Announcing: Conference on the 9/11 Pentagon Evidence

University Park United Methodist Church (East Fellowship Hall)
2180 S University Blvd, Denver, CO 80210

May 4, 2019 / 9:30 am – 5:00 pm

Tickets

GoFundMe — https://www.gofundme.com/conference-on-the-911-pentagon-evidence
[This is an expensive event. If this effort is meaningful for you, please contribute.]

Scientists for 9/11 Truth and the International Center for 9/11 Studies will be sponsoring a “Conference on the 9/11 Pentagon Evidence” on May 4 in Denver, Colorado. To date we have three co-sponsors: Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance911Truth.org, and Michael Wolsey of visibility911.org.  Other groups are invited to co-sponsor this event.

The 9/11 Truth Movement’s strongest and most rigorously verified evidence-based theory is the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center.

By contrast, the Truth Movement’s most contentious and divisive issue has been the question of what happened at the Pentagon. The early study of the Pentagon was plagued by lack of information and misinformation, much of which has persisted. But even though we now have more evidence, most current theories fail to address the full range of evidence, especially that which supports large plane impact. Why? For all of us, anchoring and confirmation bias make it hard to let go of initial impressions. The scientific method requires us to challenge our biases as we seek truth.

A key word for this conference is “evidence.” Addressing all of the currently known relevant evidence is a crucial component of the scientific process – a process in which anyone can participate. The goal is to put all of the evidence on the table, not to end discussion, but to be the basis for ongoing discussion. We believe the current evidence supports large plane impact of the Pentagon. Scientific conclusions remain fluid, however, so all research remains open to critique.

The goals of this conference are to present current evidence that any viable theory must address and to put the discussion of what happened at the Pentagon on a solid scientific footing to make our movement as strong as possible. If the Truth Movement ever gets real traction in a court of law or with society at large, we will be attacked at our weakest point. Our adversaries are very powerful and have the media at their beck and call. If we are shown to be in disarray on such a major issue as the Pentagon, our good work proving demolition at the World Trade Center might well be ignored. Thus we welcome your participation in this conference and your questions as we continue in the search for truth.

The invited speakers at this event are, in alphabetical order, David Chandler, Wayne Coste, Ken Jenkins, Warren Stutt, and John D. Wyndham, all of whom have done active scientific research on the evidence at the Pentagon. We invite you to join us in Denver on May 4 and/or help us defray the costs by contributing financially through our GoFundMe account. The event will be videotaped.

We invite 9/11 Truth organizations and individuals to co-sponsor this event. Sponsorship does not imply endorsement of the particular conclusions of the various presenters, but implies support for the goals and process that are being advocated. Let us know if you or your group would like to be listed as a co-sponsor.

 

Presenters and their 9/11 Pentagon Evidence Research

David Chandler; BS (IPS) Physics/Engineering, Harvey Mudd College; MA Education, Claremont Graduate University; MS Mathematics, California Polytechnic University; Coordinator, Scientists for 9/11 Truth; Board, International Center for 9/11 Studies

A Joint Statement on the Pentagon (with Jonathan Cole)

Pentagon Plane Puzzle + Going Beyond Speculation (with Ken Jenkins)

The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path and Addendum (with Frank Legge)

Critique of CIT’s Fundamentally Flawed Methodology

Blink Comparator Views of the Plane at the Pentagon

Wayne Coste; BS Electrical Engineering, University of Connecticut

Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon on 9/11 – Answering the 9/11 Consensus Panel Challenge

Ken Jenkins; BS Electrical Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University; Post graduate studies, Psychology

Pentagon Plane Puzzle + Going Beyond Speculation (with David Chandler)

The Truth is Not Enough: How to Overcome Emotional Barriers to 9/11 Truth

The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras

Why Not Use a Plane? — Fake vs. Real Events (with Frank Legge)

Warren Stutt; BSc (Hons) Comp. Sci., Auckland University

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon (with Frank Legge)

A Response to Pilots for 9/11 Truth (with Frank Legge)

John D. Wyndham; PhD Physics, Cambridge University (U.K.); Board, Scientists for 9/11 Truth

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted, Ver 2 (with Victoria Ashley, David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, Jim Hoffman, Ken Jenkins, Frank Legge)

The Pentagon Attack: Eyewitnesses, Debris Flow and Other Issues – A Reply to Fletcher and Eastman

The Pentagon Attack: The Event Time Revisited

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact

[Print the pdf version of this announcement for specific information about accommodations, guidelines, and other details]

Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon on 9/11

Why We Expend Energy on Proving Large Plane Impact at the Pentagon

Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon on 9/11

Created by Wayne Coste, narrated by David Chandler
Original article here:  http://911speakout.org/wayne-coste/

Introduction and Summary

In December 2017 the 9/11 Consensus Panel issued a statement addressing the controversy within the 9/11 Truth Community about what happened at the Pentagon. The concern was that the disagreements in this area threaten to undermine good will and mutual trust. The statement offers the prescription, “Contributions seeking to solve contentious issues can only be made by assembling reliable evidence and by applying critical thinking and peer review according to the standard scientific process. This is the strength of science and the way it has progressed over centuries.” and concludes, “In conclusion, we offer the “agree to differ” approach: to end an argument amicably while maintaining differences of opinion until there is an explanation that does justice to all the various types of evidence.”

Over about a three year period Wayne Coste has been engaging in dialogue with some of the leading contenders for theories alternative to large plane impact and has been assembling a comprehensive compilation of the evidence that any successful theory must answer. When he read the Consensus Panel’s statement he saw it as a challenge that he had largely already met. He pulled together his research and assembled it as a single presentation entitled, “Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon on 9/11.” He re-framed this as “Answering the 9/11 Consensus Panel Challenge.” He turned the Powerpoint into a video, with the downside that the running time was a virtually unwatchable 5h 40m. He just wanted to “get it out there.” I saw the tremendous value of this body of work, so I stepped in and offered to narrate the video as a more manageable series of chapter-by-chapter videos.

The work is extensive, so the video series is lengthy.  To help navigate the scope of the issue we have compiled a short video summary of the primary findings.  The summary is keyed to the “chapters” of the video series, so you will be able to easily navigate to the sections of most interest if you don’t want to invest the time to work through the whole series all at once.

Video Summary


Bitchute / YouTube


Full Video Series

Chapter 0: Preface

Bitchute / YouTube

The focus of these videos is on the question, “What mechanism caused the damage at the Pentagon on 9/11.” As Wayne says, “If you care enough to have an opinion about what happened at the Pentagon, you should care enough to know what the evidence is and what it shows.” Many discussions have focused on specific details in isolation, have ignored or misrepresented vast amounts of evidence, or dismissed evidence on flimsy grounds. This kind of comprehensive treatment is important because an incomplete understanding of the event leads to erroneous conclusions. It is important that we present reasonable accounts of the evidence if we want to be taken seriously by the public.

Chapter 1: Overview

Bitchute / YouTube

What we can all agree on; what will not be considered; Consensus Panel treatment of the Pentagon issue; overview of the geography of the Pentagon and its surroundings; the structure of the Pentagon.

Chapter 2: Endless Pentagon Debates; How Did We Get Here?

Bitchute / YouTube

The history of the ideas (not the personalities), asking how we got stuck in the heated debate we have today. Thierry Meyssan’s “The Frightening Fraud”; the “16 foot hole” meme; “Missing Wings”; “Loose Change”; “In Plane Sight”; the “reinforced concrete” meme; Dodgy Dodds; “The New Pearl Harbor” (movie); persistent claim that “evidence is Photoshopped.”

Chapter 3: Size of the Opening in the Pentagon

Bitchute / YouTube

The persistent “hole too small” error; structure of the outer wall of the Pentagon; nature of the “blast resistance” upgrades to Wedge 1; blast resistant windows, not blast resistant walls; the 96 foot opening in the first floor; evidence from composite photographs; detailed examination of missing or damaged columns; specific contentious damaged columns; the 18 foot opening in the second floor.

Chapter 4: Design, Construction and Destruction of E-Ring Wall

Bitchute / YouTube

Design, construction, and destruction of the E-Ring exterior wall; misleading and downright false information that has persisted in discussions over the years; response to the 1996 Khobar Tower bombing and the issue of flying glass; total lack of reinforced concrete; collapsed wall photos as evidence that the actual construction matches the documentary descriptions.

Chapter 5: The Tree at Column 16

Bitchute / YouTube

Did you realize there was a tree at the point of impact? It has almost never been mentioned in the Pentagon discussion. What happened to the tree and where it is found in the rubble tells us something about the nature of the event.

Chapter 6: Review of the C-Ring Exit Hole at the Pentagon

Bitchute / YouTube

Nature of the hole; how heavy debris could travel from the impact point to the exit hole; structure of the C-Ring wall; distribution of debris.

Chapter 7: Plane Approach Path

Bitchute / YouTube

Evidence for the path of the plane: radar, FDR, eyewitnesses, physical damage; impossibility of the CIT north path; notch in the tree by the overpass; light pole damage; g-forces for the plane to pull out of its dive; the consistency of all the various lines of evidence.

Chapter 8: Plane Impact Analysis

Bitchute / YouTube

Generator trailer damage (right engine); retaining wall gouge (left engine); yaw rotation due to engine impacts; interaction with the cable spools; detailed progress of impact of the left and right wings and the affected columns; where the tail went; locations of the spools before and after impact.

Chapter 9: A Comprehensive Review of the Lloyd England Accident Scene

Bitchute / YouTube

Lloyd England’s taxicab is evidence that the downing of the light poles was a real-time event that could not have been staged ahead of time. This single piece of evidence therefore discredits any theory that eliminates a large plane flying along the path of the downed light poles. CIT responded by interviewing Lloyd England and accusing him of being an accomplice to the staging of the scene based on supposed contradictions in his story. This section examines all the fragments of the first two light poles and determines which piece actually hit the taxi, providing in a factual basis for evaluating Lloyd England’s story.

Chapter 10: Analysis of the CITGO Security Cameras

Bitchute / YouTube

One of the security camera videos that was released is the camera at the CITGO gas station, between the Pentagon and the Navy Annex. The images are low resolution and taken at one frame per second, but there is a single frame that captures the shadow of the incoming plane as it passes just to the south of the station.

Chapter 11: Pentagon Security Camera Analysis

Bitchute / YouTube

Two closely spaced security cameras, recording at one frame per second, captured the plane as it crossed the lawn. These images have been attacked by some as having been Photoshopped to show the plane. This section evaluates the differences in the two videos and assesses their authenticity. The two videos were combined onto a single recording device, so the frames are necessarily staggered. Internal evidence is used to measure the time lag between the two sets of frames, and the resulting calibration is used to derive a measurement of the speed of the plane, independent of assumptions from any other sources. The resulting speed measurement is in good agreement with the radar and FDR data.

Chapter 12: Debris

Bitchute / YouTube

Debris expectations; the Sandia F-4 crash test; the outside debris field; distribution of debris; mechanism for spreading light vs heavy debris; evidence for a trailing air mass behind the plane; specific debris pieces of note; identifiable airplane debris in the AE drive outside the C-Ring exit hole; identification of engine parts; verification of the engine type; sifting for human remains.

Chapter 13: Evidence of Explosions

Bitchute / YouTube

Lack of definitive evidence of explosions; the fireball captured in a Daryl Donley photograph and confirming live news footage; uplifted second floor slab; remnants of columns 15-17 pushed inward, not outward; bowed and broken internal columns; debris distribution on lawn and outside C-Ring hole not consistent with explosions; lack of evidence for explosions initiating roof collapse.

Chapter 14: The April Gallop Lawsuit

Bitchute / YouTube

A case study in what happens when insubstantial 9/11 evidence is relied upon in court. Doctrinaire attitudes toward the events of 9/11 do not play well in court. We need to get it right!

Chapter 15: Ground Effect and Yaw Rotation

Bitchute / YouTube

The physics of flight and creation of wingtip vortices; the nature of ground effect; the Boeing 720 crash test; implications for the plane at the Pentagon flying far over the recommended speed very near the ground.

Chapter 16: Porter Goss and the Sonic Boom

Bitchute / YouTube

The loud sound, documented by multiple recordings and mistaken by some for an explosion is shown to actually have been a sonic boom.

Chapter 17: Citizen Investigation Team Interviews

Bitchute / YouTube

The CIT hypotheses: no impact, northern flight path, plane flew over the Pentagon; questions about CIT methodology; comparison of CIT interviews with earlier interviews of the same subjects; George Am; Lloyd England; Chadwick Brooks; William Lagasse; Lagasse’s correspondence with Dick Eastman; Robert Turcios.

Conclusion: Submission to the 9/11 Consensus Panel Challenge

Bitchute / YouTube

Conclusions as they relate to the “Consensus Panel Challenge.”

Addendum: Peer Review Comments

Bitchute / YouTube

Background information on the physics of ground effect by Tim Michel.

Bitchute Playlist / YouTube Playlist

” 9/11 War Games” by The Corbett Report

Episode 346 – 9/11 War Games on The Corbett Report
Transcript with resources – https://www.corbettreport.com/911wargames/

… Little did we know at the time, 9/11 was not a normal day of blue sky aviation. On the contrary, it was one of the busiest days in the history of American aviation, a dense forest of live fly exercises, drills, simulations, fake radar injects and utter confusion. And that was before the attacks even began.

This is the story of 9/11 that you didn’t watch unfold on your TV that fateful day in 2001. This is the story of the 9/11 War Games….

Transcript of this report found here.

Richard Gage on Truth Teller’s Radio Sept 2018

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Now Has Over 3,000 Professionals Signed on to Their Petition – ‘Debunkers’ Have Mostly Shut Up:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2018/07/architects-and-engineers-for-911-truth.html

The Architects and Engineers Who Propelled Us to the Milestone of 3,000 Signatories:

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/469-the-architects-and-engineers-who-propelled-us-to-the-milestone-of-3-000-signatories

Peer-Reviewed 9/11 Truth:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/10/peer-reviewed-911-truth.html

9/11: Explosive Material in the WTC Dust:

https://citizenfor911truth.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/911explosivematerialv1-3.pdf

9/11 Justice for All: A Day of Events in the Nation’s Capital!:

http://911truthactivism.blogspot.com/2018/08/911-justice-for-all-day-of-events-in.html

9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

Why can’t mainstream experts melt steel with thermite? THERMATE = Thermite + SULFUR (The FEMA report could not explain the source of the SULFUR)

 

A Government Researcher Speaks Out | 9/11 Evidence and NIST

In August 2016, Peter Michael Ketcham, a former employee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), began looking into the reports his agency had released years earlier on the collapse of the World Trade Center. What he found shook him to the core.

In this poignant half-hour interview, Peter Michael Ketcham tells his story of discovering that the organization where he had worked for 14 years had deliberately suppressed the truth about the most pivotal event of the 21st century.

Through his willingness to look openly at what he failed to see in front of him for 15 years, Mr. Ketcham inspires us to believe that we can all muster the courage to confront the truth — and, in so doing, finally heal the wounds of 9/11.

Featuring: Peter Michael Ketcham
Producer: Ted Walter (AE911Truth)
Videographers: John Massaria and Richard Grove

World Premiere of a New Play – A BLANKET OF DUST

A Blanket of Dust is a political thriller and a new addition to the Theater of Resistance. A Blanket of Dust is the story of Diana Crane, a modern day Antigone. The daughter of a US Senator whose husband has died in the World Trade Center, her subsequent ordeal in seeking justice for his murder ultimately drives her to the outer fringes of society. Struggling with facts that the government, the media, her family and her countrymen deny, she finally confronts them all with a harrowing act of sacrificial tragedy.

WORLD PREMIERE OF “A BLANKET OF DUST”
By: Richard Squires (“Crazy Like a Fox”)
Off-Broadway Play
Theater: Flea Theater Mainstage, 20 Thomas Street, NYC 10007
Website: www.ablanketofdust.com
SOCIAL MEDIA:
Facebook: www.facebook.com/ablanketofdust
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ablanketofdust
Instagram: @a_blanket_of_dust

WHEN:
June 6th thru 30th, 2018
Preview: June 6-11
Opening: June 12
Closing: June 30

ABOUT:
On the morning of 9/11, Diana Crane, the daughter of a ranking US Senator, gets a farewell phone call from her husband trapped in Tower 1, just before it collapses. She rushes in a panic to New York City to witness the solitary collapse of Building 7, never hit by an airplane. She is tortured by the evidence that all 3 buildings seemed to collapse identically, with their remains suggesting they were purposely demolished. Follow Diana as she pursues the most powerful people in Washington to seek justice for her husband’s death, only to learn that the government for the people, by the people…may not actually be for the people.

STARRING:
Angela Pierce
Tommy Schrider
Alison Fraser

SCHEDULE:
June 6th through 30th, 2018
Mondays through Saturdays at 7:00 PM. Matinees Saturdays at 2:00 PM. No shows on Sundays.

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

by David Chandler, 911speakout.org

There are fundamental grounds to reject the analysis put forward by CIT (Citizen Investigation Team), which proposes that a large plane approached the Pentagon from a northerly angle (north of the CITGO gas station) incompatible with the external and internal damage path.* The plane, they say, flew over the Pentagon, masked by a synchronized internal explosion and smoke cloud (which CIT compares to a “magic show”), and all the damage was staged.

The issue goes beyond the selection of witnesses or the implausibility of their fly-over hypothesis and elaborate staging of all the physical evidence. It comes down to the validity of their interview methodology and the illogic of the inferences drawn from their data. Their flawed methodology invalidates the entire process.

I will focus on Craig Ranke’s telephone interview of Albert Hemphill because we have a complete, unedited, start-to-finish record of the interview as well as two follow-up phone interviews by Jeff Hill, an independent researcher living in Canada, that allow Mr. Hemphill to express himself fully about the Ranke interview and clarify his testimony. Here are the three interviews:

The other interviews used in the CIT videos, on the other hand, have been subject to selection and editing, so we don’t know the full context that surrounds them. They are therefore less helpful in understanding CIT’s methodology.

Albert Hemphill was a civilian employee of the Navy with an office on the top floor of the 8th wing of the Navy Annex overlooking the Pentagon. The line of sight from his office window to the impact point on the Pentagon passed directly over the CITGO gas station. His line of sight was eastward, so north was to his left and south was to his right. CIT claims Albert Hemphill as a north path witness. Rather than simply accepting this characterization, listen to Hemphill’s actual testimony.

Here are transcripts of excerpts from Albert Hemphill’s characterization of the flight path.

5:52 [Hemphill] he would have been to my, over my right shoulder

6:02 [Hemphill] he clipped a street light

6:51 [Ranke] when you saw it pass the gas station did it look like he was flying straight or banking or turning?
[Hemphill] Diving
[Ranke] Diving
[Hemphill] You could hear the spooling of the engines, the distinctive whine of those things being wound up. And he kicked in, in my opinion, like he kicked in a little bit of right rudder and threw in some aileron [def: flaps on the wings that control the roll of the plane] because he hit the Pentagon at about the second window level. He did not hit the ground. He did not touch the ground. It smacked right into the building.

7:47 [Hemphill] right over the bridge

10:04 [Ranke] Did you see it actually hit light poles or did you just hear about that afterwards?
[Hemphill] I saw him clip it.
[Ranke] Saw it clip a light pole.
[Hemphill] Yeah.10:15 [Ranke] Did you notice the cab or anything like that?
[Hemphill] Nah, I don’t remember seeing a cab. I’ve heard that one. I don’t remember a cab. It may have been there, but there’s so much going on, you know you only have a sight picture there, you know we’re talking seconds. So, you know, when people say stuff like that you have to be careful that you don’t absorb in stuff that they have said that you didn’t really see, that correlates with your story, and what you witnessed.

10:49 [Ranke] But you say you’re absolutely certain that you did see it clip a light pole?
[Hemphill] Yeah, because it was like a flash with it, you know
[Ranke] A flash? Did you see a light pole go flying or anything like that?
[Hemphill] No. No, no, no. You just, you see the kinda a glance or something, a flash of a wing catching it or something.
[Ranke] Interesting. Did you see it hit more than one pole, or just one
[Hemphill] Just one is all I picked up. It may have been more. I don’t know.

16:48 [Ranke] How sure are you that it was directly over the Navy Annex as opposed to being on the complete south end of Columbia Pike, in fact I mean on the south side of the VDOT building. You know where that communications antenna tower that there is on the other side of Columbia Pike there?
[Hemphill] Yeah. I know where it is.
[Ranke] What are the chances that it was on the south side of that, between that and the highway?
[Hemphill] I think that’s over a little bit far.

27:06 [Ranke] Do you recall the location the light pole is that you saw get hit?
[Hemphill] I think that was one of the ones up there on 27, I believe it was right, let me think now, the um, you’ve got the bridge, it was on the side of the bridge heading toward Rosslyn.
[Ranke] So the north side.
[Hemphill] It would be the north side, yeah.

38:02 [Hemphill] Now the plane I saw, I saw one plane and I saw it hit.

[…then again, after Ranke concluded that Hemphill must have been deceived by the explosion…]

39:36 [Hemphill] but all I can tell you is that I saw the one plane and what I saw was I saw it hit.

[For more detail and context, listen to the full interview (transcript)]

Let’s summarize Hemphill’s key testimony.

  • The plane came in over his right shoulder, i.e. to his south, therefore, by implication, south of the CITGO station.
  • The VDOT tower is south of the Navy Annex. He estimates that the plane was not that far south. i.e. south but probably not that far south. This statement would not make sense if the plane were to his north, so this answer confirms that the plane was on a south path.
  • The plane flew right over the bridge, the site of the first two light poles.
  • He saw it hit one light pole. He knew from news reports that more light poles were hit, but he personally witnessed only one and carefully limits his testimony to what he actually saw. As a matter of fact, the first light pole would have been clipped by the right wing which would have been hidden on the far side of the plane from his vantage point. The second light pole, on the north side of the bridge (which is where he located it), was clipped by the left wing and would be visible from his vantage point. The remaining light poles were lower down, not up on the bridge. Hemphill’s testimony here is restrained and precise. The one light pole he could most plausibly have seen was the exact pole he testifies that he saw.
  • The plane was diving and he saw it approach the Pentagon at the second floor level while it was not obscured by smoke, so there is no possibility that the plane could pull up in time to clear the Pentagon roof.
  • To the very end, even as Ranke tried to persuade him otherwise, Hemphill repeatedly emphasizes his own direct observation that there was only one plane and that it hit the Pentagon.
  • Hemphill was an exceptional eyewitness who was very conscious of the dangers of mixing his actual observations with other material he had learned along the way. As he put it, “you have to be careful that you don’t absorb in stuff that they have said that you didn’t really see, that correlates with your story, and what you witnessed.”

After hearing Hemphill’s direct eyewitness testimony, Ranke pushed him to concede that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station, which he then used to dismiss the rest of his testimony as being inconsistent with this one point. Listen to how this was brought about:

7:34 [Ranke] Now when you saw it, let’s back up a little bit. When you saw it pass the gas station, what side of the gas station was it on? Was it on the again, on the Arlington Cemetery or north side, or else perhaps the south side, the other side?

7:47 [Hemphill] You know it’s hard to say, it looked like it went right over the top to me, you know, because of the way its flight path was, but you know you would have come pretty much right smack over the top of it, right over the bridge there, it takes you over to I think on the right if I did all those years ago, I said 110, I meant 27.

8:08 [Ranke] Right

8:08 [Hemphill] But he went right over there towards where the old heliport was, so if you go from where the old heliport was and you draw a line straight back over the Navy Annex, it’s going to take you pretty much over the gas station.

8:22 [Ranke] OK, but would you say if you had to say if it was leaning towards one side or the other of the gas station, perhaps a portion of the plane, or did it look directly over the top? Or what do you think?

8:32 [Hemphill] Yeah, I would say more towards the cemetery side

8:36 [Ranke] a little more towards the cemetery side, OK. And uh well it was interesting cause you also mention that the blast from the explosion knocked you back onto your desk.

8:47 [Hemphill] Yeah, it was like a shock wave of a like a 2000 pounder going off. No, just a, you could hear the deep, deep rumble and then boom, it just caused everything on the Annex to just shake and stuff rattled and it just forced me back on the desk.

Here Ranke induces Hemphill to contradict himself. Hemphill has already shown himself to be a south path witness in multiple ways. An honest interviewer would point out the contradiction and ask for clarification. This is, after all, the focal point of the interview, from Ranke’s perspective, so one would think it would be extremely important to get it right. But Ranke does not do this. He restates the questionable claim without comment then changes the subject to something entirely different. Has he elicited Hemphill’s considered opinion or has he led him into a rhetorical trap?

Realize that this phone interview was conducted in May, 2010, nearly nine years after the event. Hemphill no longer worked for the Navy. Wing 8 of the Navy Annex had been torn down. He was not looking at any kind or map or diagram during the phone call. He was going from memory as to the alignment of various features. When pushed the first time on whether the plane flew to one side or the other of the CITGO station, he declined both alternatives and said it went right over the top of the CITGO station, which, according to his memory, was equivalent to going right over the bridge. (In reality the two features don’t line up.) To go over the bridge the plane would have to go south of the CITGO station.

Having answered that to the best of his recollection the plane flew over the top of the CITGO station, Ranke continues pushing, “OK, but would you say if you had to say if it was leaning towards one side or the other of the gas station, perhaps a portion of the plane, or did it look directly over the top? Or what do you think?” He is clearly telling Hemphill he is unsatisfied with his previous answer. Finally Hemphill answers, “Yeah, I would say more towards the cemetery side.”

It is troubling that Ranke ignores Hemphill’s first answer and persists in digging for a different answer. “…if you had to say,” “…if it was leaning towards one side or the other,” “…perhaps a portion of the plane.” This is leading the witness, if not badgering the witness. Such questioning is bad practice because it distorts the testimony. It has no place in scientific data gathering interviews since the goal is to get at true memories uninfluenced by the questioner.

Later in the conversation Ranke returns to the north path issue in order to solidify Hemphill’s support for his Pentagon fly-over hypothesis. However, he does so in the context of telling Hemphill what many other witnesses had said who were supposedly in a better position to see what happened.

Hemphill concedes, “anybody who was out and about right then in that area would have had a great vantage point if they were at that gas station.” Ranke is not asking Hemphill for his own memories as an independent witness, but rather urging him to go along with what others had supposedly said. The Asch Conformity Experiment comes to mind. It has been shown experimentally that when subjects feel alone in their perceptions they show a tendency to ignore their own perceptions and go along with the crowd. Ranke is explicitly asking Hemphill to step back from his eyewitness role and accept a belief based on hearsay. This by itself should be enough to disqualify the interview as having any scientific merit. He commends Hemphill and tells him that “what you saw does corroborate these other witnesses.” He uses the word “corroborate” 18 times in the conversation, as though this witness needs praise or reassurance for going along with what other witnesses have said, and ignoring the fact that nothing in Hemphill’s testimony “corroborates” the north path story except for that single concession urged by the interviewer. Hemphill is not being treated as though his own first-hand memories were the legitimate focus of the interview.

In Jeff Hill’s second phone interview with Hemphill, he reminds Hemphill of his earlier statement to Craig Ranke that the plane was on the Arlington Cemetery side (north side) of CITGO. Hemphill strenuously objects,

18:6 [Hemphill] “No, absolutely wrong. It flew over the gas station more to the Columbia Pike side.

22:16 [Hill] So like I guess when you told Craig that it was slightly more toward the Arlington Cemetery side you were just like mistaken in the moment?
[Hemphill] No I didn’t say that. I said my office is more toward the Arlington Cemetery side. The aircraft was not more toward the cemetery. It’s more toward Columbia Pike.

The words he used earlier seemed to be telling Craig the opposite, but this comment clarifies what was in his mind. One thing that did a lot to clear up his testimony was that Hill had emailed Hemphill a photograph of the area from Google Earth with a line of sight drawn on it from Hemphill’s office to the impact point (similar to the illustration included here but without the extra annotations). That line passes directly over the center of the CITGO gas station. With the geometry of the situation clearly in mind, Hemphill had no trouble reconstructing the plane’s path and he was able to state definitively that the plane was on the south side.

Once Ranke had maneuvered Hemphill into stating the plane was on the cemetery side (north side) of the CITGO station, he inferred that since that observation was incompatible with hitting the Pentagon or the light poles, those direct memories and the physical evidence had to be false and only the north path observation was true. (How is this even logical? Why not infer from the direct observations and the physical evidence of the light poles and the memory that the plane came over his right shoulder that the north path statement was false?) Hemphill didn’t buy Ranke’s reasoning. He insisted repeatedly, “Now the plane I saw, I saw one plane and I saw it hit.” At the very end of the conversation Hemphill reaffirms that he stands by his original statements.

Elevating the significance of a memory of a seemingly minor detail, many years after the fact, is a common thread in nearly all of the Ranke interviews. The single detail CIT cites as key to understanding the Pentagon event is the path of the approaching plane. Ranke’s sales pitch to the world is that surely the eyewitnesses near the CITGO station would remember which side of the station the plane passed by as it approached the Pentagon. That is not obvious, however. It depends entirely on when a witness became aware of and focused intently on the plane. The event went suddenly from nothing particularly unusual to an earth shaking event: a plane hitting the Pentagon, seconds later. All of the CIT witnesses, who were in a position to see it, testified that they saw the plane actually hit the Pentagon. For some, the earlier path of the plane might have been a vivid direct memory. The level of detail offered by Hemphill, the nearness and position of the plane over his right shoulder, the sound of the engines spooling up, his detailed observation of the plane’s maneuvers, the flash as it hit a specific light pole, the dive, and the place where it hit the Pentagon wall, and the consistency of these observations with the physical evidence all indicate this is true in his case. Others may have been only vaguely aware of the plane initially with growing awareness as it was about to hit the Pentagon. For these people the prior path of the plane could well have been a mental reconstruction rather than a direct memory. An unbiased interviewer would recognize a memory that the plane hit the building as more likely true than any memories of a path inconsistent with that direct observation, especially when the eyewitness expresses certainty that it actually hit. The explosion and smoke cloud would not obscure the impact. They would follow the impact.

When I was in a PE class in the eighth grade I jumped over a low-hanging net, tripped and knocked myself out. I woke up in the nurse’s office some time later. I remember the accident clearly. The problem is I have two equally clear and competing memories of the event, and I cannot, even to this day, discern which is what actually happened. I remember jumping over the net as we were dismissed from the assembly formation at the start of class, but I have an equally clear and compelling memory that the event occurred at the end of the period, as the bell rang and we were running to the locker room. Tripping over the net, falling, and waking up in the nurse’s office were clear and legitimate memories burned into my brain. The circumstances surrounding my jumping over the net were mental reconstructions, equally as vivid as the undeniable memories, but in reality, not memories at all.

Our minds flesh out the details surrounding distant memories, as my own experience illustrates. The methodology at work in the CIT interviews is to distract a witnesses from an actual, vivid memory of a plane impacting a building, and soliciting, or even planting by suggestion, a minor secondary detail. This sets the stage for the witness to reconstruct or elaborate on the actual memories to “fill in the gaps” or to satisfy the questioner. That detail is then elevated to be considered the single most significant element of the testimony, and used to discount both the primary memory and the physical evidence. The witnesses themselves are then declared to have been deceived about the discordant elements of their testimony. The witnesses may come back and protest loudly that the one thing they know for certain is that the plane actually hit the building, but such protestations are ignored. When interviews are conducted in this manner, whatever the reason, the conclusions have no claim to any validity and should be dismissed.


Notes:

*External damage path: scarred VDOT traffic camera pole and notched tree on Hwy 26 overpass, five downed light poles, damaged and rotated large generator trailer, damaged fence around the generator trailer, scattering of a number of cable spools, notch in a low concrete retaining wall, and severed tree in front of Column 16.

Internal damage path: nearly 100 foot opening in the first floor of the Pentagon E-ring wall, external scars corresponding to the wing tips and tail of an impacting plane, a pattern of damaged and destroyed interior columns on the first floor of the Pentagon E, D, and C-rings and punch-out hole in the C-ring inner wall, all in line with the external damage path.

See original article here.

http://www.visibility911.org/1405137-2/

9/11 Unmasked – Who is Qualid Benomrane

The fact that former Director of the FBI Robert Mueller is zealously investigating the fake news nonsense of President Trump “colluding with Russia” in order to “fool” people into voting for him for President, is the punchline of a very sick joke.

Former director of the FBI Robert Mueller was an essential tool in the most obvious and most disgusting cover up in U.S. History. While he has no problem investigating fake news nonsense such as “Russian Collusion” he refused to investigate real news such as CIA – Saudi collusion in the 9-11 attacks.

The FBI never engaged in an investigation of the Saudi connection.” – Rep. Stephen Lynch(3:28 mark)

http://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2016/09/06/lynch-september-saudi

Dot-Dot-Dot
Saudi Arabia—>CIA—>Whitehouse

Thermite Finger Print – A Special Report by Visibility 9-11

Dr. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan are among several authors of a new paper that has appeared in the prestigious scientific journal “The Open Chemical Physics Journal” and is titled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.”

Abstract:
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

“Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

“In short, the paper explodes the official story that ‘no evidence’ exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.”
The red/gray chips are the “loaded gun” of 9-11.”
— Dr. Steven Jones

Details:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen | doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007

Read Online | Download: here or here.

Scientist Niels Harrit Speaks about Nano-Thermites at WTC on Danish TV 2 News (with English Subtitles)

Your Support Needed to Keep This Website and Podcast Available

Despite the fact that I have retired from producing the podcast, I still receive 4-6000 downloads a month from people who are still finding this information useful.  Current stats show that the podcast has received almost 1.25 million downloads and I still get emails from listeners on a monthly basis thanking me for making this information available.  My goal is to keep these podcasts available long past my time here on earth, however, I need your help.  Please consider making a donation to keep this website and podcast archives of Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey available.