that over-ride the claims he was sure about. Craig says:

"Hemphill clearly explains that the plane was over the Navy Annex and over the gas station. He repeats this several times throughout the three interviews."

But this of course is a lie. Hemphill clearly said in the first interview that he was not sure about the gas station bit, and that interview also made clear that the over the annex claim was flexible because he also indicated that the jet was close to the VDOT tower. What Hemphill actually clearly explained was that he saw the jet to his right, going over the bridge and hitting a light pole and the building.

What Hill does when he interviews Hemphill, is to try to set things straight. He points out the inconsistencies and sends the guy a map. Again it is made clear that he saw the jet to the right side, going over the bridge, hitting a light pole and then the building....Hemphill is still thinking he maybe saw the the jet over the annex and the gas station but again it is obvious that he is not set on this at all and further that arguing about the details is not the main thing. He basically confirms the official flight path. I think most people will realize that it is hard to judge the exact distance and location away from you when you are dealing with a jet at full speed and you see it for a few seconds. Another important point is that Hemphill says to Hill that he is basically confirming the same story that he told the FBI years ago, after the event:

Hemphill: OK, if you see the edge of the gas station where the gas station parking lot is, for the CITGO station, it was right over in that area, then it hit the Pentagon. Could it have been a little further over? Yeah, hell, I don’ t know. I only saw it for 3 to 5 seconds. But, the key point is what I saw was the left hand side of the aircraft. That’s what I drew for special agent Heidi Messerschmitt of the FBI.

So Hill did what Ranke should have done, what any honest and competent researcher would have done, clear up the inconsistencies by pointing them out to Hemphill and giving him a map. What he ends up with is the conclusion that Chandler and others get from the Ranke interview on its own when Ranke's BS is ignored, and the conclusion that Hemphill originally gave the FBI years ago...which is more or less the official flight path. The only people that got a different conclusion are Ranke and his followers by twisting Hemphill's testimony to suit their BS.

But Craig is calling Hill names for "manipulating" Hemphill to agree to his original FBI conclusion:

"He has changed his account, while not acknowledging that it was a change."

The CIT Virus:

Was the scene with Lloyd England's taxi staged?:

Chapter 17 of 17: Powerpoint presentation of research by Wayne Coste, narrated by David Chandler -- Citizen Investigation Team Interview:

Regarding the flying ability, or lack thereof, of Hani Hanjour...

The Pentagon No-Jetliner Claims Marginalize the 9/11 Truth Movement by Reinforcing the Conspiracy Theorist Stereotype:

Peer-reviewed Papers Refuting Pentagon No-Jetliner Claims:

Pentagon Attack Errors:

The "Pod People" And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon:

Pentagon missile hoax: debunked by 9/11 truth activists:

9/11 Debunked: 136 Eyewitnesses to Pentagon Attack:

Pentagon Eyewitnesses Analysis of the Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Accounts:

Editor's Note: I was very conservative during the show when recalling these numbers. They are higher than I stated...

about 89 The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.

at least 45 The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.

at least 23 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases a large jet.

The CIT Deception Mock Trailer:

A Message to the 9/11 Grand Jury - ATTENTION POTENTIAL 9/11 GRAND JURY MEMBERS! - The NIST 9/11 report, is inadmissible in a court of law in the United States, because it fails the *Daubert* standard + Listen to These Three NIST Whistleblowers:

Many people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."

Just because the evidence suggests that rogue elements of the US government and intelligence apparatus, as well as other international intelligence agencies, were involved, doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved...