Saturday, August 24, 2013

A Shift in Reasoning: 757, Pentagon, and heliport debris

The question on the Pentagon airplane or airplanes is, I think, complicated. A number of apparent conflicts in lines of reasoning has made it difficult for me to settle in on one set of consistent answers. For the past several years, I have favored CIT's north-path airplane with flyover. This hypothesis implied, I thought, either no airplane struck the Pentagon, or an airplane struck in tight time correlation with the flyover airplane. 

Recently, I've taken a more careful look at many of the issues, and have gradually shifted my thinking toward an airplane impacting the Pentagon. One shift was deciding the north-path airplane was more likely not time correlated with the explosive event at the Pentagon face.

Another shift came relative to the "no debris on the lawn" issue. I was bothered the "no-Boeing" folks didn't have much of a comeback to the Sandia F-4 sled test implications. That test provides empirical evidence suggesting that "confetti" is what should be expected when an airplane crashes at high speed into a hardened wall.

An "ah ha" moment occurred when I ran across a photo in a different setting with "confetti-like" debris on the ground. I was familiar with the photo, as Jim Hoffman described the photo as "...portion of the lawn near the heliport." I stumbled across the same photo in the book, Pentagon 9/11, but the ledger read, "...debris-covered helipad."  The helipad, it turns out, is in the exact right spot for deflected debris from a plane flying directly over the cable spools before impacting the Pentagon centered on column 14, the official impact column. This gave a boost to the 757-on-south-path hypothesis.


thejumblies said...

Hello Mr. Deets,
I noticed your comments on the 'Truthandshadows' blog there and the rather unwelcome reception they have received from the various posters there. I have posted a few comments there myself in the past and if I tell you that I think all of these conspiracy theories about the Pentagon and about 911 being an 'inside job' are not in the least credible you can probably imagine the reaction I get when I post there.
I would just like to give you my take on this Pentagon issue. With this CIT and their 'plane flew over the Pentagon theory' the most instructive thing to do is actually watch their DVD because I don't think enough people actually watch it and listen to it. CIT tell people on their website that the first they should do is watch National Security Alert. The first thing they are told in NSA is:
"In the following presentation we will expose to you independent verifiable evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the 9/11 attack was a state sponsored false-flag black operation ,involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception at the Pentagon."
So they are going to prove to people that something happened, beyond a reasonable doubt. They present their evidence and they present the logic of their argument and then they present their conclusion, which they put up there, in black and white " The plane did not hit the building". Where in NSA is the evidence that the plane did hit the building? It is divided into a number of sections - which section deals with all of the eyewitness who say the plane hit the Pentagon? This is their logical argument they are putting forward, and it doesn't include the evidence against that conclusion. But they say it's beyond a reasonable doubt. If anyone is investigating anything and arriving at a conclusion about it then all of the evidence has to be addressed in arriving at that conclusion. It is maybe the most basic and most important principle of assessing evidence. CIT in arriving at their conclusion ,which they say is definitive and proven avoid addressing practically all the evidence that contradicts their conclusion. Their is hardly a mention in the whole thing that it exists. How could that happen? How could a supposedly logical argument be presented that arrives at a conclusion without having to address the evidence against that conclusion? If you actually watch NSA and listen to the argument they make it is not difficult to see where the the logical problems are and they completely undermine the credibility of their conclusions. Everyone else who is looking at the Pentagon , or any event for that matter, knows that all of the evidence has to be addressed when arriving at a verdict about it. People don't need to be told that, they realise that they have to weigh up and evaluate all of the evidence before they reach a conclusion. What amazes me is the Craig Ranke and co. have spent 6 or 7 years making the same illogical argument. What is more amazing is that I have never seen anyone clearly point this out. People say 'what about this or that witness' without seeming to realize that CIT's conclusions didn't involve these witnesses at all. They take part of the evidence of the event, come to a conclusion about that and then declare the rest of the evidence false because it is contradicted by that conclusion - a conclusion that the rest of the evidence played no part in. Therefore the conclusion did not involve all of the evidence.
I would be interested to hear your opinion on this and I can if you like show where the flaws are in their logic.
A. Wright

Dwain Deets said...

Hello back, A. Wright

You make a very good point. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

As I reflect back on my study of CIT's evidence, it now is apparent to me I have included a lot of additional information on their website in my assessment of their evidence. Most importantly, they have gone thru all the other witnesses in terms of the their vantage points. That is, where each person was located, and what could be seen or not seen from that location. That I considered very helpful addition information, but it wasn't included in NSA.

Secondly, I have allowed them to say repeatedly, "proved beyond reasonable doubt," without taking issue with it. I've told myself when they say that, something like, "they have not made that case to my satisfaction." Actually, that case in particular shifts around a bit. Sometimes it is that the attack at the Pentagon was an inside job. Other times, it is that no plane struck the Pentagon. And so forth.

Prior to your input, I have concluded the events of 9/11 were an inside job, or at least, the U.S. military was complicit, but mostly for other reasons. For example, the apparent stand-down of the national air defense.

Now, with your input, I will shift downward a notch the weight I place on the CIT witnesses. I've been treating the NoC + overflight at a 60% probability of being true. I will make it a 50% probability.

MikeR said...

This learned gent with the fake-sounding pseudo.... why in hades does s/he receive so much space for such utter drivel?

On 9/11/2001, an intrepid naval photographer working tirelessly for a whole hour from 0947 hrs onwards,, takes eleventy-nine extremely-well-focused photographs of the Pentagon, post-Hollywood-fireball. These photos show lotsa smoke but no mirrors. Out of 178 windows in an otherwise completely intact but smoke-blackened facade, there is only one solitary broken window.

So why do we give THAT much webspace to Doubtful Deets' idiotic argument that a Boeing 757 ingratiated itself through the open window? No treatise more emphatically deserves an ad-hominen response. However we won't ignore Dr Deets' implied challenge.

Let's remember the infinite wisdom of Chairman Barack's "Little Black Book": these immortal words, page thirteen, verse twain:

"It is easier for a plain bird to fly across the roof of the tabernacle, than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle"

Naveen Mypala Urban said...

It’s very Informative Thanks for sharing With Us. Good job keep it up
Urban Aero Systems as an Aviation Infrastructure company that aims to introduce cutting-edge aerospace support technologies into India and provides Helipads in India and Heliports in Bangalore