9/11 Film Festival, Oakland 2015

by David Chandler, 911speakout.org

I did a presentation in Oakland on 9/10/2015 on the Pentagon evidence.  At the time this web page was started the primary concern was the theories being circulated by CIT.  The newest incarnation of speculative Pentagon theories center on Barbara Honegger.  (By agreement with the organizers of the event, I didn’t mention her by name in the talk, but it is her theories I was addressing.)  My talk was back-to-back with a presentation of the eyewitness testimony in a short film by Ken Jenkins.  (This is one part of a longer work he is producing.)

The Pentagon Plane Puzzle (preview - ver 3)


(or view on YouTube here)

On a side note, several of the witnesses in the video were viewing the incident from upper stories of buildings in Roselyn, VA, which is a little north of the Pentagon.  They would have been in a position to see the plane if it had flown over the Pentagon, but they testify instead that it crashed into the Pentagon, which directly contradicts CIT’s speculation.  Also, (as Frank Legge has pointed out) several of the witnesses testify that the plane went very low as it approached the Pentagon, so low that it disappeared from view before it hit.  Once the plane was that low that close to the Pentagon, it would have been impossible to pull up in time and there was no place else for it to go.  Therefore, even though these people didn’t actually see the impact itself, they should be considered witnesses to impact, because there is no alternative consistent with their testimony.

The 9/10/2015 Oakland talk was actually a preliminary sampling of the ongoing work by a group of us who were working on a major paper refuting the Honegger hypotheses.  That paper is now available: The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted
by (listed alphabetically) Victoria Ashley, David Chandler, Jonathan H. Cole, Jim Hoffman, Ken Jenkins, Frank Legge, and John D. Wyndham.  This paper is long, because Barbara Honegger’s speculations and inferences are so wide-ranging.  In our view it was important to address this theory (like the C.I.T. fly-over theory before it) because theories that are this blatantly flawed can seriously damage the credibility of the scientific basis of the 9/11 Truth Movement.  This is still a topic of heated controversy within the movement, but perhaps a slow read through this analysis can bring some light to the issue.

Share on These Popular Social Networking Websites

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Share on reddit
Reddit

From the Podcast Archive