A wakeup call for non-violent
New Blog! www.crookedshepherds.wordpress.com
New pentagon overflight evidence: www.thepentacon.com
Rebutting "Pentagon 9/11 Getting the Facts Straight" by Dennis Behreandt
by Richard Stanley and Jerry Russell 8/16/2004
"Pentagon 9/11 Getting the Facts Straight", by Dennis Behreandt, represents a full-scale frontal attack on the work of 9/11 researcher Thierry Meyssan (who is pressed into service as an exemplar of the many others who have also maintained that no jetliner struck the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. ) And we do not wish to defend everything that Meyssan has written; in fact we agree he has made many errors. But the core of Meyssan's work is not so easy to dismiss. This is the complete lack of tangible physical evidence (beyond that which could easily be planted) that a 757 was responsible for causing the damage to the Pentagon. In fact, we believe that a careful examination of the photographic record provides quite compelling evidence that this "757 attack" was a fraud. Behreandt's analysis relies heavily eyewitness testimony (which we will critique in more detail) -- but for something as substantial as a 100-ton airliner, we have every right to expect more than just hearsay doing overtime as conclusive proof, especially considering Behreandt's appeal to proper scientific practices. The rubble from Flight 77 should be on display in a museum (if indeed it exists), to put an end to the international controversy.
As documented by Meyssan in his books "9/11The Big Lie" and "Pentagate" -- on the morning of September 11, the earliest reports from the Pentagon disaster indicated that a helicopter explosion or some other indeterminate "attack" took place. The national news media, the White House and the military were unable to ascertain that it was an airliner that struck the Pentagon, until this was (curiously) personally attested to by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who walked from his office to the disaster on a fact-finding mission. ("Big Lie", pp. 13-14; "Pentagate", pp. 94-95).
On Sept. 12, the Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher said "there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing... we have... what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft." Reporters speculated that perhaps most of the plane had been consumed by fire.
Meanwhile, other reporters were out gathering eyewitness testimony, and found that many people saw a Boeing aircraft approaching the Pentagon on a flight path over Arlington Cemetery or its Naval Annex. However, initial reports from individuals very close to the crash were strange they spoke of "a shrill noise", an "airplane which seemed to be able to hold eight or twelve persons", "something that made the sound of a missile", "like a cruise missile with wings" . Behreandt claims that all such remarks were metaphorical, but actually some were quite explicit, while others were later harmonized with the official story by the witnesses -- but only at a later date.
As Meyssan and others began to raise questions on an international basis, more contradictions emerged, and the "official story" began to mutate. A few highly debatable debris photographs began to emerge, and Ed Plaugher completely reversed his earlier remarks, stating that beginning 35 to 40 minutes after the attack, he saw "pieces of the fuselage, the wings, the landing gear, pieces of the engine, seats. I can swear to you, it was a plane." Finally, the French agency Digipress stated that FBI authorities had told them (in Meyssan's words) that FBI agents "have recovered a large part of the debris, making possible a nearly complete reconstitution of the wreck of the Boeing", and FBI spokesman Chris Murray told the French paper Liberation that "The pieces of the plane are stocked in a warehouse and they are marked with the serial numbers of flight 77." Thus, to the international press, the FBI has effectively acknowledged that early reports that the plane was destroyed by fire, are impossible -- yet none of this "nearly complete reconstitution" has ever been seen anywhere in the American press, nor in any of the semi-official reports of the incident. ("Pentagate", p. 20).
If anyone is still claiming that the bulk of the plane was destroyed by fire, this can be refuted as follows using simple measurement from the available drawings and the approach trajectory claims of the official story, one has to acknowledge that the complete upper half or third of the fuselage aluminum had to end up on the expanse of the second floor where the vast bulk of this material would be effectively shielded from the resulting fireball, concrete being an excellent insulator to fire. So ....... where is it?
Following David Hackett Fischer, Behreandt accuses Meyssan of "the fallacy of the negative proof," noting that it would be a logical fallacy to assert that simply because no one has produced any tangible remains of the aircraft, therefore the aircraft did not exist. Although it seems absurd, we must agree that Behreandt is logically correct, and furthermore, perhaps our ever security-conscious government has carefully hidden all the evidence. But we also have the problem of the missing wings and tail. As Behreandt points out, the photographic images of the facade of the Pentagon make it quite clear that the wings and tail of the airplane did not penetrate into the building. So where did they go? The photographs show quite clearly that there are no wings, there is no tail, there is not even a significant amount of shrapnel or aluminum confetti. It is as if eyewitnesses claim to have seen a pink elephant in the living room, but photographs clearly show nothing but thin air. This is not an absence of evidence, this is clear evidence of absence.
In view of all these facts, Behreandt's only recourse is his appeal to Occam's razor, with his argument that the simplest explanation is still the best -- that Flight 77 must have hit the Pentagon, because there was extensive damage to the building, and because eyewitnesses saw Flight 77 on an approach to the Pentagon. Normally this would be very sensible, but Behreandt is forgetting the context. There is a broad spectrum of evidence indicating that 9/11 was an inside job, carried out to provide a pretext for an agenda of (arguably self-destructive) imperialist conquest of the Middle East, along with accelerated erosion of American civil liberties. It was a "black intelligence op," in other words, a scam implemented by a highly sophisticated team of magicians and liars. Their goal was to create an international media extravaganza, using the most economical means available. And our argument (which is perfectly harmonious with Occam's razor) holds that the perpetrators' simplest and most foolproof means to implement the hoax was to use inexpensive shaped charge explosives planted within the Pentagon, along with an over-flight of the Pentagon with a 757 jetliner, to create the illusion of a crash. This hypothesis is explored in more detail in our article "The Five-Sided Fantasy Island", available on the Internet at www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm .
If our account of the events of 9/11 is correct, we need to explain the phenomenon of the eyewitness testimony. In this case, the author of "Getting the Facts Straight" has first chosen to pull out of the hat, a recently ordained Opus Dei priest (formerly an attorney) whose credibility surely no one of good character can question. (See http://www.catholicherald.com/priests/mcgraw0607.htm ) But, instead of accepting the good priest's story on mere faith, let's be a little more... scientific, and analyze his account more closely.
"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.
Hmmm, I guess Flight 77 was moving faster than the speed of sound. Also, no description of any 500 mph induced wake turbulence, so maybe he is attempting to bolster Frank Probst's account. After all, have you ever stood 20 feet underneath a speeding airliner? Maybe it's not all that big a deal.
Father McGraw, parochial vicar of St. Anthony of Padua Parish in Falls Church, who was ordained three months ago, was heading to a graveside service at Arlington Cemetery when he took the Pentagon exit by mistake. Father McGraw said he was sitting in slow-moving traffic in the left lane of Rt. 27 around 935 a.m. when "without warning a plane passed 20 feet over the cars, clipping a light pole," before plowing into the Pentagon.
So one wonders just how the 'secular' Opus Dei father happened to determine exactly what it was that was flying over his head and whether it was this indeed that impacted the building, or whether it was a diversion plane (as suggested initially by researcher Dick Eastman.) I don't know about him, but having an airliner screaming 20 feet over my head would be somewhat disorienting to say the least. And what would be the time period that he would have to make an identification of the plane and be sure that it actually hit the building, even if he can be trusted to tell the truth of what he saw? The government claims the plane was moving about 400 (or 500) mph, and of course, we are told (according to some accounts) that the plane was diving and pulled out just at the last moment as well.
But perhaps only "conspiracy theorists" would seriously question Father McGraw's testimony. After all, even the FBI didn't suspect good Opus Dei operative Robert Hanssen of spying for years, most likely because he was such good friends and parish members with fellow Opus Dei member Louis Freeh, the then Director of the FBI.
Another witness in Behreandt's case is Frank Probst. His account is corroborated by Don Mason's testimony http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf (ASCE report - see page 13). It all seems quite plausible, excluding of course Probst's astounding maintenance of his visual acuity not to mention his life from the wind vortex necessarily generated by the alleged high speed airliner (did you say 500 mph?). In this case, Probst claims that the plane just missed him by a few feet and yet he was able to dive to the ground after seeing it approach him, turn and be able to precisely view both engines strike objects in front of the building. Wow, this is the kind of guy the NFL needs for referees. No tossing and turning from the wake turbulence, no problems with wind and debris in his eyes, what a guy!!!!
Again, only real "conspiracy theorists" would notice or care about the fact that Probst and Mason were both government employees, working for the crew that was "renovating" the Pentagon. That couldn't possibly have had any effect on their testimony. Even though that testimony mutated substantially as time went on, as we document at our web page (http://www.911-strike.com/missing-confetti.htm ).
John Judge is continuing to push a claim that a woman witnesses's car was sliced and crushed by one landing gear of the plane. If so, this means all the other landing gear were deployed, and then where are the marks on the lawn for these? This since according to Probst, we know exactly where the port and starboard engines met their fates and can see these spots precisely in the 'post collapse' photographic evidence, like ever so convenient datum points from which to take measurements from. How considerate of the fanatic evil doers? And how did this woman survive such an impact, surely as miraculous as Probst's experience? But there are no divots from the landing gears in the lawn to be seen, and the official story says that the port engine hit the steam vent retaining wall corner. Thankfully, Behreandt has refrained from confusing the readers with the spurious claims from John Judge and his witnesses, but they are part of this same intellectual milieu, and thus we feel that they should at least be mentioned in passing.
Returning to the lineup of key star witnesses in favor of the "official story"
1. An 'unimpeachable' Opus Dei priest. Opus Dei is the Jesuit's lay governmental infiltration front group, the one that was portrayed as the Source of Evil in Dan Brown's novel "The DaVinci Code" (until, surprise surprise, at the end they were innocent dupes to the crimes.) My gosh we can't question a sacred man of the cloth can we?
2. Gary Bauer, an 'unimpeachable' radical right wing Christian evangelical fundamentalist, no doubt another follower of the Futurist (The Rapture Cometh ... Soon, heh heh heh) School of the Apocalypse, another Jesuit religious innovation.
3. Paul Begala, for 'unimpeachable' political balance, so the public wont suspect there is strictly another 'vast right wing conspiracy', as opposed to the real globalist conspiracy.
4. Barbara Olsen, via her hubby Ted's not so consistent word on their final cell phone conversations. Ted, also the 'unimpeachable' Bush Solicitor General could not have any motive for deceiving us, could he? And, would Barbara lie after so patriotically spilling the beans on diabolically dialectic Hillary?
5. Two 'unimpeachable' Vietnam vets (Probst and Mason) working on a renovation program that we'll have to accept 'on faith' that it was legitimate and not a staged black magic show, yet Probst has his own miraculous outcome, complete with apparently invisible confetti.
6. A poor 'unimpeachable' woman that said her was car sliced in half by a speeding airliner's landing gear, and she lived to talk about it. If that's the case, what part of the plane was 20 feet above the good priest? Besides, we thought the landing gear was up.
7. The heliport fireman, who was able to identify the plane as a 757, dive under his fire truck, thus escape getting burnt by the fire ball which happened to discolor the facing wall of the fire truck garage.
Does anyone else suspect a stacked deck here? Aside from that, we are completely underwhelmed by the incredible variety of nonsense claims which can be readily found on the Internet (albeit culled from the mainstream media), including those of being able to see the desperate faces of the passengers looking out the plane's rear windows as it whizzed by at 500 mph. My, how the tear jerkers reel in the kinder and gentler credulous.
Besides his pedantic attempt at reviving the official story via the witnesses, there are several other problems with Behreandt's story
1. A mere assertion by the government and its own 911 Commission that there is 'official story' compliant radar data for Flight 77 (and the same for the WTC and Flight 93) doesn't make it so. If it exists, then the public should have access to it in some reasonable manner. If they had real data, then there can be no reason not to provide it at this point. There is no further investigative or prosecutorial reason for holding back, its suppression only fuels controversy. More likely, it simply doesn't exist.
2. The reliance upon Meyssan's missile scenario to 'disprove' all other alternative scenarios is cute. Meyssan's initial publications were followed quickly by a curious release of the Parking Lot Security camera frames alleging to show portions of the attack plane. The end result creating a dialectic red herring vortex of controversy, the result of which served to further muddy the waters and more importantly, add fuel to the fire that skeptics of the official story are typical 'conspiracy theory' kooks. Typical of a long standing campaign of using agent provocateurs, the controlled opposition, to poison the well of legitimate inquiry. Meyssan may have been a part of this disinformation campaign; or he may have been innocently sucked in by a variety of highly questionable indications, like many other researchers (perhaps even ourselves at times).
Of course there are many such obviously specious, related claims, such as different means for delivering the DU based bunker busting warhead. One has to wonder why anyone would need a bunker buster to penetrate the Pentagon wall infill (consisting of two rows of red brick and 4 inches of limestone masonry, between reinforced concrete columns), combined with a rather wimpy configuration of newly added steel columns that served more to frame the new $10,000 a pop windows and at best prevent a vertical collapse rather than stop a 100 plus ton airliner from entering. All it took was a little searching to find that the design of the reinforcement was for relatively minor 'garden variety' blasts. The author of "Getting the Facts Straight" is either generous, gullible, or disingenuous in failing to discern for his readers that these tales are obviously red herrings, not mere delusions of ignoramuses. Some of the advocates of these tall tales are claiming to have advanced educational degrees in the sciences.
3. In view of all these complications which Behreandt should be well aware of, reliance upon Occam's razor in this manner is the sure sign of a charlatan. While the simplest solution may be desirable in many cases, this can never be a proof. In the case of the Pentagon and 9/11's wider sphere of circumstances and motivations, it is hilarious to believe that "Al Qaida" -- former (witting or unwitting?) intelligence assets of the USA -- boarded airliners, hijacked them, and in this case decided to crash the plane into the one location of the Pentagon that would leave the engine fingerprints of a 757 on the convenient stage of obstacles out in front. No other approach to the Pentagon afforded this capability, combined with being the renovated wedge where personnel had been relocated from for some time. Also this 'reinforced' wedge was just completed by a British contractor, whose men and equipment were just conveniently still 'Johnny on the spot' to handle the cleanup. Strangely, they had been contracted to only perform the reinforcements and renovation of the first wedge, the remainder going to another contractor. Or that months before 9/11, the military re-issued a strange, little-known administrative order (CJCSI 3610.01A) making all routine requests for domestic intercepts be routed directly across the desk of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld himself. While emergencies were still supposed to be handled in the usual direct manner, cutting across the hierarchy, apparently 9/11 was not considered an emergency. Rumsfeld's personal 9/11 timelines are now severely in question, as are the conflicting stories (from the original official story) from the 'unsworn' testimony of NORAD officers to the 9/11 Commission.
With this caution in mind, perhaps we should investigate Behreandt himself, or rather his affiliation with the New American, which is acknowledged as an official publication of the John Birch Society. While it may be the case that the Birch Society and the New American have published some excellent work from time to time, their involvement does raise some questions. Perhaps this is not the time or place to go into the sordid details of the history of the Birch Society, but we will provide an introduction for interested readers. At http://iresist.com/cbg/rockefeller.html, Eustice Mullins notes
The Rockefellers were also active on the "right-wing" front through their sponsorship of the John Birch Society . To enable Robert Welch, a 32nd degree Mason, to devote all of his time to the John Birch Society, Nelson Rockefeller purchased his family firm, the Welch Candy Company, from him at a handsome price. Welch chose the principal officers of the John Birch Society from his acquaintances at the Council On Foreign Relations . For years afterwards, American patriots were puzzled by the consistent inability of the John Birch Society to move forward on any of its well-advertised "anti-Communist" goals . The fact that the society had been setup at the behest of the backers of the world Communist revolution may have played some role in this development .
At http://alexconstantine.50megs.com/the_early_days.html, Alex Constantine further documents the Birch Society's early support from reactionary sources including oil billionaire HL Hunt and various members of the notorious National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), even as they claimed to see Corporatism as well as Communism as aspects of the Illuminati conspiracy. Funny, but Robert Anton Wilson came up with the suggestion that the alleged modern day Illuminati should have named themselves the JBS, since the JBS claims to hate the Illuminati so much, hence a perfect cover and ruse to attract dupes. Surely no one would ever be so Machiavellian to create such a hall of mirrors.