9/11 and Fake Debunkings

This page: http://www.ifacts.typepad.com
uses some very shoddy techniques to attack Mr. Dick Eastman, Gerald Holmgren and myself.

My initial reply is below. The quoted portions are from the typepad page.

"Why is this important? For one, it says that the government did not make any claims about exactly what the photos showed. This salient fact is key: there is no government statement claiming that the photo shows a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.

In fact, it is only conspiracy theorists like Dick Eastman who claim that sequence of photos is supposed to show a 757 hitting the Pentagon. "

Well, at least this guy agrees that the sequence doesn't show a 757. Which is what Mr. Eastman and I have both maintained for years...and you people have claimed was false.

"Remember, only he is claiming that a 757 is "supposed" to be seen in the photos."

CNN.com - Images show September 11 Pentagon crash - March 8, 2002
... September 11 airliner attack on the Pentagon. CNN's Jamie McIntyre reports (March
7). Play video ... Search. CNN.com, CNNSI.com, CNNmoney.com, The Web ...
www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/ - 29k - Mar 25, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

Funny, CNN claims that it shows a 757 hitting the Pentagon. So does the ASCE report.

"Clearly? Eastman's statement is actually an assertion. There is contrary photographic and eyewitness evidence showing that the starboard wing hit the end of a heavy diesel generator and knocked it toward the Pentagon, leaving it at a 45 degree angle from its original position. There is eyewitness testimony stating that this happened as the starboard engine hit a concrete wall before actually hitting the building itself:

"The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer "like butter," Probst said. The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart."

There are so many contradictory claims being made about the nebulous right engine, I could probably find five different, contradictory claims. For example:

"Chief Master Sergeant John Monaccio, the senior Air Force enlisted police officer for the Air Force was in the Pentagon on Sept 11th, in room 1B461 and some of his quotes 1: "The answer is that the plane did damage the rest of the building, it just didn't cause it to collapse. The plane hit at a 45% angle to the face of the building. An impact hole was clearly made (reference the web site photos), and the aircraft and wreckage continued some 240' through the rings of the building coming to rest in A&E Drive. The engines were buried inside the building and they took many of the support columns out that resulted in the eventual collapse of the E-Ring (in conjunction with the fires). The entirety of the E, D, & C rings were demolished as a result of the blast effect from the plane. 2: You can see from the pictures I posted that the plane did just crash into the front of the building. There are corresponding holes in the building to meet the fuselage and a limited portion of the wings and tails section. The plane did not strike the ground first, it hit right below the second floor of the E-Ring. 3: There was wing damage, but remember the plane's wings are 1/8" aluminum against solid granite. The wings disintegrated and spewed small parts and pieces across some 800 feet by 300+ feet of area to the front of the building. If you look closely at the pictures I posted, you'll see an impact hole that basically accounts for the fuselage and to width of where the engines were on the wings."

So far, this "debunker" has blatantly lied about the footage, and cherry-picked one quote regarding the engine and claimed it was gospel truth. This is the same engine that Andy Carol and others claimed FLEW OVER the Pentagon.

And this is the entire crux of the argument on that page, aside from the attempt to link Pentagon skeptics to the holocaust denial movement