What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon

[James H. Fetzer]

What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon.pdf

[James H. Fetzer]

American Airlines Exposes Bush's Big Lie - Neither Flight 11 nor Flight 77 Flew On 9/11

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2009/06/american-airlines-exposes-bushs-big-lie.html

[James H. Fetzer]

Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:59:01 -0500 [03:59:01 PM CDT]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Subject: Re: Jim Fetzer: Re Dick Eastman's report: What DIDN'T happen at the Pentagon.

All,

This guy must be a mental retard. He says he is going to present his
evidence that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Read what he says here:

I will send my Pentagon evidence -- several indpendent lines of conclusive lines of
evidence ample for any impartial grand jury -- in eight parts. Of course there
are hundreds of lines of evidence that others have developed -- but these
are the facts I would use to establish that Flight 77 is not what damaged the
Pentagon and killed people working there.

This is quite ridiculous since my own arguments are intended to establish
the same conclusion! In his zeal to attack me, he didn't even read this:

Ironically, our conclusions about the Pentagon apparently converge, which means that
he ought to be regarding me as an ally rather than as an enemy. Fortunately, progress can
be made as long as others of greater ability are allowed to pursue the search for truth,
which confronts enormous obstacles from without and would certainly benefit by
greater tolerance from within the research community itself.

Could anyone read my paper and conclude that I am arguing that a 757 hit
the Pentagon? What's going on here? This carries over to Figure 3. One
of Eastman's nitwit friends says I didn't size the 757 image correctly.
As I observed in the text, the sizing was done by Jack White, in whom I
have enormous confidence. I am quite sure the sizing is to scale:

In this graphic, Jack White has sized the image of a Boeing 757 to that of the tail,
which vividly displays the inconsistency of supposing that it might be the tail of a
Boeing 757. If a plane of its dimensions were present, it should have been readily
visible, but in fact it is not.

The Pentagon, I believe, is 77 feet high, while the plane is 155 feet long.
If it had been present in the frame, it would have been conspicuous. It is
not. Therefore, it wasn't present, but a smaller plane--which appears to
be exuding a trail of white smoke--is present in the frame. Now some want
to discard, reject or ignore any evidence that has come from the government.

But in this case, like that of the black box data provided to Pilots by the
NTSB, it contradicts the government's official position. That makes it use-
ful even if it were faked. Look at it this way: If it's real, then it shows
a plane far too small to be a 757. If the government replies that it's fake,
then the government itself has conceded that it has been fabricating evidence.

Did no one follow the links to see my summary of disproofs of the official
account, "Why doubt 9/11?", or my analysis of how the WTC was destroyed or
my summary of evidence about video fakery, all of which are accessible via
links in the third paragraph? If I were an op, why would I be expending so
much time and effort in exposing these shenanigans by the US government?

Eastman likes to chase his tail by issuing meaningless drivel whose sole
purpose appears to be to draw attention to himself. My best guess is that
he is an obsessive narcissist who never developed beyond an early-teenage
emotional stage. As I subsequently observed, he confounds illusory threats
with real ones, which I have documented with the articles I have linked.

I don't claim my work is flawless. The article I mention, "Thinking about
'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", for example, was written in 2005 and
a more sophisticated analysis of the destruction of the Twin Towers is now
available along the lines indicated in one of the links I cited. While I
was concerned here to explain what DIDN'T HAPPEN at the Pentagon, I have
not been surprised by a number of sympathetic critics pursuing that issue.

My belief that an A-3 Skywarrior may have been used was strongly affected
by the paper by Dewdney & Longspaugh cited in note 45. They conducted an
analysis of the damage to the Pentagon and concluded that it was incompatible
with a large plane, like a 757, but compatible with a smaller plane, such as
an A-3. I have yet to learn that their study is flawed, but it might be.

Moreover, the one frame the Pentagon released that shows the image of a
plane--the basis for Figure 3--requires explanation. Several pilots and
aeronautical engineers have told me that the while plume cannot be from
jet exhaust but is more likely from a missile being fired prior to impact
with the building.

When you take the air traffic controllers' reports--that they thought it
was a military (fighter) plane and not a commercial carrier--together with
Norman Mineta's report of the aide informing Dick Cheney of the approach of
a plane ("It's fifty miles out.", "It's forty miles out", and all that), it
has seemed plausible to infer that a small military jet was involved here.

Moreover, although I may not have spelled it out in that paper, I suppose
it was traveling much slower than the official speed of some 500 mph. If
you think about it, a plane traveling that fast would cover 10 miles in a
little more than a minute, which would have that aide "in and out" like a
jack-in-the-box. It had to have been traveling much slower.

That is also the explanation I would offer for which it is at such a low
altitude. The "ground effect" for a plane traveling much slower is much
less. Not only that, but it is far less likely to damage the lawn, which,
as Figure 4 displays, was clear of debris and as smooth as a putting green.
That photo alone refute the official account of the impact of a 757.

Now maybe I am right and maybe I am wrong about that. But I am not wrong
in concluding that no 757 hit the building--although I also believe that
one flew toward it and then swerved away without any contact, which was a
diversion, in my view--and that the billowing black smoke was coming from
a series of enormous dumpsters.

But I can't abide attacks by egotistical assholes who think they have a
lock on research. This guy and his running mates are abusing the 9/11
movement by creating phony targets in an evident effort to create and
spread dissension in the 9/11 movement. For that they should be black-
balled and condemned. As I offer as Dick Eastman as a prime example.

Jim

Quoting [e-mail]:

Hi All

I note that I still do not exist in Fetzer-world. This means, of course, that Fetzer
does not have to address any of the points I raise let alone my overall hypothesis.
In particular, the smoke trail of a rocket motor...

But then again, Fetzer is in good company. I don't exist in a lot of people's worlds.
Hoffman, for just one example, too, serially blanks me out. Craig Ranke has tried to
take me on - in private (there is neither mention nor link to my article in his
published work) - but has been unable to produce any evidence or meaningful arguments
that would refute my hypothesis, as Ardeshir among others will attest.

Fetzer waffles well but I doubt would survive being taken to task about any of his
rather few particulars. Mostly it seems he tries on the one hand to play the authority
card while on the other he targets Dick's well-known excitability (which Dick has in
recent years admirably learned to contain) as 'evidence' that Dick is not credible.
But then Dick, too, noticed - and has like me tried to explain - the smoke trail of a
rocket motor...

All that is really happening is that Fetzer and Wood among others, along with the
board of BYU among others, are discrediting their respective universities and degrees. But
then again, since universities are nowadays all but owned by the banks one should
expect nothing else except their morphing into lie factories serving the god of money and
all his works.

Frankly, I think all one need know about Fetzer is that he is a former US Marine Corps
officer. In other words he used to work - and possibly still does - for the same people
who were behind 9/11; the Pentagon top brass and most of Washington DC up to and
including Richard Cheney.

P.

http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Eastman [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:05 AM

Subject: Jim Fetzer: Re Dick Eastman's report: What DIDN'T happen at the Pentagon.

I pass on this article by Jim Fetzer, forwarded by Leslie via Hanna. I have just skimmed
it. The photos he shows establish nothing. The jetliner -- NOT a 757 -- which he has
imposed on the security camera video is too small. The 757 is 155 ft. long, the
Pentagon is only 71 ft. high. Fetzer's plane is scaled at not more than 80 or 90 ft.

All I can say now is that Fetzer has omitted all of the conclusive lines of evidence and
replaced them with photos that establish nothing, that fail to show the critical damage
locations that make the case. And his assertions are not demonstrated by any of the
photos he provides -- a classic case of putting out bogus analysis.

I appreciate Hanna Jaeckel's comment. At least one person is not immediately taken in
by Fetzer 's and Reynold's misrepresentation of the quality and conclusiveness of the
Pentagon evidence.

I have no idea to what forum Fetzer has posted this reply -- he certainly never sent
me a copy or presented any opportunity to respond or even learn about his letter --
which I would like to respond to fully.

I will send my Pentagon evidence -- several indpendent lines of conclusive lines of
evidence ample for any impartial grand jury -- in eight parts. Of course there are
hundreds of lines of evidence that others have developed -- but these are the facts I
would use to establish that Flight 77 is not what damaged the Pentagon and killed
people working there.

Fetzer's address is [e-mail] -- ask him where I can send my review outlining
his errors and omissions.

Dick Eastman

Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: Re Dick Eastman's report: What DIDN'T happen at the Pentagon.
6/13/09 4:01 PM
Mail :: Inbox: Re: Jim Fetzer: Re Dick Eastman's report: What DIDN'T happen at the Pentagon.

I am not sure that I would take Fetzer's word for anything. I have a couple of year
long friends/connections online, who independently of each other have pointed out
discrepancies and dubious motives behind Fetzer's articles. Don't know what to make
of him - and at this point I have stopped reading anything he writes.
Maybe it is just me - or there's something ....

Hanna