Nichelle Gau

Pseudo-Science Outline

October 18, 2009

Hunt the Boeing

CLAIM: A Boeing 757 American Airlines Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. “In reality a Boeing 757 was never found.” (Hunt the Boeing video)

Ethos: Appeals to character in several ways:- Quotes from eyewitnesses, they experienced it first-hand. -Air-Traffic Controllers: Knowledge of plane maneuverability on radar.-Flight School Instructors/Former employees: knowledge of flying plane and hijackers abilities.-Reporters and Journalists/CBS News/ National Geographic News: Supposed to be unbiased and ethical when reporting info.

Pathos: Appeal to viewers emotions mainly thru the music. The music sounds skeptical, leads people to believe or feel that something unexpected is going to happen. Lead you to believe that a shocking statement or event is about to happen in the video. Seems sci-fi in a way leading you to feel like it may be a conspiracy theory.

Another way that they appeal to emotions is the beginning of the video has a recording of Hitler giving one of his speeches. This is used to make people be skeptical of what the government tells you, and also provokes anger or distrust.

Values: People value truth/freedom: the video makes people feel that they are being lied to by the government and that the government is hiding evidence, and covering up what actually happened at the Pentagon.People want to know the truth: the video tells the viewers that the truth is in the video and the evidence within it, not what the official story is.

Explicit Reason 1: The damage done to the Pentagon and the remaining wreckage inside and outside of the impact zone is not consistent with the wreckage of a Boeing 757.

Evidence: --- Very small pieces of debris outside.- No large pieces seen in any of the photos shown.-“One thing that’s confusing- if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean the wings would have shorn off. And yet there’s apparently no evidence of the aircraft.” –Reporter, DoD Pentagon News Briefing

---The hole left by the plane is very small compared to what you would expect to see.-Picture evidence shows the roof intact as well as windows around the impact site.

the building. No tail. No wings. No nothing.” – Steve DeChiaro-“Buildings don’t eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground…Where are the parts?” –Skarlet (who is Skarlet?)-Punched neat holes in the wall of the C-Ring. -“Can a Boeing 757 punch neat holes through steel-rienforced concrete walls?” (HtB Text)

---Did not mess up the ground outside of the Pentagon.(HtB text) Airplane crashes mess up the ground Not at the Pentagon The Amazing Pentalawn. -The video shows pictures of other crash sites where there is significant damage done to the ground ( skid marks )at crash site. The pictures in the video of the Pentagon however show no such skid marks.-“Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building.” –CBS News-“It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question… It hit the ground.” –Tim Timmerman-these statements are proven wrong by the video’s pictures showing no skid marks that would make their statements true.

Implicit Reason 1: If the damage/wreckage is not consistent with that of a 757(which flight 77 was), then it could not have been/most likely was not a 757 that hit the Pentagon.Inconsistent damage proves a 757 was not what crashed into the Pentagon.

Evidence: Same as ER1 evidence. -no large hole in side of pentagon-no skid marks on the ground.-cannot see any of the plane in the building from outside.-“I didn’t see any evidence of the plane down there” –Terry Mitchell, Audiovisual Division ASD PA-Skid marks clearly seen in pictures of other crashes.-No large debris found.-“What happened to 60 tons of plane and 5,300 gallons of fuel.

LOGICAL FALLACIES: Correlation vs. Causation/Post hoc: Assuming a 757 would make a large hole in the side of a building but it did not. Assuming that the plane would not make a neat “punched out” hole.

Affirming the Consequent: Planes have large parts. Plane crashes have large debris. Plane crashed into the Pentagon. Pentagon should have large pieces of debris from Plane.

(However it does not.) Rebuttal: Lee Evey ran the billion dollar project to renovate[to reinforce] the Pentagon. He says that the steel matrix that supported and encased the windows, and provided tremendous additional strength to the wall, as well as the special cloth, the purpose of which is to catch fragments, should they splinter, is what allowed the third, fourth, and fifth floors to hold up for 35 minutes after the crash. The steel especially is responsible for holding up these floors. The new steel was melted away after the 35 minutes from the heat [of the fire]. (snopes.com)

Neatly punched hole is pictured and the question is asked: “Could a 757 punch neat holes in a wall?”This neatly punched hole was made by one of the engines. 12 foot hole through the wall of the

second ring. As noted by US Army Press release on September 26,2001.

Rebuilding effort shows that much more damage was done that needed to be repaired than what the pictures in the video indicate. (snopes.com)

No Lg. debris: a crash test of an F4 Phangom Jet Fighter, although smaller than a 757, into a 10 ft thick concrete block at 480mph was “reduced to confetti” leaving no large pieces behind.-Report by Sugano et al (can see these pictures) (9/11 Review)

Also on December 5th 2005, a E130 plane similar in size to a 757 crashed into an apartment building in Azari, Iran while attempting an emergency landing… photographs of the crash scene show no large pieces of aircraft debris here either. (9/11 Review)

The plane flew into the third ring, by penetrating into the interior it was not visible in photographs. The subsequent fire from the exploding jet fuel produced intense heat that burned up any identifiable pieces that could have been seen in photos taken from a few hundred feet away after the impact. (snopes.com)

The wings blackened sections on each side of the impact zone where they hit the building (clearly visible in photographic evidence not in the video) the wings were damaged by the fire. (snopes.com)

The impact point was obscured by the smoke and fire, and later by the collapse of the overhanging floors (snopes.com)

After reviewing the conditions of rebuttal I do not feel this is a valid argument.

Explicit Reason 2: The very first descriptions before the mind control machine had time to go into action –described something “like a missile or craft much smaller than a 757.-Comments on Pentagon Strike Quantum Future Group

…because testimonial eyewitness accounts report hearing and seeing something “like” a missile or smaller aircraft.

Evidence: - Steve Patterson quote: …commuter jet/high pitched squeal.- Washington Post-It just went “pfff”…quote. – John O’Keefe-“I heard a very loud very quick whooshing sound…I was convinced it was a missile. It came so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.” –Lon Rains-“It was like a WHOOSH whoosh then there was fire and smoke. Then I heard a second explosion.”- Kirk Milburn-“We heard what sounded like a missile.”-Tom Seibert-“It sounded like a missile.”-Michael DiPaula

Implicit Reason2: If witnesses heard what sounded like a missile and saw something smaller, then it could not have been a 757, because they sound different.757’s do not sound like missiles and 757’s are not smaller than 757’s.

Evidence: -“I heard a very loud very quick whooshing sound…I was convinced it was a missile. It came so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.” –Lon Rains-“It was like a WHOOSH whoosh then there was fire and smoke. Then I heard a second explosion.”- Kirk Milburn-“We heard what sounded like a missile.”-Tom Seibert-“It sounded like a missile.”-Michael DiPaula

Steve Patterson saw a commuter jet.

LOGICAL FALLACIES: Black/White: did not sound like an airplane so could not have been.Faulty analogy: Sounded “like” a missile does not mean that it was a missile,

none of the testimony says if they saw a plane but it sounded like a missile. Or if they saw a missile.

Failing Occam’s Razor: How many people have actually heard a missile.Unusual circumstances led to a situation most people have never experienced before.

Rebuttal: Most people have no first had experience with missiles and would not know what one sounded like.

Most people hear aircrafts when they are miles in the air, taking off, or landing. This situation was different the plane was very close to the ground going very fast, would not sound like one would expect and it wasn’t trying to land so it wasn’t slowing down changing the sound of the engines.

Other eyewitness testimony not given in the video say that they saw a large plane.-Pilot Tim Timmerman: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question. (snopes.com, Hunt the Boeing, 9/11 Review)-Albert Hemphill –From inside the naval annex: “…the aircraft, looking to be either a 757, or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex. (9-11 Review)-Madelyn Zakhem: “… she heard what she thought was a jet fighter directly overhead. It wasn’t. It was an Airliner… It was huge! It was silver. It was low—unbelievable! I could see the cockpit.(9-11 Review)

Quotes handpicked for the video, choose to show only one example of seeing he 757, and choose many more that said otherwise without including any to the contrary.

After reviewing the rebuttal I do not feel this is a valid argument.

Explicit Reason 3: ..because video evidence was confiscated by FBI and never released to the public.

Evidence: Sheraton National Hotel’s roof top camera’s video footage was confiscated. -“Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video.” –Bill Gertz, Washington TimesThe film has never been released. (HtB text).

Jose Velasquez gas station’s security cameras confiscated.-“Velasquez says the gas station’s security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact… “I’ve never seen what the pictures looked like” he said “the FBI was here within minutes and took the film.” –National Geographic News (HTB)The films have never been released.

The Virginia DOT has cameras that would have filmed the aircraft as it flew over Route 27. The films have never been released. (HTB)

The ASCE released five photographs taken approximately one second apart show the approaching aircraft. The first photograph captured an image of the aircraft (photo very poorly pixilated, distorted shapes, can’t really see what it is clearly). (HTB)

Implicit Reason 3: If the FBI is not releasing the video evidence, then they must be hiding the truth, that the 757 did not strike the Pentagon. Video evidence is suppressed because it proves a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

Evidence: “The films have not been released.” Is repeated 3 times in the video.The government does not want the public to know what is on the video.

The video that was released is of poor quality and very short.

LOGICAL FALLACIES: Argument from ignorance/non testable hypothesis: We don’t know what is on the tapes and cannot say for sure that they are hiding anything, it may be security reasons… cannot test the theory.Ad hominem: The government must be lying because they won’t let the public know what is on the tapes.Either/Or: the tapes do not show a 757 or they would release them to the public.

Rebuttal: Judicial Watch (judicialwatch.org) filed a Freedom of Information Act request and related lawsuit requesting the release of the video tapes. On September 15 2006 they released a video tape from the FBI that was taken from the GITCO Gas Station. The video depicting views from the stations 6 security cameras does not show the Pentagon attack(apparently they did not capture the attack), and can be viewed by the public on youtube at the website: http://youtube.com/watch?v2LJvFjsl6zk.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton: “…This video tape was the subject of intense public debate. Now that it has been released to the public, there is no reason for further speculation about what it does or does not show.”(judicialwatch.org)

At least one video has been released. Other videos are still being held by the FBI.

After reviewing the rebuttal information I do not believe it to be a valid argument however I personally would like to see what is on the other video’s not released.

Explicit Reason 4: Could not have been the hijacked 757 because the hijackers were incapable of flying.

Evidence: Flight 77 disappeared from radar 45 minutes before the Pentagon Strike.-The speed, the manuverablility… all thought it was a military… quote finish –Danielle O’Brien Dulles ATC-“FBI says Hani Hanjour flew flight 77 into the Pentagon.-airline training center : “He could not fly at all.” –Former employee Arizona Flight School.“They were clueless. It was obvious to me they weren’t going to make it as pilots”-Rick Garza, Flight Instructor

-Flying close to the ground. Incredible stunts made by the hijackers who could not fly? Imcompetent pilots.

Implicit Reason 4: If Hani was an incompetent pilot then he could not have possible flown the 757 into the Pentagon with such prescision. Incompetent pilots cannot hit a target with precision.

Evidence: Hit the Pentagon flying extremely low to the ground, flew over Route 27. Flew for 45 Minutes to the Pentagon off radar.

-Air traffic controller statements about manuverablility and speed. How much manuverablility can an incompetent pilot have?

-If clueless how did they navigate the 45 min and still find the Pentagon?

LOGICAL FALLACIES: Ad Hominem: Attack on Hani: incompetent, clueless.Argument from Authority: “…obvious to me … not going to make it as pilots. Supposed to trust his word.(Hani had a commercial pilot license.)Former Employee?????? Who is this what did they do, they could have been a janitor with all the info we were given about this person.Failing Occam’s Razor: You don’t have to know how to fly a plane (auto pilot) to crash it.

Rebuttal: Hanjour in 1997 after 3 months of flight training in AZ was able to obtain a private pilots license. Several months later he obtained his commercial pilots license issued by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). In April of 1999 he began a refresher course at Arizona Aviation. In 2001 he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at PAN AM International Flight Academy in Mesa AZ. His work was found to be well below standard (due to not having a large understanding of English a requirement for pilots) but he perservered and completed the initial training by March ‘01.(9-11myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts.)

FBI report “Summary of Penttbom Investigation” Feb. 29, 2004. Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor a Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach. The instructor thought [he] may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system of navigation. (9-11myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts.)

Several experienced pilots also agree that the hijackers (Hanjour included) did not need to have superior pilot skills to do what they did. Basically an elementary knowledge of planes navigational systems and autopilot is all they needed to hit their targets. This is proven by their gross overmanuvering in the sky before hitting their targets, and that they always intended to crash the planes.(9-11myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts.)

Expierienced pilot Giulio Benacchia says:”… it is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did. (911nttgs,cin/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts.)After reviewing the rebuttal info I do not feel this is a valid argument.

Works Cited:

9-11 Review A Resource for Understanding the 9/11/01 Attack. 27 August 2009. 15 October 2009. <http://911review.com/index.html>.

CITGO Gas Station Cameras Near Pentagon Evidently Did Not Capture Attack. 2004. Judicial Watch, Inc. 17 October 2009 <http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5965.shtml>.

Pentagon Strike. 12 October 2009 <http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main>.

Snopes.com Rumor Has It. Ed. Barbara and David P.Mikkelson. 2009. Urban Legends Reference Pages. 12 October 2009 <http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp >.

YouTube. 2009 YouTube, LLC. 17 October 2009<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk>.