"CORRECTIONS"

“CORRECTIONS”

By Paul J. Landis, July 26, 2008

The following content I have provided at the request of a friend to consider what, if any, validity is contained in the OpEd News article referenced below:
OpEdNews July 14, 2008
Is the 9/11 "Pentagon Hole" a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions?

by Erik Larson

Author Larson, states:

I wrote this article to point out the following: the evidence for “no 757” is at best inconclusive and speculative:

It's understandable some believe "no 757" hit the Pentagon due to the heavy promotion of that idea, but there's no actual evidence.

Since 9/11 happened, theories have been circulating on the internet, and by DVDs and books, that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. If all someone had to look at was certain DVDs, books and websites, it’s understandable why they might think a jumbo jet didn’t crash there; in certain photos, the “hole” appears to be too small to accommodate a 757, and there is not much debris visible in photos of the Pentagon taken soon after the attack.

Larson asks use to believe that ‘marketing efforts’ have deprived us of evidence that 757 hit the Pentagon? Is this true?

However, when one views other, less heavily marketed websites, and examines the available photos together,

it’s evident there’s an approximately 90’ gash along the first floor, with the fuselage-sized hole in the center on the second floor, and space for the engines to pass through. There are also photos of parts and debris that are consistent with an AA 757; landing gear, a wheel hub, an engine rotor, and aluminum aircraft skin- some even with the red and white paint that AA jets have on the fuselage. Available photos of the destruction, damage and debris in the interior appear consistent with damage that would be caused by a jet liner crashing through the building at over 500 mph and getting shredded in the process.

The reader is referred to the pictures provided with this article. These pictures have been available for at least 3 years. See Note 1

There is no evidence of any significant damage to any of the Pentagon floors. If a 60 to 80 Ton 757 hat hit the second floor, with no visible large entry holes, where is it?

There are No parts or debris consistent with a 157 foot long, with multi-6 ton engines 757 hitting the Pentagon. The parts found have been determined to not be those of a 757. “9/11 In Plane Site” and “Loose Change 2nd Edition”. See notes 2 and 3

If a 60 to 80 ton 757 had crashed through a Pentagon wall, it would be un-mistakable and thousands of tons of jet fuel, in addition to contaminating the grounds, would have burned for hours, “9/11 in Plane Site”.

Photos of other crashes show that, counter-intuitively, some jet crashes leave seemingly little debris.

Any circumstances where crashes may or may not leave seeming little debris do not account for no debris at the Pentagon consistent with a 757.

There is also damage at the scene consistent with witness reports of a jet liner; a damaged generator trailer some witnesses saw get hit by the right engine, and downed lamp poles consistent with the reported flight path and the wing span of a 757.

There are no reports of a 6 ton 757 engine having been found at the Pentagon. The downed lamp poles, as there is not evidence of a 757, are the result of other actions.

Larson writes:

A Plane Identified in the 9/11 Pentagon Security Video, shows what appears to be the exact form of a 757 partially obscured by the guard shack.

However, later in his article he states;

“So why, after being FOIA’d and sued, has the Pentagon only released 2 grainy videos in which it’s difficult to clearly see anything?”

Further, nearly all of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts on record are consistent with an AA 757 crashing into the Pentagon. While some who were farther away from the crash thought it was a smaller plane, no one who was close described it as anything other than a commercial passenger jet. Some said it sounded or acted like a missile, but NO ONE said they saw a missile. Many said it was an American Airlines (no one said it was another airline), many remembered the colors being silver, red and blue, many noticed the AA logos, many were even close enough to notice the flaps and the landing gear weren’t down- and at least 100 reported seeing it hit the Pentagon. NO ONE reported seeing the plane fly OVER the Pentagon.

This author, Paul Landis, viewed a web site of hundreds of supposed witnesses. Not one said that they saw a large plane. Most said they saw an explosion. A few said they saw a plane large enough to accommodate 6 to 8 passengers.

Witnesses in both “9/11 in Plane Site” and “Loose Change 2nd Edition” state they saw a small plane.

“It was like a cruise missile, it slammed into the Pentagon and there was this big explosion”, “9/11 in Plane Site”

“Loose Change 2nd edition” has identified eyewitnesses who state they saw a missile and named eyewitnesses who state they smelled ‘Cordite’, a military explosive.

Lawson has failed to provide statements made in both “9/11 in Plane Site” and “Loose Change 2nd Edition”: that the photos of the explosion do not show that they were made by a 757. This author has written that the depth, distance of explosion from Pentagon wall, would leave about 120 of a 157 foot 757 showing if in fact a 757 had caused the explosion.

Larson also fails to consider that the explosion’s color is consistent with ‘Cordite”, an explosive, not with the color made by Jet fuel exploding in open air. Note 3

Larson has also neglected to identify at least one key witness: CNN.

In a VHS tape made live on the morning of September 11, 2001, now available as a video clip at www.youtube.com/paullandis, the CNN reporter, Jamie Mcintryre states with 100% certainty, “NO 757 hit the Pentagon”.

Larson also has failed to consider eyewitnesses as my neighbor’s wife: “I was watching the news and remember, told you there was no 757 at the Pentagon based upon the TV news pictures I was watching. By that afternoon, they were no longer being shown.”

As this author, Paul Landis, has stated, “the news was sterilized to protect the Media fairy Tale of Bush and Cheney and the Official Story. It was hidden behind “the New Iron Curtain Around the USA, a Media Iron Curtain” See note 4

Loose Change, one of the most widely-viewed full-length internet films of all time, made much of the “no 757” claim in its 1st and 2nd editions- Loose Change, Final Cut the 3rd edition acknowledges some of the reasons many people who question the Official Conspiracy Theory about 9/11 do think a 757 hit the Pentagon- the damage path and eyewitnesses, for instance. However, Final Cut still incorrectly implies the damage to the Pentagon and “lack of large structural debris” outside is not consistent with a 757 hitting the building. It correctly points out that no part has been positively identified as being from Flight 77, but as you can see from my links above, parts have been identified as being from a 757.

Persons choosing to question the evidence that no 757 hit the Pentagon due to the damage path and eyewitnesses, are free to do so. Given the evidence of photos that are available for their review, and statements as referenced above about a missile and ‘cordite’, they are urged to consider the Evidence and “Render their own Decision”.

Again: but as you can see from my links above, parts have been identified as being from a 757.

In fact there have been NO parts that have been identified as those of a 757.

Larson asks:

So why, after being FOIA’d and sued, has the Pentagon only released 2 grainy videos in which it’s difficult to clearly see anything?

Why would they want to fuel speculation and controversy; aren’t they concerned about truth and their public image?

The answer is: Persons yet unidentified in the Pentagon participated in the lie that a 757 hit the Pentagon. They are unable to produce a photo of the 757 hitting the Pentagon because a 757 did Not hit the Pentagon.

In conclusion: the available evidence indicates a 757 crashed at the Pentagon; not a missile, Global Hawk or anything else.

Unfortunately, the conclusions Mr. Larson have reached are flawed and incorrect as his evidence is flawed and incorrect.

I will leave it to you, the reader to consider what motivations, other than a tragic desire to hide the truth and protect the official story, has prompted Mr. Larson to expose those still grieving to his factual fairy tale and to painfully remind those still grieving and suffering of the reality that a substantive 9/11 investigation has not taken place. We are all also confronted with Congressional negligence to demand an full accounting of the true events of September 11, 2001.

Mr. Larson need also remember, both Bush and Cheney asked then Senator Daschle to “Limit 9/11 investigations”. See note 5

Finally, “Is the 9/11 "Pentagon Hole" a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions?”

No! For those willing to, however painful, objectively look at the evidence, the 9/11 Pentagon Hole is the key to the significant distortion, lies and murder involved with the tragic events of September 11, 2001. It is Mr. Lawson who has allowed himself to be distracted from the truth.

Notes:

(1) Special Report I www.wethepeoplewethemedia.com/areal911commission.htm#f

(2) “9/11 In Plane Site”, www.911inplanesite.com

(3) “Loose change 2nd Edition”, www.loosechange911.com

(4) “A new Iron Curtain Around the USA, A Media Iron Curtain”,

click here

(5) “Bush - and Cheney - ask Daschle to limit 9-11 investigations!!”

www.wethepeoplewethemedia.com/limit.htm

“A Real 9.11 Commission”

www.wethepeoplewethemedia.com/areal911commission.htm

Original OPED News article:

click here