NINE FEET OF STEEL REINFORCED IDIOCY

PLANE PENETRATES 155', FRAUD LOGIC PENETRATES NOTHING
Adam Larson/The Frustrating Fraud
December 2006
Last updated 7/22/07

In another post I eplained the suspected depth of penetration of the attack craft as explained by Holmgren, Hufschmid, and Raphael Meyssan. Initially they and others had believed only the outer "E" ring was damaged, leaving not nearly enough space to fit a 757. But this was soon shown as false evidence. The Pentagon is indeed comprised of five concentric rings, from the innermost “A” ring to the outermost “E” ring, the outer wall of which is of course where the plane - or whatever - first hit. Each ring is about fifty feet wide in the cross-section below, and comprised of five floors. There is an open, ground-level roadway between the B and C Rings called the “A-E drive.”

But... while the upper floors of each ring are separated by spaces for light and air, floors one and two are completely roofed over and the ring distiction is meaningless. The attack plane is alleged to have penetrated three rings (E,D,C), all at the first-floor level, a single, enormous, open area with support provided by spaced columns, and variously divided by weaker internal walls. The plane and all its damage would be within the gray area in the cross-section below, concealed beneath the building’s roof and at least one more ceiling beneath that - clearly invisible from above.


Eventually the "punch-out hole" on the inside of ring C became the focus, indicating a deep burial of the plane through three rings (or at least fakery indicating such). Eventually the one-ring-damaged construct and its 757-couldn't-do-it implication faded and were replaced with the line put forth in 911 In Plane Site, where host Dave Von Kleist looked at the damage to three rings, where such a plane could fit, and again decided a 757 couldn't do it. "Keep in mind that each ring of the Pentagon has an outer and inner wall," he said. "Each wall is approximately 18 inches thick of steel reinforced concrete. That means that each ring consisted of 36 inches or 3 feet of steel reinforced concrete [...] Question – Could a 757 have pierced 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete, and left a 14 to 16 foot hole, and no wreckage?" Likewise, Loose Change cites "another sixteen-foot hole on the inside of the "C" Ring" (the punch-out hole, which is actually more like eight feet by ten). Narrator Dylan Avery concludes "for that hole to have been caused by Flight 77, the Boeing would have had to smash through nine feet of steel reinforced concrete." While disregarding the exact math, no-planer Killtown also doubted that "the fragile nose of Flight 77" could "penetrate all the way through 3 reinforced concrete/steel hardened rings and punched out a hole through the inside wall of Ring C.”

First, the exterior walls of the Pentagon are not 18" of steel reinforced concrete, as these sources imply. The exact construction the plane was up against is not entirely clear, but I'm nearing completion on a post to explain this.

Second, as I explained earlier, the lower floors were undivided, and so the remainder of the six such ring-defining walls pierced simply do not exist, except the last one. Below, see rooflines of the E, D, and C rings superimposed over the inerior layout of the impacted area, as released by the Pentagon. The red zone is the damaged area, and numbers 1-6 represent the six thick ring walls Von Kleist and Avery are looking for (though in reverse order).

They do not seem to play into the layout of the ground floor, which is where the attack happened. With the exception of walls 1 and 6, these heavy walls essentially do not exist at that level, and the plane would only have had support collumns and weak internal walls to deal with. It could bounce and tear between the pillars, like a deadly game of shrapnel ping-pong. The landing gear making the neat hole inside the C-ring is still a little suspicious, but it's a fairly minor point in the big picture, and a failry minor hole compared to the impact. So only the outer wall was pierced by the majority of the attack plane, leaving us with a not-so mysterious situation: Question? How does much of a 757 crash through the outer wall of the Pentagon?

Answer: with a running start.

But the no-757 theorists have laid down their own rings of fatuity, each with their inner and outer walls adding up to nine feet of steel reinforced idiocy that our bullshit detectors must pierce. Many peoples' aren't even switched on of course, and so this blatant misunderstanding has richocheted around within the Truth movement's head and will probably continue to do so for as long as it stumbles along. By the way, many of the little bubbles clustered in and around the red zone represent dead bodies that were recovered near the end of the trajectory and along its edges. Question - how could a cruise missile or Global Hawk plow a pile of corpses like that?

THE PENTAGON STRIKERS STRIKE BACK

JOE QUINN: BOOBY TRAP OR JUST A BOOB?
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
January 17 2007

Here I’d like to pass on a fierce and heartfelt denunciation of Jim Hoffman's meddling with the no-757 theories I just ran across by some of my favorite, newly-identified Frustrating Fraudsters: the website Signs of the Times, producers and prime promoters of the 2004 Pentagon Strike video (previously I'd thought it was done by LetsRoll911). It's a bit old now I understand, but still relevant I think. I'm a historian at heart, so it's always relevant to me.

Anyway, Signs' Joe Quinn wrote up a point-by-point renunciation of Hoffman’s October 2004 piece “The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics,” which appeared soon after on Signs of the Times: “Hoffman seems to believe that the "no 757 at the Pentagon" crowd are disinfo artists. We found Hoffman's arguments […] to be based on anything but facts or reason. In fact, in making his case, Hoffman even resorts to using the same twisted logic employed by the Bush administration to justify the war on terror. […] it seems CoIntelPro is in full swing when it comes to the 9-11 Truth Movement.” Indeed, or something like it anyway, as Quinn's retort clearly illustrates.

"Mr Hoffman is correct in asserting that the idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is the most divisive issue among 9/11 researchers," Quinn concedes. But "the divisiveness is a deliberate ploy by CoIntelPro agents to attempt to rob genuine 9/11 truth seekers of the singularly strongest piece of evidence pointing to US government complicity in the attacks,” that being the hard and provable fact that no 757 ever hit the Pentagon. Feel free to use the handy hyperlinks I've provided to examine some of Quinn's evidence for yourself. Among his most damning evidence, “Donald Rumsfeld himself has corroborated the “missile theory.” Indeed he seemed to do just this, just a month after 9/11 and just as Meyssan started his missile theorizing, and that’s red flag number one in the theory for me.

“For Hoffman to dismiss Meyssan's sterling investigative work in exposing the obvious holes in the official Pentagon story by citing that Meyssan understated the hole in the Pentagon facade is utterly disingenuous of Hoffman,” not to mention both irrelevant and wrong, Quinn asserts. “The fact is that the main impact hole at the Pentagon WAS 16 feet wide, and a close examination of the damage either side of that hole is NOT consistent with aircraft the size of a 757. […] There is nothing sloppy about the analysis of Meyssan or Holmgren. They, like so many others, can see clearly that the claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is the weakest link in the official version of the events of 9/11.”

While mostly relying on the lack of airplane parts to imply no large plane, when Quinn does admit a plane part, it’s not the telltale landing gear but the wheel found in the A-E Drive. He concludes “the circular rim of the landing gear wheel that is presented as evidence by the US government is too small to be part of the landing gear of a Boeing 757, but bears a startling likeness to the rim of the wheel of the landing gear of a Global Hawk.” He didn't want to gloat or overstate his case by actually illustrating that point, so allow me.


Damn you Disinfo Jim Hoffman, if only you’d let the people see the careful no-757 arguments unhindered! Just look at that “strartling likeness!" Boeing 757 indeed. ANYTHING BUT!

“And here we get to the core of Hoffman's argument,” Quinn writes, “The idea that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon was seeded by the conspirators themselves in order to confuse the issue and keep conspiracy theorists divided.” Whether or not that’s true, the conspiracy theorists have done plenty good pushing the fraud all on their own. And here we also get to Quinn’s own driving issue. “Yet we notice that rather than refusing to succumb to such manipulation and cutting through the lies and sticking to the facts, Hoffman is adding his voice to the cacophony and loudly arguing against the core evidence which strongly suggests that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.” So he should stand down and quit being divisive; he should stick to the facts, like the Global Hawk wheel at the Pentagon, rather than criticizing others who’ve chosen to do so. By looking for disinfo among his honest compatriots, Hoffman was playing into the government’s game.

Of course the Signs people weren’t doing the same, because their story is different from the government’s and is backed by proof, like the clearly non-757 wheel, and the testimonies of several old military people with weird names. And the lack of airplane parts in the photos and e-mailed eyewitness testimonies they chose to pore over. And like all good truth warriors, they recognized their own importance and the reason they could not be the ones to back down. “The simple fact is that, if it were not for the initiative that we took in creating the "Pentagon Strike" Flash presentation, there would have been NO coverage of 9/11 "conspiracy theories" at all. Thanks to the efforts of Darren Williams, an estimated 300 million people around the world, most of them previously unaware of the truth of 9/11, have been given the opportunity to consider the truth of our reality and the people that control it." They are the only ones keeping the doors of perception open, so please Jim, just admit they're right and quit playing the Bushmob's game.

Source: Quinn, Joe. “Jim Hoffman - Booby Trap For 9/11 Truth Seekers.” Response to: The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics, by Jim Hoffman. November 15, 2004. Found at: http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/hoffman_rebuttal.htm

WE'VE LOST RUPPERT...

MIKE RUPPERT'S POORLY-AIMED PARTING SHOT

From Meyssan to 911 In Plane Site to Loose Change, and in myriad other forums on many levels, the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theory had grown into a central plank of the 9/11 Truth Movement, its unquestioning acceptance appallingly wide. I was especially disappointed with former LAPD narc turned investigator of elite crime Mike Ruppert. Before and after 9/11 he has taken on multiple issues through his newsletter From the Wilderness, from government drug dealing to international banking scandals and the CIA-Wall Street connection. From the 9/11 attacks until at least 2003 he consistently tried to, as an Oil Empire timeline summed up, “warn the 9/11 Truth Movement not to over-invest its energies and its credibility in questions of physical evidence” since such lines of reasoning “invite sabotage by U.S. counterintelligence programs.” [1] In his video The Truth and Lies of 9/11 Ruppert pointed to the ineffectiveness of the Zapruder film in changing the public mind on the JFK assassination. I considered him the model of 9/11 research in my earlyinvestigative phase; like me he skirted the divisive issues like the Pentagon attack because of their relative un-provability.

By 2004 he was wrapping up his 9/11 arguments, dropping the issue as dead, "Rubicon" I guess being the obituary. He was moving on to a broader program to prepare the world for the post-Oil Peak crash. In his master 9/11 opus and parting shot Crossing the Rubicon, Ruppert took the isue head-on. He stated “I have never believed Flight 77 hit the Pentagon,” and further described the attack craft, much like IPS and Loose Change might, as:

“the miracle plane. The one that nobody actually saw hit the Pentagon; the one that left no recognizable debris matching an airliner; the one [Thierry Meyssan] did a pretty convincing job of proving never hit the Pentagon because the hole was way too small and the damage pattern […] was totally inconsistent with a mid-sized passenger jet like a 757; the one where the engines melted, disappeared or evaporated, or were transported into space by the Starship Enterprise and never found; the one that flew like a fighter plane or a cruise missile.” [2]

He showed a certain change of heart, describing the analysis of physical evidence like Meyssan’s as “a key forensic technique used by police officers.” Of course Meyssan was “crucified in the American press,” and it was this Frenchman flogging, not the fear of being wrong (as Meyssan seems to be), that gave Ruppert his lesson “about what happens in America when one tries to make a conspiracy case in the public arena, based solely on physical evidence.” [3]

So despite his earlier caution, even Ruppert isn’t really with me on this case. Even as he has tired of “what happens in America” and fled to Caracas and the protective embrace of Hugo Chavez, on his way out the door he let us know the frustrating fraud has its tentacles everywhere, even superceding his finely honed “cop instincts.” How did it get to this point, and where does it go next?

Sources:
[1] Robinowitz, Mark. The Complete "No Planes on 9/11" Timeline. Accessed October 20 2006 at: http://www.oilempire.us/no-plane-timeline.html
[2] Ruppert, Michael C. Crossing the Rubicon. 2004. page 351.
[3] See [2].

THIERRY'S THEORY

Thierry Meyssan was president of the Paris-based Voltaire Network, a think tank “whose left-leaning research projects,” the Manchester Guardian reported, “have until now been considered models of reasonableness and objectivity.” [1] But after 9/11 he went off the deep end, and started publishing his controversial ideas about what happened on the internet just weeks after the attacks, and it was less than six months before the Pentagon attack formed the centerpiece of his early 2002 book 11 Septembre 2001: L’Effroyable Imposture (roughly “the Frightening Fraud” or “9/11: The Big Lie,” as it was later translated for the English edition). Meyssan’s basic point was well-summed up in an interview on France 2 television (“no plane crashed into the Pentagon […] I believe the government is lying”) [2] and at an April 2002 lecture (“if we only concentrate on the explosion of the Pentagon, we shall discover the ‘Big Lie’ that is the official story!”) [3]

For some reason this just never sounded right to me. I’ve never read his book, and hardly gave it a second thought until its ideas had spread so wide I felt I could ignore it no longer. Meyssan’s case, as mirrored by 911 IPS, Loose Change, et al, seems to have been the basic no-plane platform – the lawn is not scuffed up, there’s ‘no plane debris,’ only ‘one small hole’ in the Pentagon’s outer wall, the collapse of only the outer ring, etc. In the end analysis, the attack vehicle - if it existed - was too small to be an airliner. But as far as the NY attack, where everyone clearly saw both airliners, he seems to have argued that these were remote controlled drones. Again, no part besides scapegoat was afforded for any Arab terrorists, and any part of the official story that could realistically be denied was. Drones in NY, missile in VA.

Meyssan with his book, Paris, April 2002

The Frightening Fraud quickly became a bestseller in France, reportedly selling out its initial run of 20,000 copies within two hours of going on sale, and selling another 200,000 in the following weeks. [4] This evidenced a latent suspicions harbored in France, especially in its large Muslim community and the anti-Bush left, and many sales were to French-speakers overseas. The mainstream media and majority opinion there dismissed the book as stupid and full of flaws; indeed, looking closely at the way the attack looked to prove it was other than how it looked seems a troublesome approach. But it hit American news in February as a runaway French bestseller, evoking a curiously defensive backlash. In a muted precursor to the “Freedom Fries” episode, some Americans responded with disapproval and Francophobic boycotts.

Meyssan later expanded his thesis into a second book, “Pentagate,” but in the meantime, critical books and essays spawned by revulsion to his case were released, including The Big Liar: Some Facts about Thierry Meyssan, and The New Liars. Guillaume Dasquié swiped the very same name for The Big Lie: Theses and Nonsense about September 11. [5] A Pentagon spokesman, Glen Flood, described the book as “a slap in the face and real offence to the American people, particularly to the memory of victims of the attacks.” [6] As late as July 2005, Condi Rice’s State Department saw fit to publish on the Internet a lengthy rebuttal and refutation of the book, which continues to be fairly popular, if not in the U.S., than at least everywhere else. [7]

Early help came from Sheikh Zayed, President of the United Arab Emirates, through his “Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow Up.” In April 2002, the Center hosted a talk by Meyssan, and in July released an Arabic translation of his book. [8] This was reportedly handed out to some 5,000 leading Arab minds, and was boosted by the Arab League and Gulf Cooperation Council. Many saw this as a concerted attempt by Arab elites to deflect blame from Islamic terrorists and to the US government (probably with Zionist-Mossad assistance. [9] The Zayed center was shut down in 2003 after a campaign lead by the ADL, and the Sheikh died the following year.

Meyssan has left his print as well on the decreasingly subtle new Cold War with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, where state-run TV reportedly ran a series of shows explaining Meyssan’s theories to the public there. [10] General Leonid Ivashov, who had been chairman of Russia’s Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, felt free to speak his mind after retirement. In 2005 Ivashov spoke at the “Axis for Peace” conference in Brussels, chaired by Meyssan. Ivashov has since then argued that September 11 was an inside job engineered by the “Atlantists” (vaguely, the West); Western elites were “not satisfied with the rhythm of the globalization process or its direction,” so they turned to systematically using international terrorism as “an instrument, a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite. […] the organizers of [the 9/11] attacks were the political and business circles interested in destabilizing the [current] world order.” [11]

Thus the obvious primary drive behind the book’s spread could thus be seen as campaigns by various “anti-American” forces in France, Russia, the Arab world and beyond, using the book for their own nefarious ends. It could also be seen as a natural response to the questions and suspicions over 9/11, which was after all a questionable and suspicious event. It was partly both; the book was widely promoted and widely found by independent skeptics via the Internet. Meyssan’s use of the new medium included a visually based website run by Meyssan’s son called “Hunt the Boeing! And Test Your Perceptions!” The site offered further evidence, including extensive and highly curious photos of the crash site that most of the world had never before seen, with some interesting observations tainted with sloppy analysis and unwarranted leaps of logic.

Sources:
[1] Henely, Jon. “US invented air attack on Pentagon, claims French book.” The Guardian. Monday April 1, 2002. http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,677112,00.html
[2], [4], [6] “French lap up Pentagon crash 'fraud'” BBC News. April 2 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1907955.stm
[3 ] http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01603
[5], [8]. [9], [10] “9/11: The Big Lie.” Wikipedia. Last modified 10:12, 13 September 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11:_The_Big_Lie
[7], United States of America State Department. Identifying misinformation. Thierry Meyssan: French Conspiracy Theorist Claims No Plane Hit Pentagon.” Created: 28 Jun 2005 Updated: 28 Jun 2005 Accessed November 5, 2005 at: http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jun/28-581634.html
[11] Nimmo, Kurt. “Russian General: Nine Eleven a Globalist Inside Job.” Another Day in the Empire. Sunday January 22nd 2006, 6:28 pm http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=201