Reverse Naudet

In the previous post I discussed the extreme unlikelihood that the “Naudet Brothers” would to happen to be in position to catch high quality video of the first “plane” hitting the Pentagon. This happened even as no other citizen of that great city managed to put their cell phone in the air and take even one bad photo of that event that day.

Now we need to take a look at the other side of that coin, the extreme set of circumstances where a building with a highly trained and professional security force and scores of cameras always operating … failed. This is as unlikely as the other event, so that I choose to call it the “Reverse Naudet Effect.” The Pentagon is protected by rings of redundant security, sophisticated anti-missile equipment, and cameras everywhere. The cameras operate 24/365, and are routinely inspected and tested to be sure they are working properly. The images they take are reviewed, catalogued and stored.

On 9/11 everything failed at once, except this:

I don’t mean to be rude, but I want to administer atrial fibrillation to the cranial area of the American public. I have to ask the question: People, what the hell is wrong with you?

10 thoughts on “Reverse Naudet

  1. FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. “It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why,” says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. “I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.” Kilsheimer’s eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: “I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?”


    1. Evidence after-the-fact, including testimony of people that is not substantiated by Independent corroboration of hard evidence and/or other witnesses, is low quality and should be greeted with high skepticsm. That is basic critical thinking.

      He cannot tell us he saw the marks or held the parts. He has to show us, and this has to be done in an adversial setting with cross examination.

      So, Swede, go get his photos, show us the markings, and the parts inside the building. (I’ve seen those photos, and they are not credible.)

      Otherwise, you’ve merely fallen for an appeal to authority, you big lovable galoot, you.


      1. “While composing their report, the 9/11 Commission was faced with the difficult decision of how to deal with these rumors. “We discussed the theories,” the commission’s executive director, Philip Zelikow, told the Washington Post. “When we wrote the report, we were also careful not to answer all the theories. It’s like playing Whack-A-Mole. You’re never going to whack them all. . . . The hardcore conspiracy theorists are totally committed. They’d have to repudiate much of their life identity in order not to accept some of that stuff. [They’re] not our worry. Our worry is when things become infectious, as happened with the [John F. Kennedy] assassination. Then this stuff can be deeply corrosive to public understanding.”-Weekly Standard


        1. Another appeal to authority, this time from a man who describes himself as an expert in the “creation and maintenance of public myths.”

          Swede, you are unable to deal with hard evidence, and instead go running to authority figures to make your case for you. That’s shoddy reasoning. I want evidence, not words. Evidence!

          This post presented a case where an extremely elaborate and redundant security system failed in total on 9/11/2001. That is extremely unlikely. Deal with that problem, if you can.


          1. I can show you by pure deductive reasoning that the official story is implausible. As to what did happen, I do not know. After all, I was not involved. Do you imagine that because we know the offical story is a lie, that we must be able to supply the real facts? That makes no sense!

            There is research going on, and theories exist, but I cannot vouch for them. You know how to google, Do your own reading.


          2. ‘There is an area of the mind that could be called unsane, beyond sanity, and yet not insane. Think of a circle with a fine split in it. At one end there’s insanity. You go around the circle to sanity, and on the other end of the circle, close to insanity, but not insanity, is unsanity.’


          3. Swede, again, the blind, unthinking and uncritical acceptance of government “truth” as the only thing you believe, done without skepticism and for the sake of patriotism or peace of mind or whatever, is neither a sign of intelligence or sanity.

            You are the one with the problem. You cannot deal with reason and evidence.


  2. Some dogs cannot be broken of the habit of rolling in horse shit. Nobody knows why they do it, they just do. Canines make great companions, but come with strange habits. Part off the cost of doing business. “Old dogs, new tricks?”


    1. Every time my dog came home with horse manure on her, I’d toss her in the bathtub and wash her down. Then I discovered that she really loved warm baths, and the soap and rubbing her down, and getting toweled afterwards, and the clean fur. I figured that she rolled in horse manure so she could come home and get pampered… her way of telling me she wanted some attention. She’d even jump in the bathtub. Maybe the horse manure was like a pre-conditioner, too.

      Damn dogs, they’re always looking for ways to teach us old humans new tricks.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s