The Pentagon Plane Puzzle (preview - ver 3)

The Pentagon Plane Puzzle (preview - ver 3) by debunkerbuster

http://911truthactivism.blogspot.com
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com

The Pentagon Plane Puzzle film is a work-in-progress. This third version integrates David Chandler's presentation "Going Beyond Speculation - A Scientific Look at the Pentagon Evidence" with video of testimonies by 30 of the 180 known on-record witnesses to the Pentagon crash. It serves as a comprehensive preview of what will be in the final film.

There are many new graphics and a few new movie clips which were not in prior versions of the film.
To learn more about this film project, and to see related materials not yet in the film, please go to this website:
http://www.9-11tv.org/the-pentagon-plane-puzzle

MIT Physics vs. 9/11 Conspiracy - Jeff King 1946-2012

David Chandler relays some sad news at 911blogger.com:

Jeff King, an early scientific voice in the 9/11 Truth Movement, died on June 19 after a lengthy battle with amyloidosis and multple myeloma. He studied physics and engineering at MIT, left for a number of years, then re-enrolled, finished with a degree in Biology (with a combined course of study later labeled Biomedical Engineering), then went on to medical school and became a physician.

Jeff was a neighbor and a good friend. You may know of him through his online name, Plague Puppy (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/). Some of his thinking about 9/11 was speculative and out of the mainstream of the 9/11 Truth Movement, but I knew him to be extremely inquisitive, well read, independent in his thinking, and non-dogmatic. He was one of the early influences in my getting involved with the 9/11 Truth Movement. He was a gentle and caring person, beloved by his patients...

He will be missed.

Jeff King, MD, SB EE (MIT Science Baccalaureate in Biology and Electrical Engineering) – Family Practice Physician (27 years). Former Electrical Engineer (8 years). - http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#King

"Debunkers" who try to downplay the credentials of the members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and other individuals in the truth movement ignore that even electrical engineers take classes relevant to the issues surrounding 9/11.

Jeff King gives his thorough analysis of the WTC collapses on 9/11 in 2003 and concludes that explosive controlled demolition is the only scientifically explainable hypothesis. This is research from early on, and doesn't account for many of the later discoveries, however, it's still a very important video.

Intellectual Rigor Mortis Sets In Early for 'Debunkers' in 2011

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog stated today that physicist David Chandler "is hardly an exemplar of the highest standards of intellectual rigor."

He points to a post from April 22, 2009 entitled "When Will David Chandler Fix His Errors?" that contains two broken video links from Chandler. Apparently our friend Joesph Nobles caught a "major error" in one of Chandler's videos. Chandler admitted his sarcastically dubbed "spectacularly incompetent shameful error" and after a while removed the videos unbeknownst to Pat. He noted, however, that the error had "zero bearing on the substance of the horizontal ejection issue." Pat left that part of his quote out though and says that Chandler failed to admit the opposite.

In April of 2010 Chandler posted a new video on the subject with further measurements.



So, who is debunking who?

In August on 2009 Scootle published a blog entitled "A response to the nuttier response to David Chandler's nutty claims," he states:

A debunker has posted a video in response to David Chandler's recent video "South Tower Smoking Guns".

The first point I agree with, it probably was just smoke escaping, but their response to Chandler's second smoking gun only focuses on the trail aspect, and not the much more damning fact that the object is falling faster than freefall, as if it was launched downwards. A much more obvious downward ejection can be seen in photographs and videos of the north tower's destruction...

In September of 2010 Scootle found this video.



He writes:

The video above is continous and pretty much square on, so I thought I'd use it to see how much time there was between the start of the north tower's collapse, and the moment the beam disappears behind WTC7. As the video shows, it was somewhere between 6.7 and 6.8 seconds. The north tower was 417 meters tall, and WTC7 was 186 meters tall, so the distance between the two roofs was about 230 meters. The amount of time it would take to freefall that distance in a vaccum is about 6.85 seconds. So even if this beam was dropped from the height of the roof of the north tower at the exact moment the tower started to collapse, it still wouldn't have reached the roof of WTC7 in under 6.8 seconds. Put simply, this steel beam had to have been falling significantly faster than freefall. Obviously this is impossible unless it was launched downwards by something, such as an explosion.

As mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti recently demonstrated, the use of explosives is proven by the lack of deceleration of the North Tower’s upper section. When 9/11 "debunker" Dr. Frank Greening debated this issue with Chandler, Greening stated that Newton’s 3rd Law does not apply to falling buildings. So, what Newton should have said is that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, except in the case of falling buildings. Why is there no call for Newton to correct his error?

A response to the nuttier response to David Chandler's nutty claims.

A debunker has posted a video in response to David Chandler's recent video "South Tower Smoking Guns".

My take:

The first point I agree with, it probably was just smoke escaping, but their response to Chandler's second smoking gun only focuses on the trail aspect, and not the much more damning fact that the object is falling faster than freefall, as if it was launched downwards. A much more obvious downward ejection can be seen in photographs and videos of the north tower's destruction...

You see that big piece of steel on the right hand side of the picture that's lined up with the roof of Tower 7? In certain videos of the north tower's destruction you can see that it "falls" much faster than the other falling material. The only explanation for this is that the piece had to have been launched downwards by some kind of explosive force.

Included are video clips of the ABC Balzac-Vitry demolition, used to demonstrate how a crushdown is possible. However, although the maker asserts that "Both the upper and lower sections of the buildings [sic] are disintegrated by the buildings [sic] own gravitational energy", they do not show an image of what that building looked like afterwards...

So much for "disintegrated"! Those videos don't debunk anything. In fact they actually demonstrate that a block of falling floors will slow down after colliding with lower floors. Something which Chandler and others have proved didn't happen in the case of the North tower.

As for the projectile, I'm not convinced by it either. I am however now highly intrigued by this missile-like projectile, launched from the collapsing North tower, that hits Building 7.

http://rapidshare.com/files/270158025/NTWTC7HIT.mpg

Related Info:

Click here to see a recent debate on this blog with the same so-called debunker.

South Tower: Exploding Projectile

STEVEN E. JONES: NANOTHERMITE (new DVD) - Watch it online now