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 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)

 

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)

Deadly Dust: A Special Report by Visibility 9-11

In December of 2006, and after watching the effects of the 9-11 dust on first responders and even rescue dogs for more than a couple of years, I decided it was imperative to do and expose` on the issue of the aftermath of the pulverization of the Twin Towers. The mainstream media was ignoring the issue and the government cronies were doing little more than paying lip service to the increasingly sick and dying hero’s of 9-11: The first responders. Together with many other activists on this issue, we were successful in bringing the plight of the first responders into the mainstream for much needed publicity and help. However, much work is still needed to draw more attention and accountability for the lies of the Bush Regime and the EPA, and to get much needed help for the real hero’s of September 11th. Rudy Guiliani, you are not one of them.

-Michael

Anger builds over EPA’s 9/11 report

Charges of a cover-up hit nerve with New Yorkers
By Francesca Lyman
msnbc.com contributor

Sept. 11, 2003 — Two years after the World Trade Center attacks, New Yorkers say they’re outraged by reports that the White House influenced the Environmental Protection Agency to downplay hazards posed by the toxic dust that fell in an avalanche over the city. The EPA’s acting chief defends the agency’s actions after the attacks, saying it hopes to be better prepared for “the next time.”

“I pray to God that, as a country, in the event of another terrorist attack, God forbid, we as an agency would be equipped to get the data analyzed and posted to the public,” EPA Acting Administrator Marianne Horinko told MSNBC in an exclusive interview. “All that was a huge challenge to us on 9/11 — coordinating communication among agencies, following incident command. God forbid there is a dirty bomb. I hope everyone knows their battle stations.”

In the early days and weeks of the World Trade Center disaster, says Horinko, there was such chaos that mistakes were inevitably made.

“Did we rush out (too soon) with data? On balance, I think we used our best professional judgment in an atmosphere where people were clamoring for answers.” But the agency wasn’t trying to deceive the public, she claims.

However, a report by the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General released on Aug. 21 states, among other criticisms, that the White House reviewed and even changed EPA statements about public health risks to make them sound less alarming. The report charges that the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced “the information EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones.” The report cites “reopening Wall Street” and “national security” as reasons for the spin.

‘We were all lied to’
The EPA presented “an overriding message that there was no significant threat to human health” even though there was cause for caution, it concluded.

“When EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was ‘safe’ to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement,” said the OIG, adding that the agency was missing data on other pollutants, such as particulates and chemicals like PCBs. In addition, 25 percent of dust samples contained asbestos, a potent carcinogen.

Yes, Horinko admits, the EPA did find asbestos in the dust samples. “But the vast majority of the samples we took did not contain it,” she says.

Asked about why people are still suffering ill effects, Horinko said she can understand that rescue workers would still be affected but finds residents’ continued complaints to be “mystifying.”

Even though the the building collapses caused the highest particulate count in the city’s history, the tragic event violated no pollution standards. That’s because the air quality regulations were set up to measure particulate matter loadings over 24-hour periods rather than intense, short-term bursts.

That is cold comfort to many New Yorkers, particularly those still suffering health effects from exposure to the dust.

Kim Todd, an acting coach who lives in lower Manhattan just two blocks from the former World Trade Center, says she’s angry. “I might not have stayed down here — with dust on me for days — had I known of the dangers,” she says. “We were all lied to, and I’m afraid everybody is going to be seriously sick.”

Some fear that “WTC cough,” sinus problems, headaches and other ailments that Todd and others continue to experience, were worsened by government officials more willing to return the city to normalcy and open the Stock Market than protect public health. Doctors, too, worry the event could spur a rash of asbestosis, cancer and other long-term diseases in the future.

Many workers still sick
“For me, it’s very scary. We lost another firefighter, and that makes one in New York and two volunteers who have died of pneumonia. My lungs are totally shot, and I’m afraid that’s what many of us are going to die of,” says Vincent Forras, a volunteer firefighter who answered the call for help, driving down from South Salem, N.Y., to Ground Zero that clear, blue-skied morning on Sept. 11.

Forras and thousands of other rescue workers on “the pile,” who were largely unprotected in those first hours and days, are still sick. Workers got little more than paper masks, if that, and there weren’t enough respirators to go round, recalls Forras, who still suffers severe headaches and ailments stemming from sinus surgery. “It took at least two weeks to get properly equipped. By then we were pretty well cooked.”

“There was a lot of finger-pointing about who was in charge,” says Joel Shufro, director of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health. “But in the confusion between EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the city Health Department, laws weren’t enforced.”

Workers have to bear some of the blame, says Horinko. “Many did not wear professional gear despite our best efforts.”

But, Forras says, even Mayor Rudolph Guiliani appeared to believe the EPA’s statement and went so far as to stand next to then-EPA administrator Christie Whitman and announce that the air was safe.

“When you have someone of the caliber of Mayor Guiliani saying it, they took that as gospel,” says Forras.

Not all New Yorkers believed that the smells wafting up from the smoldering remains of the two 110-story office towers were as benign as official pronouncements.

“How could something as huge as the World Trade Centers with all their contents — computers, fluorescent lights, plastic chairs, everything — just disappear?” says Todd. “They had to go somewhere.”

Workers at Ground Zero got much higher doses of dust and fumes than residents, says Dr. Robin Herbert, a physician and researcher at Mt. Sinai Hospital who worked on a program that screened and treated rescue workers and volunteers at the site. A year after the attacks, half of the program’s patients — some 7,000 firefighters, police officers and other volunteers — were still sick. While the final count is not in, says Herbert, “a substantial percent continue to have persistent upper and lower respiratory symptomatology — coughs and sinus problems.”

Toxins may linger
Two years after Sept. 11, some downtown New Yorkers are still concerned about the potential toxicity of lingering dust in indoor areas, says Jenna Orkin, of 9/11 Environmental Action, a group formed to address issues many felt literally slipped through the cracks after the disaster when the EPA turned indoor air issues over to the city Department of Health.

After Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) held hearings on the health hazards triggered by the terror attacks, the EPA and city launched a program to clean up people’s apartments, ultimately cleaning more than 4,000 apartments in lower Manhattan. But that program left out the cleanup of schools, offices, workplaces, shops and businesses — and that’s only the beginning of how “wholly inadequate” the program was, Nadler told MSNBC.

“The program was limited to an area south of Canal Street, as though there were a Star Trek force field blocking out the rest of Manhattan and other places, like Brooklyn, where we know the toxic plume traveled,” says Nadler.

The EPA tested and cleaned individual apartments only when people asked, and generally left out central air systems and common areas. “How can you clean one apartment, and not the one next to it?” Nadler asks.

Apartments were tested for only one pollutant: asbestos. The testing method used excluded active testing, which uses a fan to kick up the pollutants lurking in carpets, drapes and corners, unless applicants opted for the most aggressive cleanup, which prohibited the resident from being present (and, some say, discouraged many people from signing up).

Jo Polett, who lives 6 blocks from the trade center site, however, insisted on supervising her job, and made the contractor turn on the “active” test fan when he didn’t even know to. With effort, she learned that her apartment was contaminated with heavy metals, such as antimony and lead (with the lead reading five times the EPA’s standard). Had she opted for “testing only” — which tested only asbestos — she might never have found that out.

Polett, who speaks softly with her new whispery voice, blames her respiratory problems on the toxic dust trapped in her building’s ventilation system. Yet, because there was no visible dust in her apartment, she never suspected a problem until several months after the disaster. Too late, her home was judged “uninhabitable” by FEMA, she said. “I’m frightened by what other people might also be living with,” says Polett.

In a press conference, Nadler also release a memo by EPA scientist Cate Jenkins, a veteran of the Hazardous Waste division, saying that even the most rigorous EPA-led efforts have failed to clean up downtown buildings to federal levels for asbestos and silica, another carcinogen that, she says, could be implicated in “WTC cough.”

Jenkins’ memo states that a building at 114 Liberty Street still has visible dust. She has said that the EPA tested its own offices downtown with more stringent methods. The city Department of Environmental Protection did not return calls regarding its joint cleanups with the EPA, but Jordan Bailowitz in Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office said, “The city is not responsible for oversight of what EPA had done to clean up apartments.”

New cleaning efforts urged
Siding with Nadler on this issue, the OIG has urged the EPA to re-launch a new systematic program to make sure the agency’s apartment cleaning does reduce residents’ exposure to indoor pollutants. The OIG notes that in this case, as in future terrorist events, the EPA is tasked under a 1998 Presidential Decision Directive “with the leadership role in cleaning up buildings and other sites contaminated by chemical or biological agents as a result of terrorism.”

But the EPA’s Horinko doesn’t think that’s necessary. “We stand by the job we managed in testing and cleaning up people’s apartments,” she says.

It’s too soon to say if the World Trade Center attack will have long-term health effects on New York residents, says the OIG report, although there are troubling signs. Pregnant women exposed to air pollution from the World Trade Center attacks, according to a preliminary study released in August 2003, face double the risk of delivering babies up to a half-pound smaller than babies born to women not exposed.

Doctors are still treating patients with post 9-11 respiratory problems, says Neal Schachter, a pulmonologist at Mt. Sinai. During the first year, he saw perhaps 15 percent more such patients, but that’s tapering off to between 5 percent to 10 percent more now.

“But I still get a steady stream of patients, including new ones,” he says.

Schachter also worries about the long-term consequences of the pollution that we have yet to see. “With asbestos, as well as other carcinogens, we’re dealing with silent culprits, that have yet to wind up scarring lungs or causing cancer,” he adds.

For some, the OIG report shook their confidence in government. “Accurate and timely information from government is a cornerstone of good public health,” says Mt. Sinai’s Herbert. “By deleting good information to the public — people in their apartments, people on the pile — we lost opportunities for disease prevention.”

Francesca Lyman is an environmental and travel journalist and author of “Inside the Dzanga-Sangha Rain Forest” (Workman, 1998). She recently finished a report on the health effects of the Sept. 11 attacks titled “Messages in the Dust,” which will be available online at www.neha.org.

Original article here.

9/11 Pentagon Attack – Small Hole Damage DEBUNKED

(Video) hy.poth.e.sis with Dr. Steven E. Jones

‘hy.poth.e.sis’ is a documentary film that follows physics professor Steven E. Jones during a pivotal point in his life. In 2005, Steven went public with a controversial theory regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11. His assertion that the collapse was likely the result of pre-positioned explosives rather than the hijacked planes resulted in a backlash from the community and even threatened his standing as a professor at BYU. Despite hate mail, threats, and even bribery to end his research, Steven refused to give in to overwhelming pressure and continued his pursuit of the truth.

 

 

AE911Truth: The Experts Speak Out (Full Movie)


ikoni

Ae911Truth's Richard Gage Respectfully Pulls All Support for Citizen Investigation Team (CIT)

source: An email to supporters from Richard Gage
dateline: 02/08/2011

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed).  These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station.  Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.  I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue.  I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.

I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of  CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.  Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.  I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters.  Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:

Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011

9/11 Pentagon Witnesses:  They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010

Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010

Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:

Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon ,  by Jim Hoffman, July 2009

To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)  January 2011

What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true.  One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.  Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle.  In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.”  And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.

We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.

Sincerely,

Richard Gage, AIA

(video) COINTELPRO 101 – The Sabotage Of Legitimate Dissent

Your Support Needed to Keep This Website and Podcast Available

Please consider making a donation to keep this website and podcast archives of Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey available.