Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
The 'No Planes' Hoaxes of 9/11: A Resource Guide
"When you have a sensitive topic here, when so much political power is involved, there's going to be a series of false reports, disinformation put forth to obscure the real story, red herrings to throw off the dogs. It happened in the JFK assassination, and it's happening now.
My quick analysis on how this is happening right now would be to point out two red herrings: The Pentagon Theory and the accusations of anti-Semitism. Paul Thompson of the 9/11 Timeline was on the Morning Sedition show and host Mark Marin dismissed the entire 9/11 Truth website by saying, "Oh, it’s one of those sites that say no plane hit the Pentagon." We're being judged by our weakest link. And it is pretty weak. You had rush hour traffic on I-395 that saw the plane hit, you have 100 eyewitnesses compiled in the pamphlet published by Penny Schoner. Where the hell did this theory come from? Thierry Meyssan’s book "The Horrible Fraud" was the original source. Meyssan wrote his book from Paris, he didn't travel over here. The book is highly imaginative, and in the middle of a trauma, people are searching for answers. A lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement glommed onto this one and I think it’s hurt our credibility over all. You have to wonder if that was by design. For instance, all the right-wing magazines (e.g. National Review) have had a field day. I've also seen media voices dismiss the entire topic of 9/11 questioning by sweeping it all into some kind of anti-Semitic whacko camp."
-- Sander Hicks
My quick analysis on how this is happening right now would be to point out two red herrings: The Pentagon Theory and the accusations of anti-Semitism. Paul Thompson of the 9/11 Timeline was on the Morning Sedition show and host Mark Marin dismissed the entire 9/11 Truth website by saying, "Oh, it’s one of those sites that say no plane hit the Pentagon." We're being judged by our weakest link. And it is pretty weak. You had rush hour traffic on I-395 that saw the plane hit, you have 100 eyewitnesses compiled in the pamphlet published by Penny Schoner. Where the hell did this theory come from? Thierry Meyssan’s book "The Horrible Fraud" was the original source. Meyssan wrote his book from Paris, he didn't travel over here. The book is highly imaginative, and in the middle of a trauma, people are searching for answers. A lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement glommed onto this one and I think it’s hurt our credibility over all. You have to wonder if that was by design. For instance, all the right-wing magazines (e.g. National Review) have had a field day. I've also seen media voices dismiss the entire topic of 9/11 questioning by sweeping it all into some kind of anti-Semitic whacko camp."
-- Sander Hicks
A quick quiz about the Pentagon attack on 9/11
What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?
a. Flight 77, an American Airlines 757
b. a uranium tipped cruise missile
c. a Global Hawk robot plane
d. a flying saucer piloted by giant lizards from another planet
What are the issues of complicity regarding the Pentagon attack?
a. how the plane was not intercepted, even after the towers had been hit
b. how the plane managed to hit the nearly empty part of the building
c. why the fighter planes scrambled from Norfolk flew over the ocean, away from DC
d. all of the above
What does the evidence from the Pentagon crash suggest?
a. the testimony from the eyewitnesses and the physical evidence are in agreement that Flight 77 hit the building
b. the eyewitnesses were confused about what they saw and are in contradiction to the physical evidence
c. the eyewitnesses were co-conspirators with Cheney and were deliberately lying
d. we have no idea what hit the building
Who first suggested that Flight 77 did not hit the building?
a. French author Thierry Meyssan and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in October 2001
b. eyewitnesses on Interstate 395 and Route 27
c. eyewitnesses who saw the missile from the Pentagon metro station
d. the eyewitnesses are all lying, anyway, and should be ignored
What happened to Flight 77's "black box" data recorder?
a. Newsweek reported in September 2001 that it was found in the rubble of the Pentagon, but we are not allowed to know what it recorded
b. it was in the rubble of the plane, shot down over Ohio
c. it is at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean
d. Flight 77 never existed
the correct answer is (a) except for question 2., which is (d) - all of the above.
-------------
Emanuel Sferios, SeptemberEleventh.org:
It took me a while, but it's now easy to see/understand. There *are* 757 plane parts in the photos, and the fire/impact area of the photos *is* the size of a 757. The reason there aren't any large, obvious pieces of 757 in the photos: planes flying that fast into large buildings get pretty shredded. (Nonetheless, there are clearly visible 757 parts in the photos.)
Also, you know that hole in the back wall of the Pentagon. Who was it that supposedly claimed that was from the "nose cone" of the plane? Did the government make that claim? I don't think so. Clearly that claim is false, and easily debunked. However, the counter-claim that it must therefore be from a missile is not the only other explanation. It very likely was a hole knocked out by the rescue workers, from the outside inward! The whole debate between "nose-cone versus missile" seems a big red-herring, part of the hoax to convince us (people inside the movement that is) that it was a missile.
Also, remember the five Pentagon security photos (the ones dated September 12), which when played in sequence looks clearly like a missile struck the Pentagon. Who released these photos? That's right. The Pentagon released them. Should make us think.
John Judge was right all along. I've finally come around, and I'm not that embarrassed about it having taken me this long, because, well, it was a damn good hoax--a professional job well done.
.... if you think that the "no plane at the Pentagon" claim, even if it is wrong, is harmless... or if you think perhaps even it is beneficial because it converts a lot of people into 9/11 skeptics (and it certianly does), please think again. John Judge and Mark Robinowitz and others are correct that its intention was to alienate people inside the beltway, and make us look foolish among D.C. professionals. It succeeded.
-------------
History of the "no planes on 9/11" hoaxes
Flight 77
crashed into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon
9:38 am
The "no Boeing hit the Pentagon" claim is the most important and widespread 9/11 hoax. It was probably set up before the event since seizing of surveillance camera videos within minutes of the crash. It is extremely unlikely that the conspirators who allowed (and assisted) 9/11 would not have taken care to create misdirecting hoaxes before the "attack," since they are very aware that large segments of the population would have suspicions about the events and therefore they would "need" to disrupt skeptical inquiry with red herrings, hoaxes, false dichotomies, etc.
This hoax is based on misrepresentation of photos taken shortly after the crash, ignoring of physical evidence and documented reports from hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane. There is NO credible, verifiable evidence in support of ANY of the many and varied "theories" pretending that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon, and therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. See http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html for details.
(continued)
-------------
Flight 11
crashed into North Tower
(first to be hit)
8:46 am
Due to the success of the "no plane at Pentagon" claim, several successor stories were created to deny the other crashes but none were as popular as the original hoax. The first of these was the idea that a plane did not really hit the North Tower, but was really a missile camoflaged by a King Kong sized hologram of a plane. This bizarre creation came from a website called "the webfairy," and took advantage of the fact that there is only one, low quality video publicly available of the North Tower attack. This hoax is easily disproved by the most obvious "physical evidence" - the hole in the side of the North tower was the size of a 767.
The "webfairy" campaign didn't fly and was of limited utility in discrediting the 9/11 truth movement. It is probable that this wasn't intended to attract supporters, but merely make 9/11 skeptics look silly.
The webfairy hoax is exhaustively debunked by this report:
The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html
(continued)
-------------
Flight 175
crashed into South Tower
9:03 am
The third "no plane" claim stated that the plane that hit the South Tower was swapped in mid-flight with military plane that crashed into the tower, carrying a "pod" under the plane that fired a missile at the building just before crashing into it.
The "pod" hoax seemed to have been test-marketed in 2003 on obscure websites in England and Spain. But the hoax got a much bigger promotional effort in mid-2004, shortly after the International Inquiry into 9/11 in San Francisco and as the "election" campaign entered full steam. A website called "letsroll911" started up with "new video footage" claiming to show a missile fired from the plane into the South Tower, but without presenting any documentation to prove that this footage was not merely manipulated with digital photographic software such as "Photoshop." Without any "chain of custody" this "evidence" is useless and irrelevant -- and any "new footage" magically appearing years after the event must be considered bogus until proven authentic.
One consequence of the staged timing of the tower attacks is that the second crash was seen and photographed by countless people from every possible perspective. If there had been a missile fired at the WTC, or an anamoly on the plane that suggested plane swapping, it would have been revealed shortly afterwards. (This is a reason why the "no plane hit the Pentagon" claims are not true -- too many people saw it happen to believe that it did not happene.)
While the footage of the "missile" looked fake, the "pod" claim was much more subtle. It was not added to the photos of Flight 175 -- it was merely a carefully chosen image of the normal "fairing" connecting the wing to the fuselage.
A film focused on the "pod" claim released in the summer of 2004 called "911: In Plane Site" tacitly admitted that the "pod" was really just a picture of the fairing. Shortly before its release, a participant in the "911 Truth Alliance" email list posted a photo of a 757 showing the bulge between the wing and fuselage, noting that the "pod" claim was not true. The producers of this movie chose the exact same photo (of all of the photos ever taken of Boeings) to use as part of a montage on the cover of their DVD. A bad joke "hidden in plain sight."
(continued)
-------------
Flight 93
crashed in Pennsylvania
10:06 am
The official story of Flight 93 is that the heroic passengers brought down the plane to spare the country the tragedy of a fourth attack, a tremendous sacrifice to save others. However, while it seems true that the passengers were revolting against their hijackers, the evidence shows that Flight 93 was actually shot down. Debris from the plane was spread out over 8 miles, which suggests major trauma to the plane while it was still in the air. Some media coverage of this crash in the first couple days strongly suggested a shoot-down, most of this is archived at the website http://www.flight93crash.com
It is probable that most citizens, regardless of their political philosophies, would have been able to accept the sad necessity to shoot down the fourth plane to avert a worse tragedy -- if the pilots were dead and the passengers doomed, the shoot down could have been easily justified to a traumatized nation. While it is easy to suggest that the "heroes of 9/11" story was a much happier message to tell the public, there are deeper reasons to cover up the shoot down.
(continued)
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#history
---------------------------
Hoax-Mongering Videos
Of all the media used to disseminate misinformation and disinformation videos are perhaps the most effective. Whereas websites with disinformation can be critiqued by other websites which are easily located using the Web's search capabilities, a video is unlikely to occupy a shelf with another video critiquing it. Also, being a visual and passive medium, videos can persuade the viewer in ways that books cannot.
http://911review.com/disinfo/videos.html
---------------------------
"Loose Change" An analysis
by Michael B. Green
August 3, 2005
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html
Both videos ["Loose Change" and "In Plane Site"] contain much good evidence and valuable material of explosions in the WTC that brought down WTC1, 2,7 that cannot be suppressed. I suggest that the purpose in including both junk and substantive evidence is to discredit the latter. If rotten fish is wrapped in the same package as delicious truffles, few people with good judgment or good taste will attempt to retrieve and salvage the truffles. It is also to scant good evidence and thorough analysis in favor of cheap shots and one-liners that have no evidentiary value whatsoever. VonKleist wraps the good meat of the WTC blowing up between two pieces of rotten bread: the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon, and the Pod & Flash fraud. If Mr. VonKleist is not a paid intelligence disinformation asset, then he is the dream of the intelligence community: someone who dissembles as artfully as they do, and with all their wit, but who doesn’t draw a salary.[4]
I do not know what hit the Pentagon, but the evidence strongly indicates it was a Boeing 757. The same general arguments that any substitute plane that hit WTC1 and WTC2 would be an exact duplicate would apply to the Pentagon strike. I have nothing against a missile, two planes, or other theory, but there is little to support them except junk forensics and uninformed intuitions. From its start the “no-Boeing” fight was a miserable tar baby facilitated by the release of five still frames allegedly from a Pentagon parking kiosk video absent the Boeing; such stills should make anyone suspicious of USG complicity realize that they have just been served a red herring.
Let me make this point about rotten wrappings concrete.
Last year I bought In Plane Sight and saw it twice before going to the KPFK screening on August 7, 2004. I was so moved by the power of the film, by vonKleist’s constrained moral gravity about the pod, that I sent an email to about 25 people with the subject “911 was a US military operation.” I spent the next morning replaying all four impact videos in slow motion, with magnification, and realized there is no pod.
I wrote those 25 people an apology.
They all now have reason to regard me as impulsive, a bit oddly drawn to and easily taken in by conspiracy theories, and to dismiss the idea that 911 was even in part a US military operation. Mr. VonKleist made me cry wolf, and even though it was (approximately) the right wolf, I had the wrong evidence. When I now try to urge these people to examine the evidence that the Twin Towers were blown up, they dismiss my enthusiasm as an expression of my quirks, and are more than happy to defer to knowledgeable charlatans like Professor Thomas W. Eager of Journal of Metallurgy and NOVA. The situation is especially embarrassing for me because my scientific training has shown many situations where the correct explanation is at odds with even sophisticated common sense, but here I am urging the latter against the cool quantified experts and their lies.
Last August I thought that Dave vonKleist was acting in good faith, and I thought so in part because I had liked and admired the work of his wife Joyce Riley, who has exposed so many of the military’s lies. But after recently seeing “Loose Change” and hearing it hyped by vonKleist, I went to The Power Hour website to see how Mr. VonKleist’s education had progressed since August 2004. There he was asking classic nonsensical disinformation questions, of which the following is typical:
"Why did a FOX News employee, who witnessed the second tower attack, report seeing no windows on “Flight 175” a commercial United Airlines jetliner? Why did another eyewitness report that United Airlines Flight 175 was not a commercial airliner? What kind of plane hit the second tower?"
ANSWER: As Fox employee Marc Birnbach states in DVK's original IPS, he saw the plane from a subway station in Brooklyn, and it turns out that this subway stop was about two miles from the crash, which he did not see. Birnbach’s distance from the plane would make it impossible to see the windows of a plane silhouetted against the morning sky. I suspect that the other eyewitness is the hysterical woman separated from Manhattan by a very long bridge screaming, "That is not an American airline!" You don't have to be a genius to know that other closer eyewitnesses saw a commercial airline, and that other photos show the plane with UA markings, and that debris found in the WTC wreckage is of a commercial airliner with windows. But Dave's job is to keep those nonsensical questions in the mix.
Such nonsense prompted me to take a closer look at both DVDs and to write this review.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1787340.php
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:
Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
by Jim Hoffman October 7, 2004
The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.
Many researchers have ignored or dismissed this eyewitness evidence in favor of a seemingly overwhelming physical evidence case that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon, based on photographs of the crash site. As I show below, however, each of the pieces evidence adduced in favor of the no-757-crash theory can be reconciled with the crash of a 757.
The controversy over this issue has eclipsed the many documented facts linking the 9/11/01 attacks to insiders. Defenders of the official story have seized on this issue as representative of the gullibility and incompetence of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists".
-------------
Other DVDs / downloads to Use Instead of Disinformation Videos About 'No Planes' . . .
free downloads of the Citizens Commission event are at:
http://www.911busters.com/911-Commission.html
911 busters has a lot of great information on line, but it also pushes the no plane hoax. The only other website selling copies of the Citizens Commission DVD is "911 share the truth," an effort that sells both some of the best videos and many of the worst videos. It is a shame, since the Citizens Commission DVD is probably the best compilation that has been made of the strongest evidence.
The DVD can be ordered at
http://www.911truth.org/store/dvd34.htm
Free New Pearl Harbor text
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php
Video – The Truth and Lies of 9-11 – Mike Ruppert
Free Internet viewing in 4 parts available at:
http://www.thelawparty.com/MediaPlayer/911/TruthandLies0f911Part156k.wmv
http://www.ganjasound.fsworld.co.uk/films%20&%20clips/mike%20ruppert_911%20the%20truth%20and%20lies%20part%202.rm
http://www.ganjasound.fsworld.co.uk/films%20&%20clips/mike%20ruppert_911%20the%20truth%20and%20lies%20part%203.rm
http://www.ganjasound.fsworld.co.uk/films%20&%20clips/mike%20ruppert_911%20the%20truth%20and%20lies%20part%204.rm
David Ray Griffin Reveals
Major 9/11 Cover-up on C-SPAN
View the program online for free. Windows Media Player required
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html
Free audio version of program online. Windows Media Player required
http://www.septembereleventh.org/documents/drg_cspan.mp3
Truth and Politics
by David Ray Griffin
This video captures David Ray Griffin's October 3, 2004 speech in Santa Rosa, CA. The speech is essentially a summary of Griffin's second book on the 9/11/01 attack, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Griffin gave this talk before the book was published. This video supplements the speech with added images and video clips to illustrate Griffin's points.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/resources/videos/index.html
Perspective on 9-11
by Ken Jenkins
This video is a compilation of segments from other videos on the 9/11/01 attack and historical precedents. It is in two parts, Part 1: History/Context and Part 2: 9-11. Part 2 is composed of excerpts from the following:
* The Great Deception by Barrie Zwicker
* Painful Deceptions by Eric Hufschmid
* Aftermath -- Unanswered Questions from 9-11 by GNN.tv
* 9-11 International Inquiry, San Fransisco
Perspective on 9-11 excerpts the portion of Painful Deceptions that covers the collapse of Building 7 -- which includes five videos of the Building 7's implosion.
Jenkins' video is an excellent tool for education and outreach in audiences skeptical of the idea that the attack was an inside job. Jenkins combines the best parts of the work of others, sticks to substantial evidence, and frames the presentation of that evidence in a historical context that facilitates its objective examination.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/resources/videos/index.html
What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?
a. Flight 77, an American Airlines 757
b. a uranium tipped cruise missile
c. a Global Hawk robot plane
d. a flying saucer piloted by giant lizards from another planet
What are the issues of complicity regarding the Pentagon attack?
a. how the plane was not intercepted, even after the towers had been hit
b. how the plane managed to hit the nearly empty part of the building
c. why the fighter planes scrambled from Norfolk flew over the ocean, away from DC
d. all of the above
What does the evidence from the Pentagon crash suggest?
a. the testimony from the eyewitnesses and the physical evidence are in agreement that Flight 77 hit the building
b. the eyewitnesses were confused about what they saw and are in contradiction to the physical evidence
c. the eyewitnesses were co-conspirators with Cheney and were deliberately lying
d. we have no idea what hit the building
Who first suggested that Flight 77 did not hit the building?
a. French author Thierry Meyssan and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in October 2001
b. eyewitnesses on Interstate 395 and Route 27
c. eyewitnesses who saw the missile from the Pentagon metro station
d. the eyewitnesses are all lying, anyway, and should be ignored
What happened to Flight 77's "black box" data recorder?
a. Newsweek reported in September 2001 that it was found in the rubble of the Pentagon, but we are not allowed to know what it recorded
b. it was in the rubble of the plane, shot down over Ohio
c. it is at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean
d. Flight 77 never existed
the correct answer is (a) except for question 2., which is (d) - all of the above.
-------------
Emanuel Sferios, SeptemberEleventh.org:
It took me a while, but it's now easy to see/understand. There *are* 757 plane parts in the photos, and the fire/impact area of the photos *is* the size of a 757. The reason there aren't any large, obvious pieces of 757 in the photos: planes flying that fast into large buildings get pretty shredded. (Nonetheless, there are clearly visible 757 parts in the photos.)
Also, you know that hole in the back wall of the Pentagon. Who was it that supposedly claimed that was from the "nose cone" of the plane? Did the government make that claim? I don't think so. Clearly that claim is false, and easily debunked. However, the counter-claim that it must therefore be from a missile is not the only other explanation. It very likely was a hole knocked out by the rescue workers, from the outside inward! The whole debate between "nose-cone versus missile" seems a big red-herring, part of the hoax to convince us (people inside the movement that is) that it was a missile.
Also, remember the five Pentagon security photos (the ones dated September 12), which when played in sequence looks clearly like a missile struck the Pentagon. Who released these photos? That's right. The Pentagon released them. Should make us think.
John Judge was right all along. I've finally come around, and I'm not that embarrassed about it having taken me this long, because, well, it was a damn good hoax--a professional job well done.
.... if you think that the "no plane at the Pentagon" claim, even if it is wrong, is harmless... or if you think perhaps even it is beneficial because it converts a lot of people into 9/11 skeptics (and it certianly does), please think again. John Judge and Mark Robinowitz and others are correct that its intention was to alienate people inside the beltway, and make us look foolish among D.C. professionals. It succeeded.
-------------
History of the "no planes on 9/11" hoaxes
Flight 77
crashed into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon
9:38 am
The "no Boeing hit the Pentagon" claim is the most important and widespread 9/11 hoax. It was probably set up before the event since seizing of surveillance camera videos within minutes of the crash. It is extremely unlikely that the conspirators who allowed (and assisted) 9/11 would not have taken care to create misdirecting hoaxes before the "attack," since they are very aware that large segments of the population would have suspicions about the events and therefore they would "need" to disrupt skeptical inquiry with red herrings, hoaxes, false dichotomies, etc.
This hoax is based on misrepresentation of photos taken shortly after the crash, ignoring of physical evidence and documented reports from hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane. There is NO credible, verifiable evidence in support of ANY of the many and varied "theories" pretending that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon, and therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. See http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html for details.
(continued)
-------------
Flight 11
crashed into North Tower
(first to be hit)
8:46 am
Due to the success of the "no plane at Pentagon" claim, several successor stories were created to deny the other crashes but none were as popular as the original hoax. The first of these was the idea that a plane did not really hit the North Tower, but was really a missile camoflaged by a King Kong sized hologram of a plane. This bizarre creation came from a website called "the webfairy," and took advantage of the fact that there is only one, low quality video publicly available of the North Tower attack. This hoax is easily disproved by the most obvious "physical evidence" - the hole in the side of the North tower was the size of a 767.
The "webfairy" campaign didn't fly and was of limited utility in discrediting the 9/11 truth movement. It is probable that this wasn't intended to attract supporters, but merely make 9/11 skeptics look silly.
The webfairy hoax is exhaustively debunked by this report:
The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html
(continued)
-------------
Flight 175
crashed into South Tower
9:03 am
The third "no plane" claim stated that the plane that hit the South Tower was swapped in mid-flight with military plane that crashed into the tower, carrying a "pod" under the plane that fired a missile at the building just before crashing into it.
The "pod" hoax seemed to have been test-marketed in 2003 on obscure websites in England and Spain. But the hoax got a much bigger promotional effort in mid-2004, shortly after the International Inquiry into 9/11 in San Francisco and as the "election" campaign entered full steam. A website called "letsroll911" started up with "new video footage" claiming to show a missile fired from the plane into the South Tower, but without presenting any documentation to prove that this footage was not merely manipulated with digital photographic software such as "Photoshop." Without any "chain of custody" this "evidence" is useless and irrelevant -- and any "new footage" magically appearing years after the event must be considered bogus until proven authentic.
One consequence of the staged timing of the tower attacks is that the second crash was seen and photographed by countless people from every possible perspective. If there had been a missile fired at the WTC, or an anamoly on the plane that suggested plane swapping, it would have been revealed shortly afterwards. (This is a reason why the "no plane hit the Pentagon" claims are not true -- too many people saw it happen to believe that it did not happene.)
While the footage of the "missile" looked fake, the "pod" claim was much more subtle. It was not added to the photos of Flight 175 -- it was merely a carefully chosen image of the normal "fairing" connecting the wing to the fuselage.
A film focused on the "pod" claim released in the summer of 2004 called "911: In Plane Site" tacitly admitted that the "pod" was really just a picture of the fairing. Shortly before its release, a participant in the "911 Truth Alliance" email list posted a photo of a 757 showing the bulge between the wing and fuselage, noting that the "pod" claim was not true. The producers of this movie chose the exact same photo (of all of the photos ever taken of Boeings) to use as part of a montage on the cover of their DVD. A bad joke "hidden in plain sight."
(continued)
-------------
Flight 93
crashed in Pennsylvania
10:06 am
The official story of Flight 93 is that the heroic passengers brought down the plane to spare the country the tragedy of a fourth attack, a tremendous sacrifice to save others. However, while it seems true that the passengers were revolting against their hijackers, the evidence shows that Flight 93 was actually shot down. Debris from the plane was spread out over 8 miles, which suggests major trauma to the plane while it was still in the air. Some media coverage of this crash in the first couple days strongly suggested a shoot-down, most of this is archived at the website http://www.flight93crash.com
It is probable that most citizens, regardless of their political philosophies, would have been able to accept the sad necessity to shoot down the fourth plane to avert a worse tragedy -- if the pilots were dead and the passengers doomed, the shoot down could have been easily justified to a traumatized nation. While it is easy to suggest that the "heroes of 9/11" story was a much happier message to tell the public, there are deeper reasons to cover up the shoot down.
(continued)
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#history
---------------------------
Hoax-Mongering Videos
Of all the media used to disseminate misinformation and disinformation videos are perhaps the most effective. Whereas websites with disinformation can be critiqued by other websites which are easily located using the Web's search capabilities, a video is unlikely to occupy a shelf with another video critiquing it. Also, being a visual and passive medium, videos can persuade the viewer in ways that books cannot.
http://911review.com/disinfo/videos.html
---------------------------
"Loose Change" An analysis
by Michael B. Green
August 3, 2005
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html
Both videos ["Loose Change" and "In Plane Site"] contain much good evidence and valuable material of explosions in the WTC that brought down WTC1, 2,7 that cannot be suppressed. I suggest that the purpose in including both junk and substantive evidence is to discredit the latter. If rotten fish is wrapped in the same package as delicious truffles, few people with good judgment or good taste will attempt to retrieve and salvage the truffles. It is also to scant good evidence and thorough analysis in favor of cheap shots and one-liners that have no evidentiary value whatsoever. VonKleist wraps the good meat of the WTC blowing up between two pieces of rotten bread: the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon, and the Pod & Flash fraud. If Mr. VonKleist is not a paid intelligence disinformation asset, then he is the dream of the intelligence community: someone who dissembles as artfully as they do, and with all their wit, but who doesn’t draw a salary.[4]
I do not know what hit the Pentagon, but the evidence strongly indicates it was a Boeing 757. The same general arguments that any substitute plane that hit WTC1 and WTC2 would be an exact duplicate would apply to the Pentagon strike. I have nothing against a missile, two planes, or other theory, but there is little to support them except junk forensics and uninformed intuitions. From its start the “no-Boeing” fight was a miserable tar baby facilitated by the release of five still frames allegedly from a Pentagon parking kiosk video absent the Boeing; such stills should make anyone suspicious of USG complicity realize that they have just been served a red herring.
Let me make this point about rotten wrappings concrete.
Last year I bought In Plane Sight and saw it twice before going to the KPFK screening on August 7, 2004. I was so moved by the power of the film, by vonKleist’s constrained moral gravity about the pod, that I sent an email to about 25 people with the subject “911 was a US military operation.” I spent the next morning replaying all four impact videos in slow motion, with magnification, and realized there is no pod.
I wrote those 25 people an apology.
They all now have reason to regard me as impulsive, a bit oddly drawn to and easily taken in by conspiracy theories, and to dismiss the idea that 911 was even in part a US military operation. Mr. VonKleist made me cry wolf, and even though it was (approximately) the right wolf, I had the wrong evidence. When I now try to urge these people to examine the evidence that the Twin Towers were blown up, they dismiss my enthusiasm as an expression of my quirks, and are more than happy to defer to knowledgeable charlatans like Professor Thomas W. Eager of Journal of Metallurgy and NOVA. The situation is especially embarrassing for me because my scientific training has shown many situations where the correct explanation is at odds with even sophisticated common sense, but here I am urging the latter against the cool quantified experts and their lies.
Last August I thought that Dave vonKleist was acting in good faith, and I thought so in part because I had liked and admired the work of his wife Joyce Riley, who has exposed so many of the military’s lies. But after recently seeing “Loose Change” and hearing it hyped by vonKleist, I went to The Power Hour website to see how Mr. VonKleist’s education had progressed since August 2004. There he was asking classic nonsensical disinformation questions, of which the following is typical:
"Why did a FOX News employee, who witnessed the second tower attack, report seeing no windows on “Flight 175” a commercial United Airlines jetliner? Why did another eyewitness report that United Airlines Flight 175 was not a commercial airliner? What kind of plane hit the second tower?"
ANSWER: As Fox employee Marc Birnbach states in DVK's original IPS, he saw the plane from a subway station in Brooklyn, and it turns out that this subway stop was about two miles from the crash, which he did not see. Birnbach’s distance from the plane would make it impossible to see the windows of a plane silhouetted against the morning sky. I suspect that the other eyewitness is the hysterical woman separated from Manhattan by a very long bridge screaming, "That is not an American airline!" You don't have to be a genius to know that other closer eyewitnesses saw a commercial airline, and that other photos show the plane with UA markings, and that debris found in the WTC wreckage is of a commercial airliner with windows. But Dave's job is to keep those nonsensical questions in the mix.
Such nonsense prompted me to take a closer look at both DVDs and to write this review.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1787340.php
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:
Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
by Jim Hoffman October 7, 2004
The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.
Many researchers have ignored or dismissed this eyewitness evidence in favor of a seemingly overwhelming physical evidence case that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon, based on photographs of the crash site. As I show below, however, each of the pieces evidence adduced in favor of the no-757-crash theory can be reconciled with the crash of a 757.
The controversy over this issue has eclipsed the many documented facts linking the 9/11/01 attacks to insiders. Defenders of the official story have seized on this issue as representative of the gullibility and incompetence of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists".
-------------
Other DVDs / downloads to Use Instead of Disinformation Videos About 'No Planes' . . .
free downloads of the Citizens Commission event are at:
http://www.911busters.com/911-Commission.html
911 busters has a lot of great information on line, but it also pushes the no plane hoax. The only other website selling copies of the Citizens Commission DVD is "911 share the truth," an effort that sells both some of the best videos and many of the worst videos. It is a shame, since the Citizens Commission DVD is probably the best compilation that has been made of the strongest evidence.
The DVD can be ordered at
http://www.911truth.org/store/dvd34.htm
Free New Pearl Harbor text
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php
Video – The Truth and Lies of 9-11 – Mike Ruppert
Free Internet viewing in 4 parts available at:
http://www.thelawparty.com/MediaPlayer/911/TruthandLies0f911Part156k.wmv
http://www.ganjasound.fsworld.co.uk/films%20&%20clips/mike%20ruppert_911%20the%20truth%20and%20lies%20part%202.rm
http://www.ganjasound.fsworld.co.uk/films%20&%20clips/mike%20ruppert_911%20the%20truth%20and%20lies%20part%203.rm
http://www.ganjasound.fsworld.co.uk/films%20&%20clips/mike%20ruppert_911%20the%20truth%20and%20lies%20part%204.rm
David Ray Griffin Reveals
Major 9/11 Cover-up on C-SPAN
View the program online for free. Windows Media Player required
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html
Free audio version of program online. Windows Media Player required
http://www.septembereleventh.org/documents/drg_cspan.mp3
Truth and Politics
by David Ray Griffin
This video captures David Ray Griffin's October 3, 2004 speech in Santa Rosa, CA. The speech is essentially a summary of Griffin's second book on the 9/11/01 attack, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Griffin gave this talk before the book was published. This video supplements the speech with added images and video clips to illustrate Griffin's points.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/resources/videos/index.html
Perspective on 9-11
by Ken Jenkins
This video is a compilation of segments from other videos on the 9/11/01 attack and historical precedents. It is in two parts, Part 1: History/Context and Part 2: 9-11. Part 2 is composed of excerpts from the following:
* The Great Deception by Barrie Zwicker
* Painful Deceptions by Eric Hufschmid
* Aftermath -- Unanswered Questions from 9-11 by GNN.tv
* 9-11 International Inquiry, San Fransisco
Perspective on 9-11 excerpts the portion of Painful Deceptions that covers the collapse of Building 7 -- which includes five videos of the Building 7's implosion.
Jenkins' video is an excellent tool for education and outreach in audiences skeptical of the idea that the attack was an inside job. Jenkins combines the best parts of the work of others, sticks to substantial evidence, and frames the presentation of that evidence in a historical context that facilitates its objective examination.
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/resources/videos/index.html
Add Your Comments
§BS
This baloney. Any serious student of 911 knows that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missle painted to resemble (somewhat) a commercial jet. Just look at that nice lawn! Where are the skid marks? Where are the holes in the bldg from the huge engines? How does a hunk of thin aluminum pass through 5 layers of reinforced Pentagon? The plane 'burned up' completely but they identified all of the dead? Where were the Aegis gatling guns and guiuded missles that protect the Pentagon? Actually the Pentagon is the STRONGEST link in the whole conspiracy chain. The military 'stood down' that day. It's the greatest act of HIGH TREASON ever committed in this nation, and posts like this reveal either a lack of knowledge or an attempt to confuse the public, and believe me, there's a lot of that around cyberspace right now. Want a good 911 site to go to? Try 911truth.org and explore the links.
Add a Comment
§lawn
here's what a real skidded jet crash looks like-forget the croquet tournament pristine meadow of 911- no way it was a Jumbo Jet kids!
Add a Comment
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$135.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network