I've been working on other stuff, but given the publication of Landis' article at opednews i have taken the time to respond- lots of html links, including one to Landis' article
Rebuttal to "Corrections": Paul Landis Response to my 9/11 "Pentagon Hole" Psyop article http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did...
This is a rebuttal to "CORRECTIONS" by Paul Landis, which was a response to my article, the link to which is formatted incorrectly in Landis’ and is currently not working:
The link to my article was formatted incorrectly in Landis’, here it is: Is the 9/11 "Pentagon Hole" a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions?
Note: 9/11 has been used to undermine our Constitution, civil rights & liberties and terrorize dissenters, and to justify torture, illegal imperialist wars and the establishment of a domestic surveillance state. I advocate for full Congressional, criminal and international investigations of 9/11 and related events, with subpoena power and public hearings where evidence is presented and all “persons of interestâ€, including Bush and Cheney, are compelled to testify under oath. I also support all independent investigations aimed at uncovering the truth and leading to justice for the 9/11 victims, their families and all Americans and the people of the world.
Landis: “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?â€
See this: Pentagon Facade Damage Fits a 757 Also, A Boeing 757-200 has an empty weight of just over 64 tons, and a max take off weight of 127.5 tons. Aircraft Information - Boeing 757/767
According to what we’ve been told, 77 had 58 passengers and 6 crew- another 5 tons maybe, based on an average weight of 155 lbs? “Flight 77†was fueled for a cross country trip; max fuel capacity is 11,489 gallons, but some estimate it had 8600 gallons; this would’ve added 29-39 tons to the weight. In addition, if there were real passengers, there would’ve been luggage. Further, there may have been explosives on board. These added up indicate a weight of at least 100 tons.
There are some curious things about some of the passengers: September 25, 2001: Several 9/11 Passengers Have Possible Connections to Pilotless Aircraft Program
Landis: “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 Editionâ€. See notes 2 and 3†and “In fact there have been NO parts that have been identified as those of a 757.â€
Just because people put out a DVD, website or an article claiming the parts aren’t from a 757, doesn’t mean they aren’t; photos of parts represented as not being from a 757, are consistent with a 757: Specific Debris Matches a 757 and Loose Change, Final Cut has additional photos in it’s Pentagon section Landis: “If a 60 to 80 ton 757 had crashed through a Pentagon wall, it would be un-mistakableâ€
Like this? Pentagon Facade Damage Fits a 757
Landis: “and thousands of tons of jet fuel, in addition to contaminating the grounds, would have burned for hours, “9/11 in Plane Siteâ€.â€â€
Unless In Plane Site has been updated, Von Kleist claims he was told the fuel would’ve burned for “daysâ€
Photos of other crashes show that, counter-intuitively, some jet crashes leave seemingly little debris. Landis: “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.â€
I provided the photos for comparison; how can Landis possibly know what a jet liner crash into the Pentagon would look like, as it had never happened before?
Landis: “There are no reports of a 6 ton 757 engine having been found at the Pentagon.â€
Actually, some witnesses reported seeing what they thought were engines or parts of engines; starting on pg. 13: Burning Questions What Really Happened at the Pentagon on 9/11? Also, see the pics here: Specific Debris Matches a 757
Landis: “The downed lamp poles, as there is not evidence of a 757, are the result of other actions.â€
As I repeatedly noted in my article and here, there is evidence of a 757; the damage, debris- and the downed lamp poles and damage to the generator.
Landis: “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.†What “websiteâ€- the ones I linked in my “Pentagon Hole†Psyop article?
From my article: “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.â€
Sources here: The Pentagon Eyewitness Testimony
Detailed breakdown here- 100 saw the jet hit, people who thought the plane was smaller Witnesses described the plane hitting the Pentagon
Arabesque has admitted a couple corrections are needed; he’s also in the process of transcribing additional witness reports that have not made it into print before.
Landis: “It was like a cruise missile, it slammed into the Pentagon and there was this big explosionâ€, “9/11 in Plane Site†Landis doesn’t name the witness, but this sounds like a misconstruction of Mike Walter’s famous quote- here’s the correct version; "It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon," http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.ter...
In addition, Walter is one of the people who said he saw an American Airlines jet approach and hit the Pentagon; he recalls it being silver and seeing the big AA. Scroll down to Walter, links to originals are provided: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/03/pentagon-...
Landis: “Loose Change 2nd edition†has identified eyewitnesses who state they saw a missileâ€
I haven’t seen “2nd editionâ€; a missile? As those witnesses are no longer in Final Cut, I guess they no longer believe those witnesses are credible. Loose Change, Final Cut
Landis: “and named eyewitnesses who state they smelled ‘Cordite’, a military explosive.â€
Landis: “Larson also fails to consider that the explosion’s color is consistent with ‘Corditeâ€, an explosive, not with the color made by Jet fuel exploding in open air. Note 3â€
As I noted in my article and here, there may have been explosives on the plane, or pre-planted at the Pentagon.
Landis: “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 Pentagonâ€.†McIntyre never said , “NO 757 hit the Pentagon†and he was not a witness to the crash. Also, the context of McIntyre’s statement shows he was responding to a question about a witness report that the plane had crashed short of the Pentagon. He also says he saw plane parts- this is in your clip, as is Woodruff’s statement giving the correct context: "WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon. 

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building? 

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Also, preceding this exchange he said:
“A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.†http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn....
Landis: “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.â€
As we can see from Landis’ article and my response, he has not shown that anything other than a 757 hit the Pentagon, and he has not debunked the evidence that a 757 did hit. As I noted in my article, the reason tapes may not have been produced is because some people want to fuel speculation over what hit the Pentagon in order to distract from real questions- not because they don’t have photos and video.
Landis: “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.†And “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.â€
Given the errors and misquotations in Landis’ article, readers are likely going to be led to speculate about Landis’ motivations. If someone’s goal is “a real 9/11 Commissionâ€, why do they focus on evidence which is at best speculative and inconclusive, if not thoroughly debunked? Why does Landis give no credence to the omissions, contradictions, distortions and lies for which documentary evidence exists in the public record, that has been put out by the Bush Administration and various agencies? In addition to this evidence, there are thousands of credible media reports documenting the same, and exposing additional omissions, contradictions, distortions and lies. Check out the timelines made from this evidence, available here; names connected to names, dates, places and events: Complete 911 Timeline
A real 9/11 Commission would reveal who made the single $5 Billion purchase of US Treasury Notes early September 2001. A real 9/11 Commission would force the public disclosure of the 38+ SEC and FBI investigations into pre-9/11 suspected insider trading. It would address the 70% of the 9/11 families questions were ignored by the 9/11 Commission, as well as answer the hundreds raised since the 9/11 Commission. It would investigate the Commission itself for evidence of fraud, coverup and misuse/abuse of taxpayer funds.
How can Landis know it’s not a Psyop? Given the evidence presented in my article Is the 9/11 "Pentagon Hole" a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions? and Landis’ attempt and failure at rebutting it, are you, the reader, sure it’s not a psyop?