Publish to Newswire
Add an EventPENTAGON 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?
Judicial Watch thinks it sees some sort of identifying markings on this image. To wit:
"Department of Defense released a videotape to Judicial Watch at 1:00 p.m. this afternoon that shows American Airlines Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. "
Oh really? It does not. It shows a white blur that looks more like a white SUV than any aircraft. It's not very big. It's not silver in color, as American Airlines planes are, and it does not prove anything about anything.
Judicial Watch -- and all corporate media -- have decided that the image above is proof enough that "Flight 77" hit the Pentagon. This would obviously not stand up in a court of law, but then you'd have to be "crazy" not to believe the Pentagon. Judicial Watch has begun with the assumption that "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon" and then foisted this inconclusive evidence onto us in a blatant dare; they dare us to disagree. They dare us to use our own eyes in the face of the world's press. This is how September 11th has been forced down our throats since the attacks.
We can call the object that hit the Pentagon "Flight 77," although it makes little difference. Whatever impacted there was allowed to do so by the people in charge. The Pentagon is defended by the world's most sophisticated radar and communications, by two squadrons of jet fighters at Andrews Air Base 10 miles away, and by surface to air missiles.
The timing of the 9-11 attacks revealed that there was a "stand down" of protection. A legitimate hijacked airliner would have been intercepted within 20 minutes. These procedures are encoded in FAA regulations and in decades of precedent. Hijackers are not allowed to fly all over the northeast United States unescorted. The fact that hijackings were known at 8:13am, yet the Pentagon was not hit until 9:37am, and hit without defensive action of any kind, reveals high treason.
We were betrayed by warmongers on September 11th. This false flag attack has precedents such as Northwoods, and it has discernible motives (world domination through military hegemony, securing of oil reserves, creating a militarized and aggressive superpower with the support of the population, demonizing Arabs as monsters, appeasing Israel, etc.) These motives are spelled out explicitly in Rebuilding America's Defenses, from the Project for the New American Century, whose members include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the president's brother Jeb Bush.
Osama bin Laden (probably dead since Dec. 2001) did not choose the date "9-11." Those numbers mean nothing to Islamic radicals. The numbers "911" have meaning to the target audience, Americans in distress. It is a symbol of victims who need to reach out to the government for salvation. It is the most important numerical sequence that all children learn in this country, the life-saving phone number. It is also now the most cynical and treasonous symbol of Washington debauchery and mass murder. Arrest the executive branch for high treason, immediately, or this sort of thing can and will happen again.
So let's review the Pentagon attack--
-Five simultaneous war game exercises taking place on the morning of 9-11-01 (Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon).
-Draws almost all jet fighter interceptors away from the northeast US.
-Command goes right up to the office of Dick Chency, placed in charge of all readiness exercises earlier in 2001 by executive order.
-National Reconnaissance Office is running a plane crashing into a building "simulation" out of Dulles Airport, the place where "Flight 77" allegedly took off.
-More than 20 "false blips" reported on FAA flight controller screens which confuse the personnel as to what is real, or not.
-No defensive action taken to defend the Pentagon from strike.
-Pentagon struck on west wing where reinforcement renovation is underway, very few personnel, no high value targets.
-Alleged pilot Hanjour could not fly even a Cessna, although maneuvers of the impacting plane resemble expert jet fighter precision.
-"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here.'" --'Newsday,' 23 September 2001.
- "It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC." --NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001
- "(General Richard) MYERS: Mr. Chairman, the armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft. When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked. But we never actually had to use force.
(Senator Carl) LEVIN: Was that order that you just described given before or after the Pentagon was struck? Do you know?
MYERS: That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck." -Senate Armed Services Committee Transcript, Hearing On Nomination of General Richard Myers to be Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff
John Doraemi Publishes Crimes of the State at:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com
###
The theorists do not believe eyewitnesses, physical evidence, engineering studies or even the claims of Osama Bin Laden, so it is unlikely that they will be convinced by grainy video frames.
The latest pictures are the missing frames from a series taken from two cameras at a filling station.
If you look closely, you do see what could be a plane, flying very low and then hitting the building, causing a huge fireball. It is consistent with the official account.
However, the new frames do not absolutely without doubt show that this was American Airlines 77 in its final moments, so hope will spring eternal for the conspiracists that they have not been knocked out.
And even if the pictures did clearly show the doomed airliner, the theorists would probably just change their charge.
After all, in the case of the Twin Towers, they argued that the attacks were carried out by, or tolerated by, the US government. The Pentagon could easily be fitted into that category as well.
Claims
To understand the conspiracy theory, it is worth considering a film called Loose Change: 2nd edition. Available on the internet, it reveals the full alternative version of what happened to the Pentagon in all its glory. It states:
* AA77 did not crash into the building. And if there was no AA77, it must have been a missile, a military aircraft or a drone that did it
* The alleged pilot Hani Hanjour was not skilled enough to execute the manoeuvre and the plane would have stalled in the tight turn alleged
* Street lights were knocked down but did not bring down the plane; therefore there was no plane. They could have been deliberately lifted from the ground
* The damage was not consistent with the size of the airliner and therefore there was no airliner
* There were no remains of either the 757 or passengers and therefore neither existed
* Pieces of fuselage found nearby were planted
* Eyewitnesses who said they saw the plane were confused. Others said they saw a commuter jet or a helicopter
Answers
There are, of course, answers to all of the above, to be found in the report of the 9/11 Commission, in other technical assessments and in common sense.
For example, the limited damage on each side of the impact zone was due to recent strengthening work on the building. Windows that survived were made of shatterproof glass.
Another obvious weakness in the film is that the eyewitnesses chosen are all treated as if they have equal value. And did nobody see the lampposts being lifted out of the ground?
And the passengers...?
The most glaring gap in the theory is surely this. If AA77 did not end its flight hitting the Pentagon, what happened to it and its passengers?
This appears to be of little relevance to 9/11 theorists. In the course of an e-mail exchange with one of them I asked this question and was told that for all she knew, the plane could have been diverted somewhere and the passengers gassed.
One of the passengers was well-known. She was Barbara Olson, wife of Ted Olson, the US Solicitor general. However, I was told by the theorist that two calls she made to her husband from the plane probably never existed. Exactly where she might be now remains a mystery, it seems.
The film "Loose Change" also claims incidentally that United 93 which came down in a field in Pennsylvania, never crashed (the "crash site" was dug out by bulldozers) but landed at Cleveland and the passengers taken off. What happened to them, one wonders.
It also says that the Twin Towers were brought down by "controlled demolition". Again, great emphasis is placed on immediate eyewitness accounts of "explosions" within the towers, and almost none on later engineering examinations of the sequence of the collapse.
The film is the work of three young American videomakers, who started off making a fictional film about how they revealed that 9/11 was a US government conspiracy.
One of them, Dylan Avery, has described what happened next: "It was that month that I began writing Loose Change, a fictional story about my friends and I discovering that 11 September was not a terrorist attack, but rather, an attack by their own government.
"Upon researching for the movie, it became apparent that the subject matter might not have been entirely fiction. Over two years time, adding more and more information, the fictional movie evolved into what it is today: a documentary."
The film is quite professionally done on a technical level, with sinister music and fast cutting. Avery said it cost only $2,000 to make and was done on a laptop.
Internet influence
It is proving popular on the internet in reinforcing beliefs that 9/11 might not have been all it seems.
The theorists are very small in number but are working in fertile soil. The events are endlessly fascinating.
And the fact remains that some people around the world believe that somehow the US government might have been involved.
Part, most probably, of that suspicion has to do with anger against the United States. There are always conspiracy theories involving the US right across the Middle East and beyond. Many people want to believe the worst.
The new pictures will not have much effect on that kind of thinking.
It might well be that, as in the case of the Kennedy assassination, it will take many years for a settled view on the events of 11 September 2001 to take hold.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4990686.stm
What is the Government Hiding?
by
Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, May 18, 2006; Originally published, May 16, 2006
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/video.html
Reverse Psychology and the hidden Pentagon videotapes
seizing the videos proves foreknowledge, NOT "no plane"
blurry images published May 16, 2006 intended to fuel "no plane" hoaxes
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-video.html
Donate
$210.00 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.