Robin Hordon, an X air traffic controller who worked at ZBW [Boston ARTCC] and a commercial pilot with 1600 hours of flight time, inserts some desperately needed informed, reasonable, and objective analysis into the shrill debate over CIT/Pentagon Issue over at 911Blogger.

Additionally, Robin's diligent research efforts on the Pentagon attack have progressed to the point where he believes that he is close to the point of ID'ing "the airvehicle that passed over the generator and may [or may not] have struck the Pentagon...its the " WTC Dust" at the Pentagon that P4T should have climbed all over several years ago." He is apparently waiting for people to calm down their emotional territorial defending a bit before he shares his "Pentagon Dust":

Once people's eyes. ears and minds have reopened regarding what happened at the Pentagon, then I'll share my "Pentagon Dust".

Calm down everybody...just calm down...the Pentafgon-AA77 scenario is really complicated...and the Pentagon's achilles heel...Operation Northwoods, circa 2001; in my mind's eye...

Note: I filtered out most of the other comments besides Robin's and a few select others so that people don't have to suffer through reading all the noise, such as Victoria's predictably dishonest drivel, YT's childish rantings, and Arcterus's annoyingly trite blathering, etc...

__________________________
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-08/citizen-investigation-team-creator...
»

* Login to post comments
* -3 points

Air Traffic Controllers did NOT see the UNIDENTIFIED airvehicle

...crash on their screens. From what I have been able to discover, there is no testimony as such.

And, the air traffic controller at National Tower [Stephenson] stated that the airvehicle dropped down behind a building...and THEN he saw a fireball.

FYI...ATCs at National Tower CANNOT SEE the Penatgon proper...because there is "stuff" in between.

So, if you have any information stating that an air traffic controller has submitted evidence stating that he or she DID personally "see" the UNIDENTIFIED PRIMARY TARGET actually HIT the Pentagon, I'd love to get linked up...because there is SOOOO much more to learn about the AA77-Penatgon-PEOC-SS-NORAD story.

Thanks

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Sun, 07/11/2010 - 11:29pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* -1 points

Victoria...some issues here...

For those who do not know, I am an X air traffic controller who worked at ZBW [Boston ARTCC] and a commercial pilot with 1600 hours of flight time.

Some important points:

1. I called Stephenson and got no returned calls.

2. There is no way that Stephenson "knew" that it was AA77 that he saw from the FAA communications systems BECAUSE nobody within any FAA facility had identified the primary target as being that of AA77. And in fact, Danielle O'Brien at Potomac Tracon-Dulles Tower, along with her ATC colleagues thought that the high speed primary target was a military fighter due to its aerobatic flight path.

Its ONLY via later "discovered" evidence at the crash site that made people...via the press...think that the primary target was that of AA77...and thusly, this establishes that there was "reverse engineering" used for this identification.

3. HOWEVER, someone at Potomac Tracon, or Dulles Tower, OR another "mystery facility" informed the Secret Service that there was an UNIDENTIFIED high speed target heading towards WDC.

4. And testimony establishes that the SS informed National Tower about this high speed primary target inbound to WDC.

5. So, it is possible that Stephenson's being informed that this UNIDENTIFIED primary target WAS that of AA77 and that it came from the SS...but how would the SS KNOW THIS?

At that time, the FAA did not surmise or think that it was AA77...only a military fighter!

The SS could not have known that this target was AA77 UNLESS they had some prior inside information that this primary target WAS AA77...and that this information was passed along down the "insider line" as the target approached WDC.

This is a critical question and consideration...and it leads to another very, very interesting bit of evidnce that does not fit n MY air traffic controller's mind.

It was soon known that the primary target in question began its downward spiral into? the Pentagon from an altitude of 7000 feet. Well, HOW did this 7000 foot number become established?

After all, the FAA's radar did not get any altitude information from this primary target because it had no civilian or FAA type of transponder that was working...which if working, would have transmitted the airvehicle' altitude.

However, and its not neccessarily a speculation, but some pertinent information here...IF the primary target was a military airvehicle equipped with an IFF [Identification-Friendly or Foe] transponder...aka...a military transponder that IS NOT SEEN BY FAA RADAR SYSTEMS, then this military transponder WOULD show the airvehicle's altitude to a "mystery" radar tracking facility...or NORAD-NEADS...or to an E4B etc.

Could a military IFF transponder be the sorce of the 7000 foot atltitude?

AND...could this same "mystery radar facility" be the source that informed the SS which then became the source of identifying the primary target to National Tower as being AA77...which Stephenson seems to indicate?

And further, WHEN and WHERE would this information have been originally "seen" along the alleged route of AA77 from eastern Ohio?

Please remember, O'Brien's supervisor "conveniently" informed O'Brien to be on the lookout for at high speed unidentified primary target transiting her airspace...and this convenience was conveyed but a FEW MINUTES before she "saw" this target transiting her airspace. Pretty damned convenient for me.

Further yet, WHO informed O'Brien's supervisor to alert his ATC s to be on the lookout for a high speed primary target moving through their airspace.

How did THAT communications link-up happen?

Where is the original source of this warning...the "mystery radar facility"...and even further YET...how far back did this "mystery source" sense that there would be a high speed primary target heading to WDC?

Eastern Ohio?...perhaps...

PLEASE REMEMBER...AA77 was lost to radar contact over a half an hour earlier over eastern Ohio...and when last seen it was heading to the southwest and had begun a descent.

My poinyt here...NOBODY in the FAA knew that AA77 was heading easterly]...perhaps because maybe it wasn't...but IF perhaps it WAS heading east...and IF perhaps some "mystery" radar facility actually was tracking it all the way...then it would be tracking it well enough to inform [conveniently in a "timely fashion"] the Potomac Tracon to be on the lookout for a high speed primary target that might be haeding to the WDC area.

In all of this, the mystery of the 7000 foot altitude INFORMS ME that there is another line of identification of this high speed primary target outside the FAA...and if so, the NORAD-the SS-or some other radar equipped facility or airbourne platform could have been watching this aircraft all the way.

So, if I were asked right now to conclude something based upon my research, it would be that a deep radar tracking OP at NORAD, the SS, onboard an airbourne Command and Control Center, or buried somewhere in the PEOC or some other clandestine location [under the mountains in VA?] may be the "overseer" of all of this activity...

...and further, that this is the source of the radar information provied to Cheney in the PEOC...aka..."50 miles out...30 miles out...10 miles out...do the orders still stand?" scenario.

Perhaps this is why Stephenson has not returned my phone calls.

3. OR...perhaps its because Stephenson could not "see" the aircraft hit the Pentagon because he could not see the Pentagon from National Tower...as his testimony so establishes? IE: Stephenson states that the aircraft dropped behind some buildings...thus loosing POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION of that aircraft...and THEN seeing a fireball.

Therefore, he did NOT SEE the airvehicle HIT the Pentagon...nor did anybody else at National Tower.

I ask that you and ALL truthers to please be very carefull when assessing what is said, when it is said, why it was said, and what it actually means regarding air traffic control and radar systems.

Its all very, very complex...but we will get through it all.

FYI...I have spent hundreds of hours pulling apart problematic aviation events using radar data, controller statements and audio tapes...and its all very complicated. Please step slowly...NOBODY knows what happened at the Pentagon.

And for the record, in analyzing the radar data that I have been provided, I can show where the radar was scrubbed along the flight path that an airvehicle would traverse IF it had overflown the Pentagon on that heading...and then made a turn to a northwesterly heading where Gopher06 eventually flew at a seemingly appropriate time. This story is NOT over...

EVERYBODY...should step back a bit...and certainly should also consider Honegger's work showing a "first explosion" at the Pentagon as being at 09:30 or 09:32 some five to seven minutes BEFORE any airvehicle arrived? at the Pentagon...and TRY to make THAT fit into one's "hypothesis"...

And likewise, EVERYBODY should pay attention to my future posts to present the evidence that will ID the airvehicle that passed over the generator and may have struck the Pentagon...its the " WTC Dust" at the Pentagon that P4T should have climbed all over several years ago.

Stay tuned...and until all the emotional "territorial defending" has calmed down a bit I will simply try to explain my research seen in my affidavit for Gallop.

Once people's eyes. ears and minds have reopened regarding what happened at the Pentagon, then I'll share my "Pentagon Dust".

Calm down everybody...just calm down...the Pentafgon-AA77 scenario is really complicated...and the Pentagon's achilles heel...Operation Northwoods, circa 2001; in my mind's eye...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 1:31am.
Show ""Calm down everybody...just" by jpass
»

* Login to post comments
* -5 points

"Calm down everybody...just

"Calm down everybody...just calm down...the Pentafgon-AA77 scenario is really complicated...and the Pentagon's achilles heel...Operation Northwoods, circa 2001; in my mind's eye..."

I'm not convinced that the issue at the Pentagon is complicated. There are over 10 witnesses who all say the plane flew North of the Citgo. It doesn't get much easier then this. Imagine any other crime where 10 witnesses corroborate each other.
Submitted by jpass on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 7:55am.
Show "jpass...yes, but that air vehicle could have overflown and..." by Robin Hordon
»

* Login to post comments
* -5 points

jpass...yes, but that air vehicle could have overflown and...

...dropped a missile just before it did so. Or, it could have veered or swerved to create the entry would and damage path...

YET...another weak point of all this research is that most Truthers are actually BELIEVING the Building Performance Report issued by...da-da...The Pentagon. Hold on folks, if YOU wanted to hide the truth, would YOU write a report that helps truth seekers discover your malfeasances?

So, maybe the REAL impact path was along the north path and the airvehicle flying overhead the CIT witnesses DID hit the Pentagon making a damage path that would later be hidden by a falsified Building performance Report...which in and of itself is an interesting, and certainl very handy document that was made available by the feds...much different than the videos which have been witheld. HMMM? ever wonder WHY we got the Building Performance Report?

Is there anybody out there that automatically DOUBTS the veracity of ALL information provided by ANY department or organization within the US government...or am I alone in this skepticism? This skepticism is in place for all of my analysis...and I try to so state when I make my points.

jpass... the Pentagon-AA77-NORAD-NEADS-FAA-Secret Service-E4B-PEOC-Cheney-Mineta-FDR-Pilots for 9/11 Truth/DVD/animation PR-body parts-generator damge-conflicting eyewitnesses...all speak against your conclusion that its a simple story that needs to be told at the Penatgon. Sorry, but you are not correct.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 9:05am.
Show "Ok Robin" by jpass
»

* Login to post comments
* -6 points

Ok Robin

Ok Robin. There is a simple matter though. Regardless of any theories...the north of citgo path shows us the 'official path' was probably staged. This evidence should be included with other evidence held in high regard by the 9/11 Truth movement.

The interview with Lloyd England, to me, is indicative of someone who was involved in the staging of a crime scene. knowingly or not...for what reasons....who knows.
Submitted by jpass on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 10:19am.
»

* Login to post comments
* -2 points

Victronix...this is a GREAT EXAMPLE...of ID via a media push...

Victronix, I ask that you and others take a look at how the "identification" of the UNIDENTIFIED primary radar target went from being an UNIDENTIFIED primary radar target to being AA77.

Just check out the difference between what Spencer shows was the FAA report...aka...an American Airlines B757, into the "conclusion" that it was AA77 presented by the St. Petersburgh Times.

At that time, there was NO evidence of such, and still there is not any positive and accessible evidence with a credible trail of possession that establishes that this primary target IS AA77. [Although it might turn out to be such].

If anyone want to read Thompson's Timeline, its not too hard to see how this "story" was put into play and fraudulently "bounced into reality" by the parroting press. All the HI PERPS had to do was throw in a few factoids [a non-fact fact] along the way and then corporate press "group think" would take it from there.

I got wrapped up in clarifying the ATC aspects of your position and forgot to expose this "information press creep"...which of course is so very problematic in our quest for truth.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Note: Air traffic controllers certainly can distinguish the differences between the various aircraft, so, with a small caveat, I'm comfortable with Stephenson's identifying of the aircraft being a B757. Now, being an American Airlines B757, well that's a different story...because. A military B757...a C32 I believe...could be painted in teh colors of an American Airlines B757. Certainly serial numbers at the crash scene could prove this...but?

MORE...although a bit of a repeat...sorta...there is also no possible way for Stephenson, or anybody else to positively identify that primary radar target as being AA77 [two-way radio contact is requiered for this...and there was none] unless they had been tracking AA77 after it was lost to positive radar contact over eastern Ohio. Here is my point...Stephenson could not look out his tower window and somehow "know and establish" that this air vehicle, one that looked like an American Airlines B757, was indeed, AA77.

CAVEAT:...regarding what Stephenson "saw"...For a vast majority of the flight path of this UNIDENTIFIED PRIMART TARGET as it circled to the right in its descent just west of the Pentagon, and thusly, just north of National Tower, the aircraft was headed more or less straight at National Tower...and only aircraft "type" might possibly be established from that vantage point, and that would be because of the B757s unusual cockpit window designs when compared to most large airliners. This is a small difference, but ATCs are pretty good at visuals. Then, as the UNIDENTIFIED PRIMARY RADR TARGET continued its turn to the west and then back to the northeast, the aircraft was first exposing its underbelly to National Tower making the paint job a bit harder to see...then as it turned west, the view would shift from from tail-to-front in which neither aircraft type nor paint scheme could be seen...and then as it turned back to the northeast, the aircraft would be still be banking to the right exposing the top of the wings etc., and also, prehaps the best view of the paint scheme as that of an American Airlines paint scheme. Its a small caveat here...but I'm responsible to bring it forth.

AN INTERESTING EYEWITNESS REPORT: Some where I read in one of the eyewitness reports regarding the airvehicle that eventually "struck"? the Pentagon in which it states that the person "saw passengers in the windows" as it went past"...or something like this. Well, if what we were told is true, all these passengers would be in the rear section only?? And, next time you are at an airport during the daytime...on a very bright day, try to look into the windows and see how easily you can "see" the passengers on the inside. Its virtually impossible to see them. At night with the cabin lights on...easy...but during the day when the interior is darker than the exterior light...a very, very hard thing to do. But, even IF it was a military C32? painted as an American Airlines B757 AND had some heads of passengers painted on the outside of the blanked-X-window holes on the C32, then after the crash, the HI PERPS would have to pick up all the pieces that were painted as such...HMMM...seems to me someone was picking up some stuff if I remember correctly. Now, I'm NOT saying that this scenario happened and I actually think that this eyewitness may have been "projecting" images of passengers during that 1-2 seconds of visual contact...but again, one never knows and we need to do much, much more work in investigating the entire Penatgon-AA77-Cheney-PEOC scenario. rdh
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Mon, 07/12/2010 - 11:35am.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

Problem with the tale....

Did the FAA warn other aircraft in the area prior to impact?
There is no record – or even ‘tales’ - of ATC directing aircraft away from the “rogue aircraft,” no ATC warnings, no pleas for other aircraft to look for the "missing" aircraft, no continuous calls from ATC, attempting to establish contact – on any frequency. There were no TCAS (mid-air collision) alarms, with aircraft in a busy terminal area scattering for clear airspace. Nor were there any secondary TCAS alarms from the otherwise expected chaos.

The FAA order for all aircraft to land hadn't yet been announced, when the supposed 757 hit the Pentagon; there would have been an abundance of conflicting aircraft at the Dulles and Reagan airport areas.

For those unfamiliar, the TCAS system allows the transponders of different aircraft to electronically warn each other of a collision threat – with computerized audio and visual warnings in the cockpits of the planes involved. “Hard” warnings generate audio and visual commands, for the pilots to climb or descend to evade a collision.

Remember that the FAA claimed the aircraft circled and descended from 7,000 feet, overhead the Pentagon. Only a functioning transponder would yield an FAA digital display, indicating the altitude. In the world of facts, they can’t have it both ways. The transponder was either on or off. All of that assuming that the aircraft was factual. If there was an aircraft actually involved, an Air Force fighter for example, it made a low pass; it didn't hit the Pentagon!

Beyond the 'normal' tight airspace restrictions, such an 'accident' or 'incident' site automatically becomes "Prohibited" airspace for pilots. No pilot in his/her right mind would go near the area - without an 'official' directive.

Again, if the purported 757 transponder had been ON, it would have caused ATC and TCAS warning chaos with innumerable aircraft within the Baltimore/Dulles/Reagan Airport areas, as the aircraft approached the Pentagon. Yet, there were no questions asked about that discrepancy!
Submitted by Swingdangler on Mon, 07/12/2010 - 6:38pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* -1 points

In the end, the 7000' information may bury Cheney...

Swingdangler...nice to hear someone competent in the aviation aspects of the aviation events on 9/11. Also, I'm glad that you expalined TCAS to folks because from what I remember reading and from what I analyzed in the radar data provided by the US Military's RADES radar traking and recording facility, there indeed was some traffic that the UNIDENTIFIED PRIMARY TARGET was near or close to being "conflict with"...a DCA arrival on the west side of DCA if I remember correctly. On this radar video, it shows quite a few aircraft in sequence for landing at DCA and BWI as well as quite a bit of slower VFR type aircraft "flitting about" the WDC area...NOT neccessarily near P56...but skirting it. Also Gopher06 and Venus77 [and another ADW departure was noted. One helicopter [I surmise] circled the west side of the Penatgon and went up river to Langley...the CIA I suspect. And theer is a lotta high speed-high altitude-multiple aircraft flights observed also...including the fighter that flew past the Pentagon after the crash? or explosion?

Please, with whatever expertise that you may have in aviation...I ask that you try to find the ORIGINAL SOURCE of the 7000 foot altitude at the start of the descent. Reports have it established at 7000 feet out near IAD and this may have come from the FDR...so, timing of the report is key here.

Obviously, if the FAA radar didn't see the transponder, and the FDR is not the source of the 7000 feet, then it most likely came from a military IFF transponder, and that puts Cheney right in the loop of insuring a stand-down order [or making it look like he did to "cover" the fact it was a military airvehicle] and knowledgeably allowing/assisting the attack on the Pentagon. FINALLY, someone is seeing a few of these things that I first brought up to P4T YEARS AGO!.

Truthers...all of this is analysis and discussion and NOT any form of conclusion....but if you want to "hunt" something..."HUNT THE 7000 FEET"...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 1:50pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 1 point

This is not bad news unless...

...Truthers state that it is bad news...because that would mean that someone was so presumptive as to KNOW what happened at the Pentagon...and truthfully, only the HI PERPS know that.

Somewhere in the archives of this site is one version of my affidavit in support of April Gallop...it may be informative in forwarding this entire discussion.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Thu, 07/08/2010 - 11:51pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 11 points

That's a bit confusing, Robin

"This is not bad news unless ...Truthers state that it is bad news... because that would mean that someone was so presumptive as to KNOW what happened at the Pentagon...and truthfully, only the HI PERPS know that."

The reason I said it is bad news is precisely because CIT is adamantly proclaiming that they KNOW what happened at the Pentagon, all the while selectively manipulating evidence to fit with their theory. A theory that they insist is fact. On the other hand, I don't know of many people in the movement who claim to KNOW FOR SURE that AA77 hit the Pentagon, only that there's more than enough indication of it to avoid making the kind of claims that CIT does.
Submitted by YT on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 5:12am.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

Part of our journey is dealing with disinfo-cointelpro...

...and it is most likely at the highest levels since the JFK assassination.

I am NOT stating that CIT is cointelpro-disinfo...only that for the 9/11 Truth Community to unwind this crazy mess at the Pentagon and elsewhere, we ALSO need to deal with any info being dis-info...and then postulate from there.

If the 9/11 Truth Community keeps reacting, or in my view, overreacting to information that comes forward that challenges some "pet" or "existing" theories, then we cannot be considered open minded enough to discover or present credible information...credible information that reaches the levels of the studies of the WTC collapses for instance.

I am glad that CIT is presenting their information worldwide...I fully expect that it will generate more people doing more research because in the end, they make it clear that the US Governement's story...the OCT...is just not accurate.

Take the point that I have been trying to make for years...a point that P4T has blithly ignored as they present exactly what the HI PERPS wanted presented...IE: ...that AA77 never started a descent and WAS the airvehicle that fully turned around and headed east. The NTSB Flight Path Study establishes that AA77, when still in positive radar contact, was observed to begin a descent and had only made a partial left turn at the point where it was lost to positive radar identification. For the FAA ATC system to "see" the beginning of a descent, the aircraft has to be AT LEAST 400 feet off of assigned altitude...in this case FL350. Therefore, the altitude "seen" by the FAA ATC system had to be at FL346 or lower.

Well, P4T and others get their shorts in a twist noting that the FDR notes that the airvehicle was about 200 feet +/- too high to hit the Pentagon at THAT end of the journey...

...but they NEVER look back far enough in the flight to find that the FDR DOES NOT SHOW a 400 foot loss of altitude just before it was lost to positive radar contact. The NTSB Study shows a descent [of at least 400 feet-my ATC information to you all]...and the FDR and animation, and for some strange reason, Pilots for 9/11 Truth show a level flight...something is not right here...and I'm more comfortable with the NTSB Flight Path Study.

So, CIT helps me make this point IE:...that the FDR found? at the Pentagon is either a fake or has been hacked to tell the HI PERP's "story line". I appreciate their openess because nobody else makes my point...and its a very, very important point indeed..

And CIT does NOT depend upon the FDR that was "allegedly" from AA77 to form its positions.
[The FDR was found several days after the crash...HUH how did that happen...why not finding it that afternoon? They seemed to have found the FDRs at the WTCs according to Lindorff anyway. WASSUP?]

So, this is ONE of "my pets"...the hacked FDR... and I would welcome more information that might help clarify things like this...because I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PENTAGON.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Sat, 07/10/2010 - 7:09am.

*

Show "Uhh" by Swingdangler
»

* Login to post comments
* -5 points

Uhh

So if you accept the North of Citgo evidence that is contradictory to the OCT, then *drum roll please* where did the plane go??

You CAN NOT have a North of Citgo flight path and the official story damage path and cone of destruction at the same time!

Which begs the question, yet again, where did plane go if it didn't go on the official flight path? What is the logical conclusion to this question when the primary evidence contradicts the official story?
Submitted by Swingdangler on Mon, 07/12/2010 - 6:45pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

There are some scenarios that have some shaky evidence...

There is some radar evidence that radar returns forwarded by RADES has been tampered with along the flight path that an overflying aircraft would take IF it turned towards the northwest along th esame path as Gopher06.

There are reports of an airliner crashing at Camp David...

Existing slim evidence shows that IF there was an aircraft swap, it most likely did it over central West Virginia which leaves the scenario where the swapped IN airvehicle flew and struck the Penatgon...or overflew it on the aforementioned northwesterly track IF an overflight occurred.

And/or, that the swapped out B757 travelled at low altitudes northeasterly up the central valley in WV and up towards Camp David but a low altitudes...perhaps to crash? Again, very loose DOTS here...

We are but 10-20% of the way in collecting information regarding the AA77-Pentagon-Cheney element of 9/11.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 4:18pm.

[...]

Show "I fully endorse the comment about aviation activity..." by Robin Hordon
»

* Login to post comments
* -5 points

I fully endorse the comment about aviation activity...

...at National Airport being nothing unusual at all...and that an overflight "could" be seen as nothing out of the ordinary flight path activities that day. I do believe that National was landing and departing to the north and that means that departures were flying north right past the Pentagon. And for these travellers, who travel the road so often that they do not even notice such aviation activities, an overflight could easily have blended in and NOT be seen as anything too different at all. But this is not a conclusion...just support of one point made above.

An FYI...I actually made a point to get to the Pentagon area and walk the parking lot at the Naval Annex, drive around all the roads and check out the gas station. This aviation activity by a large airliner sure would be tricky...if not lucky. Its a tight descent and small low target...and at those speeds. YIKES!

BTW...the more interesting thing stated by Roberts was that he was aware that the country was in DEFCON4...the HIGHEST ALERT LEVEL...aka...a national defense emergency [If I remember correctly anyway] even before he went outside when he saw the airvehicle flying away. What this means is that the entire national defense structure was engaged and "looking" for bad stuff in the skies.

But, its possible that Roberts may have seen a large airvehicle making its first pass while in descent in that well known descending right turn before approaching/hitting/overflying? the Pentagon. The timing is very key here and I am not sure how all that fits. Good stuff anyway...

So, how did this airvehicle make it all the way to the Pentagon IF the US Military was on highest alert?

Cheney of course...or Operation Northwoods circa 2001...or both.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 10:04am.
Show "Helicopter Circling The Pentagon Just Before Flight 77 Impacts" by brian78046
»

* Login to post comments
* -5 points

Helicopter Circling The Pentagon Just Before Flight 77 Impacts

Robin,

Defcon 4 and the Pentagon's missile defense went to sleep? Talk about a stand down. Then again, a helicopter was circling the Pentagon at the time. If that helicopter was military it would deactivate the Pentagon's missiles. One snag though, if it was a military helicopter, why wasn't the pilot told to get out of the Pentagon's air space, because the Pentagon was watching an unknown target approaching the Washington, DC area. That, again, substantiates a stand down.

See what Barbara Honegger has to say about this, can you?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Submitted by brian78046 on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 7:49pm.
Show "Good points...but from what I understand..." by Robin Hordon
»

* Login to post comments
* -5 points

Good points...but from what I understand...

Dean,

Because one airvehicle is squawking an IFF transponder was flying in the airspace protected by the Penatgon's defense system, this does not mean that the entire air defense system is shut down. A better understanding about this is that if ANY air vehicle was squawking an IFF transponder [Identification-Friend or Foe]...or military transponder, the air defense system would "see" THAT airvehicle as being friendly and would not be concerned about it. Usually the same goes for an airvehicle squawking an FAA transponder...IE: its presumed to be friendly, and additionally, human flight monitors would be able to easily track that airvehicle with the FAA transponder...and most are friendly for sure.

Its a TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY regarding a HIGH SPEED PRIMARY TARGET HEADING STRAIGHT FOR WDC...this type of target is the QUINTESSENTIAL or EXACT target that the entire air defense system has been designed to DEFEND AGAINST.

So, the deliberate and neccessary "stand-down" issue has considerable legs here...and we need to never let it go.

BTW...I have seen the helicopter activity around the Pentagon on 9/11 by examining the radar data provided by RADES...and it certainly strikes me as very interesting indeed. In fact I tracked one such flight up to Langley [CIA] just upriver. Anyway, you ask good questions here...and I might remind you of a strong probability. IF one of the helicopters was involved, and it was painted to look like a civilian helicopter to keep the questions at bay, the HI PERPS would certainly have equipped it with BOTH an FAA transponder and a military IFF transponder.

And, I have read Honegger's work and have talked/consulted with her personnally, so, unless there is another white paper by her on the subject of the 09:30-09:32 first explosion time in which she staes that it was most likely a military air vehicle that struck the Pentagon [which I certainly would not be surprised about], then I think that I am up-to-date about her WORTHY!!! research. If not and she has published something new, please feel free to link me up...I'm interested. She usually copies me on her work anyway.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Sat, 07/10/2010 - 7:39am.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

What Barbara Honegger Wrote

Robin,

Here's what Barbara wrote, "Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti?aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building." -- http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf

Because of the close proximity of National Airport, the Pentagon's missile system was automatic, no time for human judgement.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Submitted by brian78046 on Sun, 07/11/2010 - 9:54pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* -2 points

Human judgement exists and is critical...this is complicated...

Dean,

This is all very, very complicated and I ask that you carry some of the water in my discussion...in other words, since I'm not a wordsmith, you gotta try to understand...

My overidding point:

There is not ONE killing system operated by the US Milirtary that has been designed to "operate or function" in deathly attacks or defenses WITHOUT HUMAN APPROVALS....

OK, think of that a bit..............................................................here we go...

What ever air defense system was in use to protect the critical airspaces in the vicinity of WDC, there are NO air defense systems designed that operate FULLY outside of human influence in decision making. Some human being HAS TO make the final decision to "kill" an invader.

This decision IS NOT assigned to an electronical or mecahnical device...its a PERSON BABY!

Anyway, this "given" includes the protocols of defending the sensitive airspaces all around WDC...and all of this is the MOST COMPLEX AIRSPACE IN THE WORLD...so, lets take a few breaths every now and then...its really complicated...

HERE..is what the air defense system has been designed "around"...

...that, no matter what, the US Military DOES NOT KILL...a civilian...by accident.

So, this answers your erroneus comment: "No time for human judgemant..."

Human judgement is positioned at the proper places at the proper times so that the "system" does not take the human's responsibilities over and begin to make the critical judgements that have always been HUMAN JUDGEMENTS.

Applying this concept to the aviation aspects of 9/11/2001 surrounding the WDC airspace...there was NO AUTOMATIC FIRING OF MISSILES to defend the various important and critical airspaces all around WDC.

Any such decisions to "shoot down" needed the highest levels of Secret Security or Penatgon approvals.

PLEASE NOTE: This is totally different from the authority that the leader of an interceptor crew has when intercepting a particular "target" should that target be in position to inflict damage to, or the killing of property and people on the ground, respectively. The commander of such a flight crew has authority to kill without higher approavals...IF the situtaion so demands. The HI PERPS have tried to make us all think something different...but that's another full thread...

OK...now that that's behind us...

What Honegger's statement "states"...is correct...that an IFF transponder, it will: "disable the Pentagon's anti-aircraft missile batteries"...

BUT...here is where the misunderstanding comes into play...

Honegger meant that the SPECIFIC...IFF transponder....associted with the SPECIFIC... AIRCRAFT...will "disable" the anti-aircraft missile defense sytstem from attacking THAT SPECIFIC AIRCRAFT...and that...

...the entire anti-aircraft system is NOT shut down because of ANY aircraft squawking an IFF transponder code in that airspace...

Although Honegger's statement could be interpreted that just ANY IFF transponder would shut down the ENTIRE air-defense system, it is not stating that point at all.

Instead, the correct interpretation is that:

The IFF transponder will shut down AN ATTACK AGAINST an aviation target that HAS THAT SPECIFICC TRANSPONER TRANSMITTING ITS SIGNALS...

So, stating it more briefly, an IFF transponder serves several purposes...but the principal one is to ID "itself" to ANY and ALL military radar systems that it INDEED...is a friendly...and that it should NOT be shot down.

Conclusion: Honegger was alluding that the SPECIFIC AIRCRAFT would not shut down the ENTIRE anti-aircraft system...BUT that...the SPECIFIC TARGET would ONLY PREVENT the anti-aircraft system from shooting THAT SPECIFIC TARGET down...because it indicated a "FRIENDLY" transponder return.

Hope this helps...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Mon, 07/12/2010 - 1:39am.
»

* Login to post comments
* -2 points

Another Problem

I understand what you are saying in your Conclusion. It makes sense. Here's another problem I have...

So if two Soviet sabotage agents piloting a 767 took off from National Airport and made a tight turn entering Pentagon airspace heading directly for the Pentagon, THEN Pentagon radar operators would have to first confirm a hostile aircraft rapidly approaching, THEN inform the missile battery operators that a hostile aircraft is approaching and from what direction the aircraft is approaching from, THEN the missile operators would activate the nearest battery to the aircraft, THEN the missile fires.

By then the hostile aircraft has just killed the Secretary of Defense and his senior officers!

Or the functions of radar and fire control could all be wrapped up with the missile battery team, in which case they would only have to confirm a hostile aircraft, THEN when confirmed activate the automatic functions of the missiles. In this scenario it might work, but it still seems a bit risky!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Submitted by brian78046 on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 3:14am.
»

* Login to post comments
* 0 points

It is presumed that...

...ANY aircraft that took off from National, or in positive control on ots way to landing at National, that it is a friendly.

Its the UNIDENTIFIED airvehicles that the Pantagon's air defense system is esigned to deal with. In your scenario, and because of the close proxinity, there indeed would be a deatthly attack.

Its airport security and the FAA's control of events affecting the NAS...National Airspace System that is on guard in your scenarion. A bit iof a roll of the dice for sure.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 4:27pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* -1 points

Unfriendly Work Office

Robin,

wow, that boggles my mind!

That means if Soviets/Chinese sometime in the future think they can move against the West and win, one of the first targets will be the Pentagon, which can be taken-out by 767/757 sized aircraft!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Submitted by brian78046 on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 10:52pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* -1 points

Boggles the mind...YUP

One of the principal reasons that IAD was built well west of WDC is to handle the international traffic in and out of WDC. I'm aware that National airport is too short for such long range flights and that was the primary factor.

Dean, a deeper understanding of how well "controlled and observed" the airspace surrounding WDC actually IS, will help in understanding the "security issues" that we are talking about.

Simply put, ALL air traffic needs to get some form of approvals even to fly NEAR WDC...and this is accomplished by the FAA for civilian aircraft and airports...by the Military for military airports...and this is why...

There is a sophisticated and complex interrelationship between all the FAA-Military and SS facilities...and clandestinely so for the SS and info sent to the PEOC and other safe houses associated with COG...wherever they are.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Wed, 07/14/2010 - 10:37am.

[...]

*

»

* Login to post comments
* -4 points

Seems absurd

And I do not trust Jim Hoffman either.

Much less probable than a flyover, which is infinitely more likely to have occured, and they even claim to have eyewitnesses reporting the plane flying away.

A "plane bomb" detonating pre-impact, that's absurd.
Submitted by Robert Rice on Thu, 07/08/2010 - 6:58pm.

[...]
»

* Login to post comments
* -7 points

Hoffman "suggests" that the damage dimensions and a B757 fit.

Had Jim Hoffman and Pilots for 9/11 Truth taken the time and precisely measured the three points of impact and damage near and upon the generator, quite a bit of discussion about "What hit the Penatgon" may have been short cut significantly.

From what I have seen in my research into this subject so far, I have only seen some cartoonish depictions or unofficial and "not-to-scale" diagrams offering "loose" measurements. I suspect that this inaccurate information most likely lead Hoffman to only "suggest" that the damage fits the profile or dimensions of the damage which would be inflicted by a B757's engines and wing flap supports hanging under the wings.

But there is a HUGE problem here...from my analysis anyway...the damage to the top center-right of the generator could not have been inflicted by the wing flap track [or its covering-faring...all of which are loosely called a "canoe".]...and here it is:

If its presumed that the damage to the low lying cement wall was inflicted by the left engine nacelle of the airvehicle...and...that the damage done to the top left coner of the generator as it sat in its raised position was inflicted by the right engine nacelle, this would indicate that the airvehicle was in a left bank...aka...not flying level but with the left wing lower and the right wing higer. Precise measurements could establish this angle of bank.

And of critical nature, the distance between the center point of the damage to the low lying cement wall and the center point of the damage to the top left corner of the generator will establish the distance between the left and right engines of the particular air vehicle that struck" the Penatgon. This is an important measurement...indeed.

Additionally, as is the case in most aircraft, the left and right wings are designed with "dyhedral", or an upward slant between the fuselage and the wing tips. Another way to describe dyhedral is to note that when the aircraft is on the ground parked, the distance between the bottom of the wing to the ground at the point where it attaches to the fuselage is considerably LESS than the distance to the ground between the wing tip and the ground. This difference in distances establishes the exact angle of the dyhedral that was, for good reasons, designed into the aircraft in the first place.

And, although a minor change in measurements or dyhedral angles, during flight the wings are actually bent more upwards because they are holding up, or lifting the aircraft. This is in comparison to the drooped wings when the aircraft is on the ground parked where the wheels are holding up the aircraft and the wings consequently do indeed, droop downwards a bit out towards the wingtips.

Considering all of the above, the "in-flight" dyhedral and the positions of the two engine nacelles at impact, the damage to the top center-right of the generator becomes TELLTALE as to the specific airvehicle that made this damage.

It will be found that there is ONLY ONE specific airvehicle which is designed and built with the dimensions that can inflict the damage to the low cement wall...to the upper left of the generator...and to the top center-right of the generator. YUP...it will be only ONE specific airvehicle...or a model thereof.

Again, from what I am able to observe so far, if a B757 was in a left bank and so close to the ground that the left engine nacelle struck the low lying cement wall...and the right engine struck the top left corner of the higher sitting generator, then the right wing flap track or canoe of a B757 would have PASSED WELL ABOVE the top center-right of the generator.

So, from my early conclusions, this airvehicle was NOT a B757.

Here is some additional information that "may" become a player in this research...and it adds to Honegger's suppositions that it was a "military aircraft" that struck the Pentagon.

In order for an aircraft to inflict the damage shown at the low cement wall, the top left of the generator and the top center-right of the generator ESTABLISHING A LEFT BANKED FLIGHT PROFILE...the part of the wing which ended up striking the top center-right of the generator HAD TO BE BOTH HANGING LOW ENOUGH AND NARROW ENOUGH to make that square-ish gash streaked across the top center-right of the generator.

Several military aircraft types are designed to hold under-wing fuel tanks or armaments or bombs...and consequently have below-wing mounts and protrusions. Another point here...the design criteria for such under-wing extentions are such that these mounts need to extrend low enough under the wings so that when ground crews attach fuel tanks, armaments, or bombs to these STRONG mounting devices, they can do this from the ground if at all possible. This "suggests", if I might use one of Hoffman's terms, that such under-wing attachments would EXTEND DOWNWARD well below the B757's flap track...aka...canoe.

Although not yet conclusive, I would not be surprised if the dimensions that are required to fit all three points of damage to the cement wall, the top left of the generator and the top center-right of the generator were inflicted by a military airvehicle with such long-ish below-wing mounts. But maybe not...

Perhaps we can find out by perfoming exacting measurements to the three points of damage and then comparing them to the existing airvehicles' dimensions...especially those in Jayne's Military Weapons records.

Now, one would think that Pilots for 9/11 truth, with its extensive and cumulative military piloting background held by most of its members, and of course its fair share of cointelpro types that are certainly lurking there too, would have thought about this analysis before this time period. This is even more apparent when one thinks about how much time P4T has spent in looking all around the Penatgon and analysing what happened or didn't happen regarding the flight characteristics and capabilities of a ....B757...HMMM...there's that...B757...thing again. Hey, maybe they are right...who knows?

Anyway, no such simple analysis of this TELLTALE damage has taken place by this group of Professional Pilots. Instead P4T has committed their work to expose into the public's consciousness a FDR and the resulting animation [each provided them by a FOIA request routed through ENGLAND???] showing that...it indeed WAS AA77...a B757... that turned around and remained at level flight in its turn in eastern Ohio...and indeed also was the airvehicle that began a gradual descent down and eventually into the Penatgon.

Truthfully, with even a moderate level of research, the FDR would have been shown to be a fake or hacked when compared to the NTSB Flight Path Study. Now, being "pilots", one would think that looking into a "Flight Path Study" would be right down their alley. Instaed, P4T has built its empire upon a "timely" aquisition and public presentation of this FDR and animation instead of doing solid research that would question the FDR's veracity.

Further, P4T reluctantly put some information on ther first DVD noting that the...B757...may not have been AA77 because they DID respond to my YELLS AND SCREAMS at Balsamo...and this is NOT an understatement at all! Balsamo is the "leader-founder" of P4T and is s tad hard headed.

Anyways, as I have kept up exposing my "concerns" over the levels of unbiased? and thorough?, and accurate?, research conducted by P4T, this "radar contact was lost" information along with my voice-over were removed from subsequent DVD releases.

Now, why P4T did not follow my leads and do the research themselves into the NTSB Flight Path Study ...which shows that AA77 had begun a descent in its partial left turn BEFORE it was lost to positive radar contact...is ceratinly not because I failed to point out and ask such research of them during my "yelling at Balsamo", because surely I did inform him repeatedly. So, it must be for another reason that they have ignored the NTSB Flight Path Study in this instance. Perhaps it is because had their investigation, and exposure of the fact that AA77 had indeed started a descent during its partial left turn over eastern Ohio, it would have highlighted that the FDR and animation was indeed a fabrication or had been hacked to tell the HI PERP's storyline...a storyline that P4T has been telling under the guise of exposing something different for years now.

So, here is my challenge to P4T:

Step up and do the measurements at the generator...and then compare them to all other twin jet engined airvehicles known today...and of course to both Jaynes Military Aircraft inventory and the US Military's aircraft inventory.

Hey, it might end up being a...B757...and it also may end up being AA77...never know without GOOD RESEARCH!

Obviously this is the "WTC DUST at the PENTAGON" that I have been teasing about for two years now...and I do think that an accurate analysis will establish the airvehicle "type" that struck the generator.

And this data exists because this evidence was not able to be "controlled" by the Pentagon and its Intel thugs. The dust came from independent citizens...as did all the videos and photographs showing the WTC collapses...all of which were analyzed outside of the Military-Intel-Corporate Media "controls" of such information by incredibly dedicated and "accredited" professionals in their trades [Jones-Gage et al].

Likewise, the data surrounding the generator damage exists outside of Penatgon-Intel thugs' controls because it has been photographed independently, and the airvehicle "candidates" are also in the public domain...mostly anyway.

Lets hope that P4T steps up and performs this analysis at the same competent and UNBIASED manner in which Jones, Ryan, Gage, Scott and Griffin have done theirs.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

PS: It should be quite clear why I, as a commercial pilot with 1600 hours of flight time and a former air taffic controller, found it neccessary to remove myself from being part of Pilots for 9/11 Truth organization. rdh

PSII: A note to Jim Hoffman...first thanks for all your work...its incredible and very instructive...but not yet definitive because very little is definitive so far. But, I do ask that if, while doing important work in worrying about the 9/11TM being "set-up" by cointelpro with the various AA77-Pentagon controversies, might you have also been pranked by referring to such inaccurate information that presented the "generator story" in ways that it made you pass by both its significance, and the accuracies needed for a scientific ...aka... exacting analysis of that damage and what it actually meant?

I DO NOT mean this as a slur in aany way because I have shared such questioning of being "pranked' by the HI PERPS to others at even higher levels of influence than what you hold. Here is how I approach this entire subject:

Given: Its a well planned "9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario" pulled off by these HI PERP THUGS.

Given: That in planning for exactly how this attack scenario could and would work, that even MORE PLANNING would go into making sure that the "stories told and evidence presented or witheld" before, during and after the attacks was ALSO deliberated and competently acted out as the events began and unfolded over the years

In other words, if they had enough competency to plan and execute the attacks, then clearly they knew that they would have to cover their tracks afterwards. After all, it was Cheney and Rumsfeld that got their feet wet in the Watergate era...and what they learned then is that whatever you wanted to do, you have to make careful and thorough plans NOT to get caught doing it. Actually, I suspect that this would be their first order of business in making such devious plans!

The prime example of this foresight and media-info control is seen on Sofia' 9/11 Mysteries where that "plant" established that the towers came down from the collisions and the fires...when now we know differently.

I do appreciate and respect your work Jim...but like most evrything else in this crazy situation, more is yet to be learned. I know that I'm still just getting started. rdh
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Sat, 07/10/2010 - 10:28am.

[...]

Show "This theory, amongst others...is worth more study..." by Robin Hordon
»

* Login to post comments
* -6 points

This theory, amongst others...is worth more study...

I will be commenting about many responses to this subject matter for quite some time.

However, if anyone wants to get information about my research into these elements, please feel free to read my affidavit in support of April Gallop...it shows some stuff that NOBOBDY has ever even considered about the events at the Pentagon. I think that I posted one version somewhere on this site...but as was usual with me, it was soon taken down.

And this is of course because I find no other air traffic controllers commenting about ANYTHING regarding 9/11 Truth. Perhaps its because they have current careers and retirements to consider.

Ignorance,...and blindness...and NOT lack of intelligence is speaking very loudly on this subject matter...stay tuned, I have some deep explanin to do...and here is the FIRST one.

Every single "theory" about what happened at the Pentagin has TOTALLY ignored the solid evidence that is equal if not superior to any evidence so far presented about any of the theories regarding "What Happened at The Pentagon"...and this evidence is presented by Barbara Honegger in which she assembles a very solid case that the FIRST EXPLOSION at the Pentagon happened about five-to-seven minutes BEFORE the "alleged" flight arrived at the Pentagon scene...aka...at 09:30 or 09:32.

Barbara's work is being ignored I suspect, because if what she presents is true, there are NO THEORIES or scenarioos that are viable to explain such an early explosion event.

Sorry gang, but the blinders need to come off and we need to step back and ACCEPT...that the events at the Pentagon are the closest held, and the most "disinfo-ed" and the most "red herring-ed" event in all of 9/11/2001....and its because it was Cheney's baby to make happen...

Take a break, step back, open the minds...we are being disinfo-ed...so lets keep talkin and figuring stuff out. It will all make some sense someday.

Anybody, including Dr. Legge...who thinks that they have a foot up in the investigation regarding the Pentagon, and who thinks that they have the best "angle" on the events, is disserving our quest.

Please join me in projecting that the final story of the events at the Pentagon MAY...I say again...MAY...include some aspects of ALL the scenarios presented so far.

And of course Cheney and Company will be serving up red herrings and disinfo and distractions and blind leads all along this thread too.

If we are true to what we have accomplished so far, we will back up, rethink, open our minds and look into all of this in a more open, objective and unbisaed manner.

NOBODY...knows what happened at the Pentagon...and this includes YOU AND ME...except of course, the HI PERPS.

Lighten up gang...we have a lotta work to do.

BTW...if ANYONE finds a source that claims that it has identified the high speed primary target first??? seen by Danielle O'Brien as being that of AA77, then PLEASE inform me as soon as you can.

AND...there is NO WAY that Stephenson at National Tower could possibly KNOW that it was AA77...unless he was told so by the Secret Service or some other insider.

However, he certainly can be counted upon at identifying a B757 and an American Airlines PAINT JOB...and that's ALL he can testify to.

Additionally, please note that he STATES that the aircraft dropped down behind buildings and then he SAW a fireball. The point being, he did not see this aircraft hit the Pentagon...because he couldn't...

And its because he couldn't SEE the Pentagon form the National Tower...nobody could!

Stephenson has failed to return my phone calls.

There is much, much more to come...stay tuned...and open up the minds.

If we are 10% into finding out what happened at the Pentagon...and that's is a very high estimate.

Finally, [at least in this response] please pay attention down the road here because I have found the "dust" at the pentagon...and not a soul has travelled this road to discovery.

And Pilots for 9/11 Truth should have been all over ths several years ago...OH well...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

PS: Pleas eforgive my spelling etc. There will be alotta info flowing out of me as the enties are submitted. rdh
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Thu, 07/08/2010 - 11:24pm.

[...]

»

* Login to post comments
* -6 points

I'd like to see how you would argue that

If you actually think that explosives could almost completely destroy a relatively slow-moving 90-ton Boeing jet aircraft at ground level - without leaving a crater in the ground, or damaging the foundation of the building - by all means write up a paper about it, and get it published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, or somewhere else it will get serious attention. Good luck with that!
Submitted by nobodyparticular on Sat, 07/10/2010 - 4:29pm.
Show "I fully support more research into the "plane bomb" idea..." by Robin Hordon
»

* Login to post comments
* -6 points

I fully support more research into the "plane bomb" idea...

...and its NOT because it establishes a "swap scenario" which I see as viable...but have very little proof to establish such.

Its because this theory does indeed answer quite a few questions that many of us have about many of each other's theories.

And if there were a swap scenario, then the airvehicle that was swapped in would have to be specifically prepared to accomplish this...including a paint job making it look like Chic Burlingame's American Airlines B757.

And since it is highly unlikely that a B757 inflicted the damage: to the low cement wall to the left of the generator...to the top left corner of the generator...and to the top-middle/right of the generator...because the combination of the left bank of the airvehicle and the dyhedral of a B757's wings would make the "below-wing" flap track extending underneath the right wing PASS WELL ABOVE the generator, and thusly NOT INFLICT the damage to the top-middle/right of the generator, then perhaps another military type airvehicle could have presented itself as an American Airlines B757, could have been loaded with the explosives required, and could have made the three points of damage that we see in and around the generator. But that's just me talking.

I think that this is the strongest case so far.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 10:18am

[...]

»

* Login to post comments
* -6 points

There's more evidence than just the Building Performance Report

Hi Robin,

Even if we were to discount the Building Performance Report as not necessarily accurate, we still have to explain the other evidence of the directional nature of the observed damage from other sources. No official report or data is really necessary to establish the directional damage, since we have independent photographs of the light poles, the generator trailer, the outer facade damage to the E-Ring, as well as the C-ring hole - and especially those five downed light poles - that imply, or are carefully designed to imply, a specific directional path. Indeed, the location of the C-ring hole in relation to the damage to the outer facade is what establishes the trajectory within the building and the ASCE report is NOT required to establish this.

(Indeed, Craig Ranke addressed this concern in detail during his 2.5 hour debate last December with John Bursill - did you hear it, by any chance? It's well worth a listen.)

Furthermore there are no downed light poles on the north path. This is no small detail. Not to mention the plane reported by the witnesses on the north path was also in a significant right bank AND traveling relatively slowly according to expert percipient witnesses like heliport tower ATC Sean Boger, F4 pilot Terry Morin, and others.

So as a result, it's a misrepresentation of CIT's position to claim they "rely" on the ASCE report for their conclusions, and I agree there's certainly no reason for us to take the Building Performance Report at face value, just like there's no reason to take the radar data, flight data recorder data, or the NIST Report on the World Trade Center for that matter, at face value - and CIT doesn't either, I hope that's clear to you now.

And your other comments confuse me a bit: you seem to be questioning CIT in quoting this report, and at the same time you seem to be casting severe doubt on whether a plane hit the building, so it's not clear to me what your own interpretation of all this evidence - including Barbara Honegger's findings - is (if you have in fact developed a fully-formed thesis), but I would certainly be interested in hearing/reading it if you have one, unless you are simply offering various ideas as speculation, which is fair enough.

The way I see it, the flyover theory does not "belong" to CIT - lots of other people have suggested it as well - it's just that their multiple eyewitness evidence compliments the other existing photographic evidence and aeronautical improbabilities perfectly. I just don't think the fact that the government issued a possibly misleading Building Performance Report - when the same government appears to have also staged the light poles, and refuses to release clear video of the supposed impact - really makes a difference here.

The whole incident appears to be fabricated, from top to bottom, just like in New York City and Shanksville, and I think it's wise that we all proceed upon that assumption and be suitably skeptical of all information from government and corporate media sources, be they books, newspaper stories or TV reports - especially if such information conflicts with authenticated photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts that have been confirmed by interviews with independent investigators, and subject to meticulous and honest scrutiny and evaluation by peers in good faith - and I would make that case for evaluating all evidence related to 9/11, not just what happened at the Pentagon.

Just my two cents in response.
Submitted by nobodyparticular on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 12:11pm.
Show "I do NOT KNOW what happened at the Pentagon..." by Robin Hordon
»

* Login to post comments
* -6 points

I do NOT KNOW what happened at the Pentagon...

I really do not know what happened at the Penatgon...therefore, all of my considerations are exactly that, considerations. They are not conclusions...which is why I remain open to all sorts of information that seems to surface all of the time.

I do not have a fully formed thesis as of yet...but...

I do have leanings...and the strongest that I have is outlined more competently eleswhere...and that is that the generator damage is telltale to the airvehicle "type" identity that did inflict such damage to the generator..and subsequently, to the Penatgon.

The ONLY thing that I KNOW regarding the Penatgon and AA77...is:

That AA77 was the ONLY airliner lost to positive radar contact on 9/11...and this is very significant to me as an air traffic controller...and that...

...AA77 was lost to positive radar contact over eastern Ohio...and that

... NOBODY...at ANY TIME...or at ANY FACILITY...or at ANY GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION...has EVER made the claim that they re-identified AA77...OR THAT...the primary radar target that was first? noticed by Danille O'Brien at Dulles Tower/Potomac Tracon WAS AA77...and that...

...the process of concluding-presuming that the primary target that O'Brien saw was AA77 came about from information developed AFTER THE CRASH...and it is based mostly upon questionable evidence found? at the Pentagon crash site by the HI PERPS.

In other words, its only the word of the HI PERPS who told us about the evidence at the Penatgon upon which it has been concluded-presumed...that the primary target in question was/is AA77. This is NOT a reliable conclusion.

YET...even the majority of Truthers refer to this primary target as being AA77, when at best it should be acknowledged as being no more than the "alleged AA77". This is very poor discipline and/or a lack of awareness by the 9/11 Truth Community. The HI PERPS have NOT proven that the primary target is that of AA77...and its their responsibility to accomplish this in their study, analysis and reports. AA77 is the achilles heel of "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario"...which is why the HI PERPS have gone so far out of their way to bury anything and everything about the flight...except what they want us to "know".

Please remember how important David Ray Griffin positions AA77 in the 9/11 attacks...most noteably regarding the "alleged" phone calls between the Olsens...and the "boxcutter" meme.

I also know that...

...it was Chic Burlingame that was captain of AA77 on 9/11/2001...and that...

...I agree fully with Burlingame's family and every other pilot worth his or her salt in that a pilot NEVER GIVES UP HIS OR HER AIRAFT FOR ANY REASON UNDER THE SUN...and that the HI PERPS have floated a story that he gave up his cockpit to a smaller man at the point of a "boxcutter" that may or may not even exist. Burlingame did not give up his cockpit...knowingly. He may have become a victim of his very own military planning and analysis from a year earlier.

...and that this "Burlingame connection" may be very critical information to remember as we move ahead in our quest for truth.

C-ring damage...

I'm glad that you mentioned the "C-ring" damage...because from what I see, this hole was created by an interior explosion and NOT the landing gear or whatever else the "story line" wants us to believe...too round-symmetrical and the center of the hole seems too high off of the ground for "sliding" debris to create...

Consequently, I see the potential for the HI PERPS to establish the impact angle with the light poles and the C-ring. I feel that because of all the damage to the facade and to the columns etc., this facade damage could not be used to accurately establish a penetration path angle...so it goes back to the first piece of evidence in the flight/crash path-the light poles...and to the last piece of evidence in the flight/crash path...the C-ring.

Perhaps one of the explosions that Honegger refers to is that of the explosives that made that hole...perhaps not...but its not a whacky observation.

However, I'm a big "generator-as-evidence" fan and feel that the damage to it will tell us many, many things.

BTW...I have evidence supporting the possibility that the HI PERPS scrubbed some radar data along the flight path of an airvehicle that overflew the Penatgon along that flight path...and have so stated...and also...

...I have supported the view that if there were an overflight of the Penatgon, the airvehicle would not be as easily noticed as most people think. This is because National Airport was departing to the north that day and the departures and arrivalls in and out of National are quite routine, and thusly go unnoticed to most travellers on the highways.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Sat, 07/10/2010 - 12:00pm.

[...]

»

* Login to post comments
* -6 points

at that distance,

I'd say, no, it would have to be a much smaller aircraft, not unlike a global hawk or an A3 sky warrior, but not a Boeing 757.
I call it "the road runner" video.

http://www.rense.com/general61/aircraftoutlined.jpg

Security Camera annimated gif

http://webfairy.org/pentagon/image/pentanimorig.gif

unlike you and John Bursill I've never thought it appeared to be on a slight dive angle to the impact point either, which might have helped to explain the "prestine Pentalawn" leading up to the wall.
Submitted by Robert Rice on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 4:28am.
Show "Here is one odd analysis of the FAB FIVE FRAMES...but..." by Robin Hordon
»

* Login to post comments
* -6 points

Here is one odd analysis of the FAB FIVE FRAMES...but...

...maybe not that odd after all.

ITS THE GRASS BABY...[sorta]

I am coming at this from the same point that I always do when given information generated by the HI PERPS...they give us what they want us to believe and steer us in directions that they want us to head.

Please remember that the HI PERPS have tens of other VIDS...so WHY these five frames?

In order to consider what I have to say about the FAB FIVE FRAMES, one must erase from one's rmind the "presumption" that it was an airbourne vehicle that is the object in these five frames. Just look at these five frames without an aviation prejudice...but before that...

I ask that you analyze the browned out streak of grass that runs from the highway to the impact area in a pathway that is almost perfectly in line with the commonly held approach path angle. I do not have that PIC right now but I did see it in Hufshmid's early book with photos...somebody will probably have it.

Here is my "non-aviation biased" analysis of the FAB FIVE FRAMES...

1. The image does not show a very large or tall-ish vehicle...[air or ground]...so, its hard to conclude that it was a B757 in any case...

2. Aircraft have great difficulties in flying that close to the ground...its the ground effect or pressurized cushion forming below the wings etc...

3. Wheeled ground vehicles do not have trouble traversing the ground...

4. The white exhaust-smoke-whatever? is NOT typical of a turbojet engine but is typical of a rocket-like fuel burn...although some have noted that it could be unburned jet fuel from a disabled jet engine.

5. There indeed does need to be a reason for that browned out streak of grass that seems so coincidental with what would be the track along the ground of the air-ground vehicle. I have heard that this streak was a construction pathway "burnout-wearout path...don't know.

6. The G forces required for an airvhicle that was BOTH at the height of the last light pole struck AND then just a few feet later at the height of a foot or two above the ground have been shown to be WAY above structural capabilities for a B757...its in the order of 10Gs or so. Additionally, its hard to believe that airfoils could create such forces that quickly...aka...from the light poles down to the lawn and then levelling out across the lawn...

7. I believe that the original video tape was stamped with 9/12 or something...so, this may be a doctored video...don't know.

If asked whether or not the FAB FIVE FRAMES showed and airvehicle or a ground based vehicle, I would have to conclude that it was a ground based vehicle based upon the above...and its hard to dissociate the browned grass from all of the factors surrounding the Penatgon attack.

I'm NOT stating that this is the case...and am not deliberately distracting this conversation. I really just want to keep the "lawn" in play here...after all, please remember that there were "agents' walking the lawn picking up every piece of material not associated with a lawn almost immediately after the crash. Usually, an NTSB accident report, like that of what should have happened to the WTC steel, calls for accident or crime scenes to be left completely alone so that an accurate analysis can be accomplished. Such an analysis calls for studying "what debris was where" at the crash scene...aka...on the lawn in this case. Therefore, this "pick-up" activity is normally COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED. Things were totally backwards on 9/11...and this surely establishes that there was a cover-up. The HI PERPS did not want ANY debris evaluated by the normal investigation teams...its the civilians again...

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Sat, 07/10/2010 - 1:54pm.
»

* Login to post comments
* -5 points

Flight 77...No-Go!

Robin,

that track along the ground was there before 9/11: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread222311/pg1

The tail fin is black in the first Fab Five, yet the parts of the nosecone and upper front fuselage that are also seen are white.

Leveling off when the aircraft was clear of the hill is a no-go, as you intimate.

Ground effect would not only have kept the aircraft way off the ground, but at 530 mph the aircraft would have automatically lifted thanks to that massive air pressure under the wings (and fuselage...the fuselage also contributes to ground effect).

You're right about the white stream. A Cruise missile will emit a white plum for about twenty seconds or so after it's initial launch.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Submitted by brian78046 on Mon, 07/12/2010 - 7:59am.
»

* Login to post comments
* -2 points

I believe that the date stamp shows...

...that the video was not on 9/11. But I'm not sure.

Anyway, its surely an odd coincidence...and photoshopping has long since very competent so who knows if any of that is real.

We do have to go pretty far to conclude that its an airvehicle?

I still think that an EXACTING analysis of the generator and lower wall damages will give up the air vehicle on 9/11.

Has anyone ever considered that the light poles should have been cropped off at the top and still standing with such an impact at such speeds by such a sharp-ish leading edge of the wing? Sorta like a weed-whacker effect. That airvehicle was really travelling fast. So, why the big gradual bends...after all, once the monocoque strength had ben lost when the tubes were crimped, what strength is left...it all just thin aluminum tubing. Just another ODD thing in my view.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice.

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Tue, 07/13/2010 - 5:53pm.

[...]

»

* Login to post comments
* -6 points

Disable

AlreadyPublished,

you are definitely correct about one thing; if a military aircraft was in Pentagon airspace, it's IFF would automatically disable the Pentagon's missile defenses.

However, there was also a helicopter going directly around the Pentagon as Flight 77 supposedly flew into the building. No one on any side of this debate talks about the helicopter. I wonder why?

If the C-130 did escort the aircraft, why would it hang around and climb to an altitude that would put it on radar? A military helicopter is all that would be needed to deactivate the Pentagon's missiles. There's no reason to have a C-130 hide in Flight 77's radar blip.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Submitted by brian78046 on Sat, 07/10/2010 - 1:42am.
Show "IFF explainer..." by Robin Hordon
»

* Login to post comments
* -7 points

IFF explainer...

Having one military aircraft in the Penatgon's protected airspace would NOT shut down any air defense system...it would only inform the air defense system that THAT airvehicle was a "friendly". If the air defense system were to shut down whenever it saw an IFF transponder in the proteced airspace, it would hardly ever be "on" because of all the military aviation activity surrounding the WDC arae. Additionally, military airvehicles have the capability to squawk BOTH the FAA rtransponder signals and the IFF transponder signals. The Military likes to "keep track of its own" most of the time...so, most of the time, if not all of the time, military airvehicles have their IFF transponders on...or at least at the ready.

Additionally, The Plains radar site west of IAD is the primary long range radar site used by both the FAA and NORAD...meaning that it has IFF capability for sure, and since the antennae site sits atop a ridge approximately 1000 feet high, it can "see" aviation activity at very low altitudes in the WDC area...down to 400 feet or so. However, this is most likely not the only radar inputs for the air defense system protecting the Penatgon and WDC...IAD, DCA, ADW and most likely BWI terminal radars contribute to the cause...and most likely, theer might be a specific radar site dedicated to the air defense system itsel.

And we do know that the radar data coming to Cheney when in the PEOC comes from another source other than the FAA radars, so, whatever that facility, set of facilities, or group of radar sites that contributed to the Secret Service's responsibilities to protect WDC-The Penatgon, we know that somehow they are interconnected at some levels.

So, the plot thickens...and we are only about 10% of the way to knowing what happened at the Pentagon...if even that high.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Sat, 07/10/2010 - 4:19pm.
Show ""Pentagon's protected airspace" " by nobodyparticular
»

* Login to post comments
* -5 points

"Pentagon's protected airspace"

It's a common misconception that the Pentagon is in "protected airspace". It's not. It's right next to an airport. Protected airspace (P56) is across the river in DC above the White House:

Submitted by nobodyparticular on Sat, 07/10/2010 - 4:48pm.
Show "Pentagon Airspace" by brian78046
»

* Login to post comments
* -5 points

Pentagon Airspace

nobody,

actually the Pentagon has its own protected airspace. Pilots have to be careful as they approach National Airport, due to the Pentagon's missile defense. One reason for the missiles was the close proximity of National Airport. A Soviet operative or a person with a grudge could take-off from National and pivot for the Pentagon. The only protection for the Pentagon were the automatic missile batteries (six of them) that AUTOMATICALLY fired; no time for human action. A colleague at work talked to a National Airport employee who told him about the six missiles.

The interesting thing is is that Barbara Honegger independently confirms those missiles. She says five (on the roof), but the National Airport employee clarified that another battery was in the ground, making six. Researcher John Judge (whose parents were civilian personnel at the Pentagon) also confirms missiles at the Pentagon dating back to the late 1950s.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Submitted by brian78046 on Sun, 07/11/2010 - 5:10am.
»

* Login to post comments
* -3 points

How to "protect" the Proteceted airspaces...or

...the airspaces that are critical in the WDC area.

For some reason my earlier post was voted down. The post stated that there are other radar sources and radar facilities that contribute to the defense of these important geographical locations and to the protection of the POTUS.

One cannot wait until the very last moment to "defend" an airspace...especially IF any unknown inbound high speed targets show potential to penetrate the critical airspace. For the vast majority of all air traffic at lower altitudes in and around WDC, either an FAA or Military air traffic control facility KNOWS of these aircraft and have them under some level of "control". Or, they are flight following it if it has not reported in to any one of the air traffic facilities.

Consequently, there are formal interelationships and standard operating procedures between the local FAA and/or Military towers and radar facilities and the SS that all play a role in providing radar coverage, and some form of early warning as needed. The exact details are not known outside those facilities, but there is a need to prevent "last minute surprises" that show up right beside the critical airspaces.

So, bloggers, vote down what you want, but somebody, somewhere, at some time earlier than we have all been told, was aware of AA77?...or more accurately called...the "UNIDENTIFIED high speed primary target" headed towards WDC. We are all focused upon "50 miles out...". Well, the order that Cheney sustained had been put into place earlier that day, proven in his statement, and PLA radar site "sees" aircraft 250NM west if IAD...right out near where AA77, the REAL ONE, was lost to positive radar contact. So, the order was in place well before the "unidentified high speed primary target" was seen 50 miles out.

Therefore, the interelationship between the various radar facilites in the WDC area is a critical componenet of the aviation events surrounding the Pentagon on 9/11.

Did anyone "see" this high speed primary target at say, 55 miles out? How about 75 miles out? Maybe 150 miles out? Do you know how many miles out my fellow down-voters?

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Sun, 07/11/2010 - 2:35pm.

[...]

Concur...

That an airvehicle which proceded to the Penatgon on a course NORTH of what the OCT claims, is NOT proof positive that there was a fly over.

There needs to be more witnesses, or a more thorough analysis of existing witness testimony combined with more exacting "times of observation" by those witnesses...and of Roosevelt Roberts regarding what he saw and when he saw it.

I would like to remind everyone that the airvehicle in question "could have" made the 330 degree turn in about two minutes of total time...so this is a small "time window" of observance.

This is all interesting and Cris I ask that you keep the methodologoical work up...and gain some additional patience.

My sense is that this story will not be able to be accurately told for years because there are too many conflicting scenarios...with strong eveidence for each...but something comprehensive will eventually emerge.

CIT has presented VERY, VERY important witnesses to a North Course in lieu of a central or south course which gives us at least three courses to contemplate. And each data source has its own problems with it...and its own strengths.

Each theory has its strengths and its weaknesses...and THIS is our challenge...and...this is just something that we do need to deal with as we try to figure stuff out.

And please do not forget Honegger's 09:30-09:32 first explosion time...this may give some important clues as does the damage pattern surrounding the generator..

Just and FYI...I seem to remember that one researcher made solid points that BOTH a north and a south course could be true...IE:

...that an initial North Course with the airvehicle in a slow flying right bank could have manuevered into a left bank so indicated by the damage to the Pentagon and the generator. Indeed, some witnesses have the airvehicle over the Naval Annex etc.

As a pilot I have always been interested in some of the eyewitnesses claiming that the speeds were slow. Speeds are relatively easy to establish by the eyewitnesses...especially since thse guys get a good sense of speeds by observing DCA's arriving and departing aircraft on a daily basis.

Slower speeds REALLY change the equation here.

And, if anyone does not remember, I believe that the FDR and animation are "plants" and not either original to AA77, or they have been "hacked" to confuse the Truthers considerations of the HI PERP's OCT storylines.

Its often stated that the best defense is a good offense...and this seems to be how the HI PERPS are operating regarding AA77 and the Pentagon.

Anyway, this "S-TURN" flight path would have to be a slower airspeed event...and again for a deliberate repetition, I feel that the FDR and animation are HI PERP'S red herrings or at least "hacked or replaced".

But again, one does not KNOW as of yet.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

I am not comfortable with ANY explanation about the light poles as of yet, but I do suspect some malfeasances because all of it could have been accompished during the night before without ANY motorists noticing etc. [the England issue excepted]. To me, the long curved bends just do not fit a high speed strike by a wing.

The light poles....UGH!

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Wed, 07/14/2010 - 3:01am.

[...]

»

* Login to post comments
* -3 points

Collapse area at end of burned grass approach track...

I'm not an engineer and admit that I favor pictures, so, I am biased here.

But from the little analysis of the kolumbus report that I have looked into so far, one of the first things that I notice is that it is interesting that there is some disagreement about the approach angle of collision...the OCT being 42 degrees and this report noting 31 degrees...or closer to the North Approach Track.

The second, and far more interesting thing that I notice is that the area of column collapse shown inside the Penatgon seems to be at the end of an extended line from the burned/damaged grass strip on the Pentagon lawn...and NOT, for some reason, along the 42 degree angle line. This is very interesting...are we not seeing something that is right in front of our eyes?

Why the dislocated [the majority well to the right] column collapses from the 42 degree entry angle? Could the grass streak be from a ground vehicle loaded with "stuff" from a B757 and some explosives...powered by a rocket? But this would mean that I am "buying" that the FAB FIVE FRAMES are truthful...and I doubt that they are. But, the grass strip is there...and so are the column collaspes along an extended line...?

And does anybody know what those two white dots are...one towards each end of the burned/damaged grass strip?

Its also interesting to look from a greater distance at the angle or "routing" of the airvehicle contained in the OCT that is created between the line formed by the light poles and the rather symmetrical "C" ring hole. The particular damage to the light poles remains counterintuitive to me still....similarly, so does the hole in the "C" ring.

Can we perform a test for shearing the tops of the light poles that are struck at high speeds with an edge that replicates that of a high speed air vehicle? This might be instructive. Or, since so mauch can be accomplished with computer modeling now, and surely there has to be some engineering standards involved with the strength of design and manufacture of such light poles because they need to be strong enough for high winds...and oddly I think, for "breakaway" needs during auto accidents, can such an analysis be conducted via computer simulations?

The light poles...HMMM?

Logic instructs me that because there was "some light pole mass" above the impact point, that this "mass: would remain in place and not be accelerated very much with a 400-500MPH impact of a narrow-ish leading edge of a high speed wing. The "mass" below the impact point, as well as the bolted attachments to the foundations, surely will resist any accelerations caused by the high speed collision below the impact point, so that's not counterintuitive. I liken this action to that of a weed whacker in that the first cut is made to the weed and bothe the top and bottom of the weed remains mostly unmoved. [Lighten up, I KNOW that a weed is not like a light pole...its just an example...]

And the long curved distortions of the poles...HMMM...wassup with that?

I'm not making any claims here at all, and I sure am finding this stuff very interesting and it helps me keep thinking outside of the "tidy boxes" that some researchers have encouraged us to climb into. And I do notice that this report was made in 2003 and updated in 2007...and that it hasn't been seen in much discussion within the 9/11TM since then...why?

Seems its been Hoffman and Legge ever since...with the later arrival of CIT. Lets back-up and re-evaluate...

There are probably many other interesting reports that might be re-analyzed or at least reconsidered.

My guess is that IF we can back off, consider Honegger's work, consider CIT's eyewitnesses, and dig into some of all these "buried?" reports, as well as use the volumes of good stuff provided by our solid researchers, maybe we will see something that everyone has missed, or misinterpreted.

And of course...an exacting examination of the damage tof the low cement wall to the left of the generator...to the left top of the generatorthe...and to the top center-right of the generator...will pay dividends soon.

Of course, it would be helpful if all the snickering and all the knee-jerk defense of pet theories would diminish...if not go away totally. That would be nice wouldn't it?

If we are 10% of the way to understanding what went on at the Pentagon, it would be alot...and then if one looks at the GOVERNMENTAL sources of some of the information that some "pet theories" are based upon or have been influenced by, and questions such subjective information, then we are back to about 2% of our way into "getting" the AA77-Pentagon-Cheney-PEOC-SS-NORAD-FAA scenario.

Its gonna be a long time here...surely beyond 9/11/2011...but we have that 10 year anniversary covered with emphasis being on WTC7 and the Controlled Demolitions. So, we have time to crunch some numbers and rethink some things...

9/11 truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Wed, 07/14/2010 - 11:04am.