28 February 2005: Counter-rebuttal to Russell and Stanley

Jerry Russell and Richard Stanley have posted a rebuttal to my commentary from Feb 24:

http://www.911-strike.com/PlaneBomb.htm#Salter

(Russell and Stanley argue for a 757 "overflight", in which a 757 made a close fly-by of the Pentagon which was syncronized with an explosive demolition, creating the illusion of a crash, followed by the getaway of the 757 which flew over the Pentagon at low altitude and supposedly escaped away -- somewhere -- without anyone noticing).

My comments follow. They begin:

"Brian, that was certainly not our intention [i.e. portraying 9/11 activists as 'hateful maniacs '].Ý But we agree, this issue needs to be treated with sobriety and sensitivity.Ý So we've edited our article, and eyewitness commentaries, and tried to remove possibly flippant or ad hominem attacks. We haven't heard from any offended eyewitnesses, but if any of them did take offense, we most sincerely apologize.Ý We specifically feel sorry about our remarks about Skarlet, which were completely uncalled for."

I am glad to hear this belated acknowledgement of the need for sobriety and sensitivity, and the changes are at least an improvement. However I'd also point out that with the most extreme overstatements removed or changed, it is all the more clear that the conclusion of a general unreliability of the eyewitnesses is not supported, and that is still the crucial matter.

"However, we ultimately cannot accede to the demand that we drop the discussion about the eyewitness testimony for fear of causing emotional distress to the Pentagon victims."Ý

I made no "demands" but only expressed nothing more than my frank opinion and observations about the way these ideas are affecting the cause of 9/11 skepticism, and based on the interview with Mike Walter which I excerpted, it seems that at least some of the victims are dealing with admirable patience and acceptance in the face of attempts to discredit their testimony. So they don't need my help and I'm not condescending to them. My point was instead that these areas of speculation threaten to create a very negative perception of 9/11 skeptics, and are a venture onto very thin ice which so far has come up empty-handed in terms of any conclusive and convincing findings.

There is every reason to scrutinize the witnesses, and there are any number of reasons to do so other than a narrow obsession with the no-757 hypothesis. But any final conclusions rejecting their testimony must be really iron-clad. Alleging witness tampering in what is very obviously an agenda-driven search for a pretext to keep the no-757 school of thought above the waterline, is a sensational, playing-with-fire risk no matter how subtly one crafts the rhetoric and delivery. I'm just going to call that one the way I see it. And the "overflight" theory only serves to sideline and distract the debate away from the REAL smoking guns against the official story, especially the illogical low and difficult attack path and illogical choice of target point for a "terrorist" operation, and flailing attempts to neuter all the eyewitness testimony only make matters worse.

"Last time we checked, Salter's website was still carrying articles endorsing the theories that demolition charges were used to bring down the WTC towers and Building 7.Ý Salter doesn't seem to believe thatÝ the 911 attack planes were piloted by Arab terrorists working for Bin Laden.Ý And, if (as Salter seems to agree) there were bombs planted inside the Pentagon, how does Salter suppose they got there? Was this just a tiny little conspiracy? Nobody in the government had to tell any lies to make all those things happen?"

I can't take this attitude seriously -- planting bombs inside the building would take a much smaller and more believable conspiracy than trying to coach, plant, and/or mind-control many of the witnesses around the area, as Russell and Stanley imply. Not to mention the extreme difficulty of having an overflight of a 757 somehow escape away from the Pentagon at low altitude without anyone taking note of it (there are no witnesses for this). A "plane bomb" scenario would be an even more elegant solution. Simply put, this is all about Occam's Razor. IF certain eyewitness testimony and possible physical anomalies stand up as evidence for the use of explosives, which is unaccounted for in the official story, then a "plane bomb" scenario is far and away the most logical explanation, both through a deductive analysis of the logistics and planning considerations of the operation, and an inductive analysis of all the physical evidence. If the evidence for explosives can be explained away, then the most logical explanation of all the remaining evidence is the crash of a 757 into the Pentagon (but possibly not Flight 77, as I have noted before).

"If Salter really wants to avoid anyone getting the impression that he is being disrespectful of this American republic, we think it would be much more logical for him to just blame the Arabs for everything.ÝÝ That way, he can be sure that no innocent people (or at least, no innocent Americans) will be accused of doing anything wrong."

This is a laughable and shameless cheap-shot.

"But on the other hand, we doubt that Salter's efforts will accomplish the goal of making 911 skepticism more acceptable to the mainstream.Ý Does Salter really believe that if only the few remaining no-planers would pull down their websites,Ý then the media will suddenly announce that the 911 skeptics are right about everything else they've been saying?"

Far from it, it is because I now recognize that the Pentagon no-planers are for the most part too stubborn and proud to admit the weaknesses in their position, that it is a pointless waste of time to argue for any repudiation of it. There is nothing to do at this point but for those who have disagreements to be as loud and aggressive as is necessary to let the public know that the no-757 Pentagon theories do not represent the heart and soul of 9/11 activism, as has been portrayed in the mass media (and such portrayals have gone unchallenged by these no-plane advocates), nor even a secondary point of broad consensus.

Russell and Stanley are particularly inarticulate in answering my criticism of the fact that the no-757 claims require the assumption of an unnecessarily large conspiracy, and that this plays into the hands of the debunkers:

"Salter says "the image of huge, sprawling, and arbitrarily complex conspiracies is exactly what debunkers like David Corn cite in order to claim that a 9/11 inside job could never happen and that 9/11 skeptics are out of bounds."Ý We wonder if David Corn is going to call Salter, to thank him for explaining that a 911 conspiracy was really not as impossible as he's been saying?Ý Now that Salter has satisfied himself that a 757 hit the Pentagon, and he's reassured himselfÝ that the eyewitnesses are perfectly reliable, the rest of 911 skepticism is going to resonate completely with Corn's world view?"

No, actually it is the no-757 school which already resonates with Corn's world view, allowing him and others to portray 9/11 skeptics in light of their nasty stereotypes about pathological "conspiracy theorists" and so forth.Ý As I noted, the media's Corns, Berlets, Posners, etc., have flocked to the "no 757 hit the Pentagon" fracas like starving vultures. They love drawing attention to this, and juxtaposing it with the really solid forensic evidence issues, like the WTC collapses in order to smear by association. This not my opinion, and I'm not trying to dictate what 9/11 activists should do. I'm just stating the facts of our situation, and observing objectively the tactics used by our opponents.

"We're sorry, Brian, but we think you're overrating the importance of this Pentagon debate."

There is no "rating", either under- or over- on my part. I would much rather ignore this crap. It is the mass media debunkers and attack artists who have made this aspect of the Pentagon debate more important than it ever should have been, and I'm trying to help correct that.

"There is also the problem that Salter has seriously misinterpreted our arguments. While he states that our position is that "Everyone in uniform is an 'insider' who can be casually discredited as anyone sees fit, right?", actually we are saying that the ones who specifically and demonstrably are "insiders" are the ones who are especially deserving of special scrutiny."

This is a fair point, and one on which I did not make adequate distinctions. However, from what I've seen, their piece has been used as a supposedly compelling rejection of the eyewitnesses in general. In almost all of the cases in which I have seen it referenced or forwarded, this has been the context. I will try to make finer distinctions on these sort of points in the future, but I still stand by my position that the underlying motivation is clearly to reject the credibility of the eyewitnesses to a 757 collision with the Pentagon, and any amount of conciliatory rhetoric, as Russell and Stanley have adopted, does not change the fact that in practical terms, this conclusion cannot be reached based on the available evidence without an aggressive underlying bias. In softening various statements from their previous version, Russell and Stanley admit that this bias exists.

"Our statistical argument is a little more sophisticated than Salter is giving us credit for. What we actually found is that military personnel as a whole are only slightly different from the general population of witnesses, in terms of giving testimony that is either highly ambiguous, or specifically supportive of our overflight and "full demolition" analysis."

I find these claims outrageous -- not only is the testimony actually quite consistent overall in supporting the collision of a 757, but there is really nothing at all "specifically supportive" of the "overflight" scenario. This brings to mind the old Sherlock Holmes story whose vital clue was a dog that did not bark. And I have heard no logical reason why anyone would plan an overflight as part of this covert op. What was the drawback of actually crashing a plane into the building as opposed to the literally absurd, comically absurd risks of attempting some kind of Doug Henning-esque giant magic show? For what?

"There is a much higher correlation between testimony we find highly spurious, and actual "insider" status as we defined it. ... We also made the point that one reason for the high percentage of military and journalistic personnel in the eyewitnesses, is because the location was at the Pentagon. It's not like we didn't think of that possibility."

Fair enough, this is correct.

"But we also showed a correlation between "elite insider" status, and a high level of discrepancies in the eyewitness statements.Ý We think that's a core finding."

I don't think that the criteria for "elite insider" in the case of the military witnesses is well justified. Nor do I think there is a "high level" of discrepancies. Again, these sweeping statements just don't fit the evidence.

"If there is ever going to be a real investigation into this case, it should be the easiest thing in the world to establish whether there was a 757 at the Pentagon. They can just show us the warehouse full of aircraft parts. If that ever happens, we will redouble our sincerest, most heartfelt apologies to the eyewitnesses."

First of all, this disclosure of evidence is not going to happen any time soon, given that the no-757 distractions have already undermined the credibility of skeptical inquiries and thus undermined a lot of political potential. Furthermore, if there is an insinuation here that the lack of disclosure of the wreckage somehow specifically supports the no-757 claim, this is false. There are other likely possible reasons, such as: A) the wreckage might reveal that there were explosives in the plane or in the building. B) the wreckage might reveal that this 757 was not actually Flight 77 (a possibility raised by those who have researched the evidence for a switching of planes during secret live "hijacking" drills being run on 9/11). or even C) the non-disclosure of wreckage is like the dubious security camera frames, a deliberate ploy to encourage runaway speculation that distracts from the more solid anomalies at the Pentagon that are already hiding in plain sight.

"In the meanwhile, we continue to believe that the 911 skeptic community should simply present whatever evidence actually exists, as accurately as possible, and let the public reach their own conclusions."

I have no argument with this. And I think those who feel that "no 757 hit the Pentagon" is an unsupported claim that has done more harm than good to the cause of 9/11 truth, as I have decided over recent months, should be quite assertive in making this view known, in order to apply a corrective to the public's already skewed view of 9/11 skepticism.

"We continue to believe that the eyewitness accounts lack credibility..."

Again, this is a sweeping statement that just shows that my accusations of bias are justified, and in general I stand by them. To repeat myself, an attempt to create a pretext to profoundly deprecate the entire body of eyewitness testimony, which strongly supports the collision of a 757, must be basically all-or-nothing.

"Furthermore, we don't agree that there is any viability in the "Plane Bomb" theories. The latest variant proposed by Salter (explosives inside the building) is perhaps the most plausible, but it doesn't account for the peculiar pattern of damage to the facade (including explosive splatters) nor does it account for eyewitness descriptions of fires and explosions in the trailers in front of the buildings."

I find this far-fetched. I haven't read any accounts of the fire or damage which couldn't be explained by some type of "plane bomb" or "plane + demolition" scenario, and I would like to hear the testimony of someone trained in firefighting as concerns the fires and explosions. As for what makes the eyewitness accounts of these secondary fires and explosions solid and trustworthy, but their equally emphatic recollections of the 757 plowing into the building somehow lightly dismissable, I won't attempt to sort out. As for the damage to the building, I remain firmly convinced that it corresponds well with a 757 impact in size and scope, based on the research of Jim Hoffman, JP Desmoulins, Eric Bart, Russell Pickering, and Joël van der Reijden, among others.

"So we are going to continue to stand by our position. There is also a risk that the skeptic movement will be hurt and divided by undercutting the reasonable position of the "no plane" advocates, who continue to be a significant portion of the movement even as they take the brunt of the attack by the mainstream media.Ý"

And I'll continue to stand by my position, because it is the 9/11 Truth Movement as a whole which is taking the brunt of abuse from the media that has been invited by too many sketchy and unwarranted "theories" which hand easily targeted straw men to the professional debunkers.

As an example of what I find disagreeable in Russell and Stanley's analysis of the raw eyewitness testimony, I will look at their treatment of Frank Probst. The following is a summary of Probst's testimony from the ASCE Report.

"On January 8, 2002, BPS team leader Paul Mlakar interviewed three eyewitnesses-two of whom witnessed the impact of the aircraft and one of whom witnessed the subsequent partial collapse of the building. All three are professional staff members of the Pentagon Renovation Program Office and collectively provide a coherent and credible account of the events.

"Frank Probst, 58, is a West Point graduate, decorated Vietnam veteran, and retired army lieutenant colonel who has worked for the Pentagon Renovation Program Office on information management and telecommunications since 1995. At approximately 9:30 A.M. on September 11 he left the Wedge 1 construction site trailer, where he had been watching live television coverage of the second plane strike into the World Trade Center towers.Ý He began walking to the Modular Office Compound, which is located beyond the extreme north end of the Pentagon North Parking Lot, for a meeting at 10 A.M.Ý As he approached the heliport (figure 3.2) he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him. According to the Arlington County after-action report (Arlington County, 2002), this occurred at 938 a.m. The aircraft pulled up, seemingly aiming for the first floor of the building, and leveled off. Probst hit the ground and observed the right wing tip pass through the portable 750 kW generator that provides backup power to Wedge 1.The right engine took out the chainlink fence and posts surrounding the generator. The left engine struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entered the building. As the fireball from the crash moved toward him, Probst ran toward the South Parking Lot and recalls falling down twice. Fine pieces of wing debris floated down about him. The diesel fuel for the portable generator ignited while he was running." [http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf ]

Based on this and other earlier media articles quoting Probst, Russell and Stanley offer their analysis:

"Evaluating this testimony, we begin by noting that in the earlier accounts, Probst was standing on the sidewalk near highway 27.Ý However, in the ASCE version of events, he is portrayed as being close to the heliport.Ý There is no sidewalk from the construction trailers to the heliport, although there is a driveway that runs the length of the building directly in front which he could have been walking on and would have been more logical than going out to the sidewalk.Ý The sidewalk by Highway 27 where lightpoles were being knocked down, is several hundred feet away from the heliport.Ý If Probst were on his way to a meeting using any reasonably direct route, there would be no reason for him to be on the sidewalk by Highway 27.Ý It would have made much more sense for him to walk on pavement and grass near the heliport..."

There are several ridiculous leaps in this single paragraph. First, the ASCE report describes Probst as "approaching the heliport", not "at the heliport" or "close to the heliport". If he was taking the sidewalk from the construction area, then "As he approached the heliport" would be a perfectly fair, if vague, way of describing the fact that he was simply walking northward in the direction of the heliport -- which he what he said he was doing. As can be seen in aerial photos, the entrance to the construction area was fairly clearly at the south end of the fenced-off area (across the street from the south parking lot), as indicated by a small extra parking lot. This is also where the Route 27 sidewalk started. Furthermore, it would not make "much more sense" for him to have walked across the grass or through the heliport. Either route would have taken him through the construction area outside the building (not to mention having to jump the fence that surrounded it!!), and I don't imagine that pedestrian traffic is welcomed on and around the heliport to begin with. Simply put, there's no good reason to argue that he wasn't taking the most proper and logical route northwards away from his meeting: the Route 27 sidewalk.

Elsewhere, Russell and Stanley claim that it would have been impossible for Probst to have weathered the jet blast and turbulence of the 757 passing over him in any kind of condition to make accurate observations of the following events. But he stated clearly that he dove to the ground. He would have certainly have taken a good buffeting, but I have seen no rigorous anaysis showing that he couldn't have avoided being tossed about if he was hugging the ground. If the cars on the road, which offer a much larger surface area relative to their mass, were not seriously disturbed by the turbulence, then a person hugging the ground ought to fare alright as well.

In any case, Russell and Stanley claim that the ASCE report places Probst somewhere between the construction site and the heliport. This is mistaken, based only on a particular interpretation of the report's wording. There is no basis to argue that Probst is lying about his location, or even to believe that the writers of the ASCE report would attempt to misquote him in such a clumsy and obvious way. But Russell and Stanley previously felt they had enough basis to make comments like,

"...in the case of Probst at least, we feel quite comfortable arguing that he is simply and baldly a liar."

but in response to my criticism this has been changed to:

"So in the case of Probst at least, we feel quite comfortable with the possibility that he is mistaken, or giving misleading testimony, or that the accuracy of his perceptions was distorted by the forces of the aircraft passed by (on its way to overflying the building), or that he is being misquoted, and we don't feel any need to bend our account of events to fit his testimony."

This change is an improvement, but for the most part only in verbal rhetoric with little change in the underlying meaning and intent as I see it. Simply put, there really isn't any firm case to make to begin with that Probst's testimony is inconsistent or incompatible either internally or with other eyewitness testimony to the impact of the 757 on the Pentagon, even based on the compromise position that he is somehow disoriented or "mistaken". There is certainly reason to explore the possibility that someone in his position could be collaborating with the official coverup in some other way, but there just isn't adequate reason to conclude that he is lying or confused about any key points that are in question, especially given that his testimony corroborates and is corroborated by other eyewitnesses with similar reports.

Click the image below for a diagram of Probst's apparent location at the Pentagon, which I have put together based on some graphics that I took from pentagonresearch.com:

Unless some urgent correction or clarification needs to be made, I do not plan on spending much more effort on the no-757 Pentagon debate for the time being. I could spend time with detailed complaints about Russell and Stanley's claims about some other eyewitnesses, but I don't see the point. I am firmly convinced now that no-757 speculation is a dead end as things stand — and have stood for some time now — and simply needs to be put on ice. I feel that my harsh criticism of attempts thus far to discredit the Pentagon eyewitnesses is in general justified, and I continue to stand by it. These attempts have been so weak, and falling so short of compelling proof, that the amount of effort I have expended in critiques might really be excessive already.

(note: Dick Eastman is another Pentagon researcher who advocates an earlier variant of the "overflight" theory; he was perhaps the first with this type of speculation, but he includes a second small-plane attack where Russell and Stanley argue for a simple demolition. J.P. Desmoulins has commented upon the extreme unlikelihood of a quick escape and landing at the nearby Washington National Airport, which is a common speculation in "overflight" scenarios: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/npp-east.html)

(note #2: Russell and Stanley have in the past supported the eyewitness analysis of Gerard Holmgren. An example of the free ammunition that Holmgren's biased and sloppy work gives to "debunkers" can be found at the following page from Chip Berlet (search for 'Holmgren' to find the right spot): http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html)