Frank Legge Promotes Islamofascist Myth

from 911blogger:

You wrote: "[CIT bases]

You wrote:
"[CIT bases] their view on interviews with a
number of eye witnesses who say that the plane passed to the north of the Citgo service station.
If this is correct, the plane could not have lined up with the light poles and hence could not
have caused the observed damage to the Pentagon. [snip]

"It is part of this [fly-over] theory that the view of the departing plane was obscured by the effects of an
explosion which caused the damage to the Pentagon. While this might have obscured the view
from observers in line with the approach path, there would have been many potential observers
with a clear view from different directions. In particular the view over the roof of the Pentagon
from the elevated road to the south would be very likely to produce numerous eye witness
reports. Given the failure of such a body of reports to arise, *while there are many reports of the
plane hitting the Pentagon*, it is not surprising that this theory, which is at present gaining
supporters, has received criticism.34"

1: You do not establish the critical difference between "reports" of eyewitnesses seeing the plane hit the Pentagon and the light poles VS independently verified RECORDS of eyewitness accounts which in many instances were earlier reported and recorded by the Library of Congress and the Center for Military History. The former are HERE-SAY reports published by the corporate media (which we know to be helping cover-up the events of 9/11 and which, therefore, can not be trusted) while the latter are established, face-with-the-name RECORDS, many of them recorded on-site, on-camera. If you want this paper to be considered "scientific" then you must include this distinction between UNVERIFIED (here-say) reports and independently verified RECORDS. These two data sets can not be considered equal in value for establishing possible fact.

2: Although it may seem reasonable to conclude, "...there would have been many potential observers with a clear view from different directions [of a fly-over]. In particular the view over the roof of the Pentagon from the elevated road to the south would be very likely to produce numerous eye witness reports." the absence of such reports can not be considered conclusive. As stated it is nothing more than an appeal to incredulity. You fail to acknowledge A) the independently verified account of Rosevelt Roberts, initially recorded by the Library of Congress, later independently verified by CIT, of a commercial aircraft flying low over the south parking lot immediately after the explosion at the Pentagon; B) the possibility that there were fly-over witnesses whose accounts were obscured or suppressed or unreported; C) the appearance of the C-130 which was falsely reported to have been "shadowing" the attack plane and could have led fly-over witnesses to (falsely) assume that they had seen this second plane instead of a the fly-over attack plane and D) the reality that flights to and from Regan National Airport are a common site around the Pentagon. Any criticism of the fly-over hypothesis that does not include the verified account of Rosevelt Roberts and these other considerations can not be considered "objective."

You wrote:

"As stated above the authorities could easily show what hit the Pentagon, as they have many
video tapes of the event. That they choose not to do so must be because confusion serves their
purpose. The situation to bear in mind is that the perpetrators may be keeping evidence in
reserve which will prove that a 757 did hit the Pentagon. This evidence would be their
insurance policy. If they feel endangered by the progress of public opinion toward demanding a
new investigation, and realizing that this will likely lead to criminal charges and convictions,
they will produce this evidence. As many members of the 9/11 truth movement believe that no
757 hit the Pentagon, this evidence will throw the movement into disarray and create crippling
loss of credibility over issues which are far more important. It will become very difficult to
argue convincingly that explosives were used at the WTC.39

"Those who are not of the opinion that a 757 hit the Pentagon should bear in mind that it is
possible that they have been deliberately deceived by false evidence and have been set up by
this evidence to serve the purpose of the perpetrators, when the time comes. The release of an
FDR file deliberately modified to contradict eye witness reports appears to be a case in point."

This "honey pot," precautionary principal -- that it is prudent for the truth movement to be wary of coming to a 'no-impact at the Pentagon' conclusion regardless of the evidence -- has been disrupting and dividing the truth movement for years. It is time to be done with it once and for all. It is not not objective and certainly not "scientific".

We have established via FOIA that there is no positively identified plane debris, including the FDR itself. We have established that the FDR data provided is altered, therefore fraudulent and therefore evidence of a cover-up. We have established that multiple eyewitnesses who can be confirmed to have been present and in a position to see precisely what happened, report a plane on a heading that is irreconcilable with the physical damage (light poles and path within the Pentagon). We have one confirmed eye-witness of a plane flying low over the south parking lot immediately after the explosion at the Pentagon. We have considerable reason to speculate that the 'low and level across the lawn' security camera video is fraudulent (smoke trail dissipates too rapidly, casts no shadow, etc.). We also have the fact that ALL of the physical evidence which could prove conclusively and scientifically precisely what happened at the Pentagon is under the control of the prime suspect AND HAS NOT BEEN MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.

Indeed, no doubt they do have video footage of the Pentagon event -- but we have no reason to conclude, given the obfuscations and out-right falsifications that have been released to date, that ANY evidence coming from government or military sources will be any less deceptive than what has been provided thus far. As I have said many times in various forums, we're not asking the government to prove something difficult or absurd, such as the idea that a UFO hit the Pentagon. They make the claim that it was specifically AA77 (N644AA.), a large, hijacked, Boeing aircraft. Although there is no *officially stated* "flight path," the physical evidence is precise: the plane (if any) that caused this damage would had to have flown on a very tight, narrow path and would had to have flown south of Columbia Pike and then descended from the VDOT to fly low and level across the lawn such that it impacted the building precisely at ground level yet without the engines causing ANY recorded damage to either the lawn or the foundation of the building. The government account is fantastic, that is to say, near miraculous, on its face, made even more so with the release of data sets that are obfuscatory and false and contradicted by confirmed eyewitness statements. All this is strong evidence of a cover-up at the Pentagon and a no-impact hypothesis.

The question that needs to be asked is, if the government has ACTUAL verifiable evidence that AA77 (N644AA) struck the Pentagon as claimed, WHY have they withheld it for all these years? If the government and military have nothing to hide, WHY are their data sets obfuscatory? I think the answer is very simple and obvious: They do not have such evidence and they do not have it because AA77 did not impact the Pentagon.

There is also a second question that needs to be asked: Given all this, why is it that the 9/11 Truth community has been divided and continues to be divided by this specific Pentagon event? Again, IF AA77 impacted the Pentagon as claimed this should be near OBVIOUS, not something that requires years of research to conclude. Yet, we are not provided with factual evidence from which this conclusion can be drawn. On the contrary. Moreover, the movement is kept divided and ill informed about this evidence often with direct attacks against the character of those who have brought much of this information forward -- without coherently and conclusively addressing the evidence provided (such as giving unverified media "reports" the same credibility as independently verified witness records or speculating that for something to be true it must have been witnessed and those witness accounts must have been reported, etc.)

It is high time for this to stop. Regardless what one "believes" happened, there is no independently verifiable evidence that AA77 impacted the Pentagon (nor is there any such evidence that some other aircraft or missile caused the physical damage due to impact). What we have in its place is strong evidence of a cover-up and obfuscation of the actual event. I see no reason for the 9/11 Truth community to continue to remain divided over what happened at the Pentagon. Indeed, it would be helpful if we had more than one fly-over witness. Indeed it would be helpful if persons critical of the fly-over hypothesis would address the credibility of the confirmed North of Citgo witnesses without recourse to appeals to incredulity.

But that isn't what we have, is it?

Submitted by painter on Fri, 09/18/2009 - 1:07pm.
» login to post comments | 0 points

long posts

I have more to do than read long posts in blogs. Let it be known that I will not respond to any that are too long and I will be the judge of length. If you have a factual point that needs addressing in the paper a few lines should suffice. You say:

"The question that needs to be asked is, if the government has ACTUAL verifiable evidence that AA77 (N644AA) struck the Pentagon as claimed, WHY have they withheld it for all these years? If the government and military have nothing to hide, WHY are their data sets obfuscatory? I think the answer is very simple and obvious: They do not have such evidence and they do not have it because AA77 did not impact the Pentagon."

I think there is another explanation and it is set out in the paper. If I am right the consequences of being wrong will be severe. I suggest you carefully read the section under "Precautionary Principle".

Submitted by Frank Legge on Fri, 09/18/2009 - 2:20pm.