PENTAGON VIDEO REVEALS: Anti-Conspiracy Hysteria in Corporate Media

PENTAGON VIDEO REVEALS: Anti-Conspiracy Hysteria in Corporate Media

Crimes of the State

From day one, the alleged terrorist strike on the most heavily defended building in the world has been met with skepticism.

The secrecy and the anomalies associated with "Flight 77" striking the Pentagon, handing the Bush regime neocons an "Act of War," seem a little too convenient to some people -- the kind of people with a frim grasp of history. Not to mention that the Pentagon was struck more than 80 minutes after the first hijackings were reported at 8:13am, according to the NY Times.

Let's examine a little history, a little history about the Pentagon and the people who control it. A document called "Operation Northwoods" was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, back during the Kennedy administration (March, 1962). This historical evidence was released to the public after all that time, which may have been an oversight on their part. For, it says the following:

"We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba."

"Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronilogical order): 1) Start rumors (many). (...) 5) Blow up ammunition inside the [Guantanamo Bay] base; start fires. 6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage). 7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations. (...) 10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires (napthalene). 11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims."

(...)

"It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner (...) The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest (...) At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone."

(...)

"It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft (...) At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc. (...) Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping, and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions."

(...)

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. (...) We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in th United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."

 

Yes, an "irresponsible government;" I hope irony isn't lost on you people.

The "Start rumors" dictum seems to fit precisely the 9-11 scenario. The spy agencies of twelve nations warned the United States that "Osama bin Laden" was going to attack America in a "spectacular" fashion. It seemed that the entire world knew about this attack before it occurred, except for the people who were supposed to stop it.

Now, let's talk about this new video. There is no way whatsoever to identify the blurry streak. This begs the question of where are the OTHER videos, from the hotel camera and from the gas station camera, which were confiscated by the FBI within minutes of impact (why?) and never seen again. Perhaps on those video tapes there is something that doesn't fit the official fiction. Perhaps not. We can't tell at this point.

What we can tell, however, are several things:

1) The corporate mind control media are working overtime to discredit "conspiracy theories," without the justification of evidence on their side.

"Flight 77 Not a Hoax" -Daily Telegraph, Australia

"'CONSPIRACY' GROUNDED" -NY Post

"Videotapes dispel conspiracy" -Washington Times

"9/11 Pentagon attack video issued to dispel conspiracy theories" -Radio New Zealand

The New Zealand headline may have it dead on.

However, what's not part of the permissable "analysis" is that the video is irrelevant to the question of whether or not a "conspiracy" exists. The government would like to confuse the issue, but logically:

a) If an airliner struck the building, who was in control of it?

b) Was the plane a "drone" as admittedly feasible 39 years prior to the attacks, in the Northwoods documents?

c) Why wasn't the plane intercepted, or shot down as it approached the Pentagon?

d) All this blurry video can do is disprove that Flight 77 was the attacking craft; it cannot confirm it.

No matter if the Pentagon was stuck by the plane as claimed, the complicity of US authorities to allow the attack is neither proven nor disproven by this evidence. Therefore the headlines run across the world's press are intentional disinformation.

2) "Judicial Watch", the people who requested ALL the videos, but were only given this stuff, seem more interested in echoing the government line than in actually watching and analyzing the video evidence:

"But Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton says he hopes the video ends conspiracy theories that it wasn't actually American Airlines Flight 77..."

Why is that? Why should Judicial Watch take sides so blatantly, given the circumstances?

3) This video does not appear to show a plane. The images prove nothing. Forget about identifying "Flight 77" from this blur, you can't even see an aircraft, any aircraft whatsoever.

Where is the plane?

You mean this white blur?