Where Did Flight 77 Really Go?
This INN World Report article by Frank Levi does an interesting analysis of Flight 77.
Three things strike me from this piece.
1) This analysis adds doubt to the idea that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
2) Since the "highjacked" planes turned off their transponders, we really don't know where they went for sure , we can only surmise by non-specific radar signals.
3) finally they hammer on a point I have been stressing:
Either there were no hijackers (!) or the pilots knew the hijackers and thought they were friendly (perhaps part of a planned highjacking exercise?).
Three things strike me from this piece.
1) This analysis adds doubt to the idea that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
2) Since the "highjacked" planes turned off their transponders, we really don't know where they went for sure , we can only surmise by non-specific radar signals.
3) finally they hammer on a point I have been stressing:
"Can you think of a scenario in the cockpit
where the hijackers could break into through the cockpit door, disable the
transponder and the radio before the pilot could get any sort of warning
signal to Air Traffic Control? With plastic knives and box cutters?"
Either there were no hijackers (!) or the pilots knew the hijackers and thought they were friendly (perhaps part of a planned highjacking exercise?).
posted by spooked at 9:26 PM
1 Comments:
"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association." (Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184)
It is probably not a coincidence that the defenders of the offical "surprise attack" claim focus mostly on the "no plane at the Pentagon" story in their quest to discredit 9/11 skeptics.
In early September 2004, Parade magazine ran a short article that dismissed 9/11 skepticism based on the Pentagon "no plane" claims. Parade reaches tens of millions of people. This is strong evidence that the whole "no plane" story is a set up to discredit.
http://www.parade.com/aol/current/columns/intelligence.html
Looking for more Intelligence Report from PARADE magazine? Browse our FREE archive.
In this week's "Intelligence Report," Lyric Wallwork Winik writes that 9/11 conspiracy theories are growing and that people from all walks of life believe them. How do these theories get started?
Investigator Gerald Posner, author of Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, says that time is a significant factor in the development of conspiracy theories. "As you get farther away from the real history, the stories get looser with the facts and more outlandish," he says. This was certainly the case with the Kennedy assassination, and Posner says he wonders if we're only in the early stages of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
The Internet, too, is a potent tool for spreading conspiracy theories. PARADE found this out after Lyric Wallwork Winik interviewed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Oct. 2001. In a transcript of Winik's interview with Rumsfeld, which was published on the Department of Defense's Web site, Rumsfeld seemed to indicate that the Pentagon was hit by a missile on 9/11 instead of a plane. It turns out that a transcription error led to the confusion, but conspiracy theorists latched onto Rumsfeld's supposed admission and spread it over the Internet.
Other sites that debunk the "no plane" claims make the issue of complicity dependent on whether the "no plane" claim is true or false. This is a false dichotomy -- that evidence for a large jet at the Pentagon therefore exonerates the government of complicity (it totally avoids the issues of the NORAD, et al wargames, the failure to respond / defend DC, the way the plane targeted the nearly empty part of the building).
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.
[this page has good photos of plane debris in the wreckage of the Pentagon, which should, but won't, put the "no plane" theories to bed]
The KEY issue with the Pentagon crash -- to prove US complicity -- is not WHAT hit the Pentagon, but WHERE the Pentagon was hit (in the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector).
The fact that the Pentagon was hit in the one method that minimized casualties is not disputed by anyone - it is proven 100%. This is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for official complicity in 9/11, since a flight school drop out would not have chosen (nor been able) to fly a plane into the mostly empty sector of the Pentagon. If the plane had hit any other part, thousands would probably have been killed instead of a little over 100 on the ground.
The "five photos" released by the military have the wrong date stamp on them (a clue that they're tampered with, a subtle statement from the military) and don't show anything conclusive. It is probable they were a deliberate effort to throw people into an endless debate, getting various factions arguing for one theory versus another
The real issue is WHERE it hit.
It is an undisputed fact that the Pentagon was hit in the one manner that minimized casualties, something that neither a flight school drop out nor a Saudi or Egyptian air force expert pilot would have done. This is provable 100% -- and this sole fact shows that 9/11 was an "inside job," arranged by top echelons of the US military. Those who are inclined to invent a statistic to explain this surreal "coincidence" should realize that the odds were not one in five -- but that the approach by the plane and the precision hit on the least populated part of the Pentagon would have been virtually impossible for any pilot, whether amateur or expert.
It's also worth pointing out that Dov Zakheim, PNAC member, who was Pentagon Comptroller (the money man) from 2001 through early 2004, came from a military contractor that developed remote control systems for planes (System Planning Co.)
A reasonable case can be made that the photos supposedly showing the Pentagon attack were deliberately doctored to mire the skeptics movement in endless debates and arguments -- which is what has happened. These photos even have the wrong time / date stamp, which is probably a subtle clue. They are of poor quality and there is zero evidence that they are authentic. Most of the media would report that they are authentic (see, the Pentagon has debunked these theories!) but few in the media would actually examine them. Meanwhile, the skeptics community has some people who distrust everything the Pentagon says but then go on to accept these photos as authentic without any evidence that they are.
The no-plane claims have distracted from what is 100% provable - the Pentagon was hit in the nearly empty, recently reconstructed / strengthened sector. See http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html (remote control is not provable, but where the Pentagon was hit is not disputed by anyone - a fact that is "hidden in plain sight").
The "no plane" theory has made 9/11 inquiry unpalatable for many "inside the Beltway." Now that this has been accomplished, whether as designed by the intelligence agencies or inadvertently by incompetent 9/11 skeptics, a few fringe 9/11 websites are now claiming that there wasn't a plane at the World Trade Center north tower (even though the photos of the hole in the tower clearly show the impact of the wings). Some of these "no plane at the north tower" sites include physics911.org, 911hoax.org and the fairy godmother of this modus operandi - webfairy.org See http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html for more on this disinformation campaign. But the "no plane at the towers" campaign has not been very successful, partially because the idea for the North Tower is so ridiculous and there is an enormous amount of photographic evidence of a plane at the South Tower (probably a primary goal of the 9/11 conspirators). The disinformation surrounding the South Tower is that the plane was swapped and a military plane crashed into the tower, carrying a "pod" under the plane that either fired a missile at the building just before crashing into it, was a bomb or perhaps a remote controlled flight system. (Of course, none of the pod people can explain why the military conspirators wouldn't have merely placed these devices in the plane itself, or why the plane would be unable to penetrate the towers without first firing a missile. It is amazing how much time can be spent refuting this endless flood of nonsense.)
Are there any sensible arguments anywhere why the Pentagon people would substitute a missile / drone / global hawk robot plane?
Considering that the area around the Pentagon is very populated, the risk of a clear photo showing something other than the 757 would compromise the entire operation. This is one (of many) arguments against the pod people claims.
It looks like the perpetrators made up the no plane (757) theory to muddy the waters in the months afterwards (which has done wonders to keep the fact that the nearly empty sector was hit away from public consciousness). The original fermentor of this speculation, Thierry Meissan, first claimed that the Pentagon was hit by a truck bomb, not a plane, but that campaign did not last very long.
Now, the conspiracy confusionists have moved on to even more ridiculous nonsense -- the webfairy site which claims no plane hit the North Tower (although it admits a plane hit the South Tower), the pod plane claims, napalm bombs on the planes, missiles fired from the planes, no plane in Pennsylvania, to cite the most popular delusions. (Perhaps the "no building" theories are the next phase of this information warfare attack.) Some of these claims are probably disinformation to smother actual evidence with distracting nonsense, but some are possibly created (or at least echoed) by people who have no understanding of verifying evidence. These increasingly wilder stories make truth seeking far more difficult. These smokescreens obscure public examination of a large body of incriminating evidence that is proven beyond reasonable doubt plus other evidence that has good standards but is not totally proven.
Many, if not most, of the sites promoting untruths about 9/11 under the guise of exposing official complicity are probably well-meaning efforts. The most effective covert operations are when the plotters are able to get outside forces (in this case, some of the 9/11 skeptics) to do their work for them without realizing that they are helping the covert operation.
The most vocal no-plane theorists imply that the eyewitness are part of the coverup. The people stuck in traffic who thought the plane was about to hit them are therefore all government agents spreading disinformation.
It seems that some people have let the "no plane" meme travel for SO long, that admitting the evidence isn't as strong as they think is a problem. Perhaps some people have staked their credibility on this completely unprovable except by tenuous assertion piece of the puzzle that to backtrack on this point would be very difficult.
It is also troubling that some of the loudest proponents of the "no Boeing" are internet personas that have not come to 9/11 truth events organized over the last three years (Gerard Holmgren and Dick Eastman). Mr. Holmgren claims to live in Australia, which is not a good vantage point to pontificate about controversial events in the Washington area. (If a US based internet persona started promoting theories about events in Canberra, Australia, it would be reasonable for citizens of Australia to demand proof that the author of the theory had some relevant expertise and geographical awareness to discuss these events.) The Eastman character admits to not having ever been to DC.
The fact the hole is the diameter of the plane is very interesting. None of the "no plane" advocates discuss the massive strengthening of this sector of the building. Stating also there's no evidence for Flight 77, as several people do, is really tiring. It's probably the MAIN reason why there's not really any "9/11 truth movement" in DC.
It is fascinating that the 9/11 skeptics who are most familiar with the DC area and the Pentagon generally are generally the ones who are least convinced by the "no plane" theories.
The Missing Videotape
The Pentagon will never release the photos of the attack. If it was Flight 77, then the endless speculation on this would stop immediately, freeing up skeptics to focus on the real issue (or in some cases, to invent wilder and wilder nonsense). The endless debates is the best possible thing for the perpetrators, since it creates speculation after speculation that makes discerning the truth(s) much more difficult. Very few people in the public give a shit about the plane/no plane pseudo-debate, and release of further photos are of no interest to 99% of the public. If it wasn't Flight 77, then obviously no photo can be released. Either way, the Pentagon gains from not releasing anything.
The "five photos" released by the military have the wrong date stamp on them (proof that they're tampered with?) and don't really show anything conclusive. They were probably a deliberate effort to throw people into an endless debate, getting various factions arguing for one theory versus another.
Some of the claims that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon
poor photographic evidence and the coverup of video surveillance
some photos show minimal debris on lawn outside of the building, although many eyewitnesses report seeing a rain of airplane parts onto nearby areas
not much evidence of wing, engine and tail damage to the outside of the building, although many of the photos on the web about this claim are highly selective with what they chose to show and not show (other photos definitely show airplane parts inside the building, but these photos are not shown on "no plane" websites)
the wings should have been left on the outside of the buildin, even though wings colliding into ultra-reinforced concrete bunkers disintegrate into small pieces
Some of the evidence that shows that a large jet did hit the Pentagon
the hole in the Pentagon is the diameter of the cabin of a 757 (the solid parts)
airplane crashes into reinforced bunkers don't leave large pieces
hundreds of eyewitnesses saw a large plane fly over their positions (drivers stuck in traffic on the nearby highways, workers outside Pentagon, etc), too many for them all to be part of a grand conspiracy.
substituting a missile for the plane would have made the attack much more complicated, involved more technicians with insider knowledge, and not provided any direct benefit to the plotters (especially if the theory about remote control technology being used to direct the plane into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon is ever proved)
the "no plane" theories don't make sense -- why would they bother to substitute? why risk being caught in the act, if someone got a clear photo? why not just remote control a 757 into the empty part of the building?
The Plane plus missile theory
a desperate attempt to further muddy the waters even though there were hundreds who saw the plane
The idea that the Pentagon attack involved two planes (or a plane plus a missile) and one overshot the Pentagon to land on the runway at nearby National Airport is one of the least likely theories.
There are a LARGE number of large office buildings parallel to the National Airport runway (mostly inhabited by Pentagon workers and contractors). There is also a major highway and elevated rapid rail next to the airport, and surely at least one of them would have seen a plane come from the unprecedented direction of the Pentagon. Jets arriving at National generally follow the river in that vicinity -- a plane that overshot the Pentagon and then made multiple sharp turns to line up with the National runway would have been noticed by LOTS of people. In addition, those that would have seen the plane emerge on the other side of the Pentagon would have looked toward the area that the plane was flying at the exact moment of the flash and smoke cloud from the explosion. In other words, the people on I-395, in the Pentagon's south parking lot, and other vantage points would have been drawn to look at the potential airspace of this extra plane by the blast, it would not have distracted them to look elsewhere. This theory is being promoted most loudly on the internet by Mr. Dick Eastman of Yakima, Washington, who has admitted to this website that he has never been anywhere near Washington, D.C. (the webmaster lived half of his life in that region, and is very familiar with the roads, bike paths and rail line around the Pentagon).
The "two planes" theory requires the first plane to come from a direction that planes landing at National normally do not arrive from. National has a short runway that is only in one direction (because it is built on a former swamp in the river). The odds that the second plane would have been seen are virtually a certainty, and this "theory" needs to have some evidence (of people seeing the plane overfly "Pentagon City" and / or the 14th Street Bridge) before wasting any more of anyone's time with this speculation. None of the people arguing for the various theories have incontrovertible proof of what did or did not hit the Pentagon, since there aren't any publicly available high resolution photos of the attack.
What are the sources for the "no plane at the Pentagon" claims?
The three "sources" for the no plane in "New Pearl Harbor" are
a writer in France who first claimed that the Pentagon was hit by a truck bomb, and then changed his allegation to claim that it was a missile. However, the cover of his "Pentagate" book shows plane debris in the rubble. Another joke "hidden in plain sight?" Mr. Meyssan's first book came out around the same time that "Forbidden Truth" was published in France, which conclusively showed that the US had planned to attack Afghanistan in the Fall of 2001 long before 9/11 -- but the flashy claims of Mr. Meyssan helped divert attention from credible journalism to outlandish, constantly shifting speculations that have been the primary tool used to discredit 9/11 skeptics.
an internet persona supposedly based in Australia who is also a promoter of the "webfairy" claim that there was a King Kong sized hologram at the towers (and not a plane). What expertise does this person, if he really exists, have to describe controversial events on the other side of the planet? Anyone aggressively promoting blatantly untrue material (webfairy) should not be a primary reference source in a book on the topic.
an internet persona supposedly based in Yakima Washington who claims that the plane overflew the Pentagon and landed at National Airport, which is easily disproved by anyone familiar with the geography of the area (it would have had to pass unseen over major highways, the Metro line, bike path, past office buildings, etc.). It's a desperate effort to continue to muddy the waters with nonsense but acknowledge the overwhelming eyewitness evidence (while ignoring the physical evidence that shows the impacts are consistent with a 757 crash). The Eastman persona is also trying to disrupt the "CIA Drugs" discussion list with similar fantasies.
James Bamford's 1982 book "The Puzzle Palace" revealed that there is an NSA base outside of Yakima. Could there be a connection?
Internet personas who promote disproved material and an author who claimed the Pentagon was hit by a truck bomb are not high quality sources for making controversial claims.
New Pearl Harbor has less than one page on "where" the Pentagon was hit, and a whole chapter on "what." It would have been more productive to reverse this ratio, since the WHERE issue is not challenged by anyone (and mentioned by very few). It's not a coincidence that the supporters of the official story focus almost exclusively on the "no plane" meme when painting 9/11 skeptics as delusional.
Worse, the second edition of New Pearl Harbor even cites the "webfairy" site as a source of evidence. I wouldn't direct people to that site without a HUGE warning that much of the site is disinformation.
Wesley Baker's review of "Planesite" put it best -- are we truth activists, or merely 9/11 groupies? Are we willing to promote any bait that comes along (even if it has hooks in it to discredit our efforts), or are we careful to separate the wheat from the chaff?
Painful Deceptions uses the doctored photos released by the Pentagon to claim that it was a missile. But this footage is so suspect that it should be considered inadmissible as evidence of anything.
Mr. Hufschmid, the author of Painful Questions and Painful Deceptions, also claims that the Apollo landing on the moon was faked, which is nicely rebutted at http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/apollohoax.html
The Shockwave film released in late summer 2004 that purports to document the "no plane" theory
A video clip on the web that was posted to numerous sites in late summer 2004 (see http://www.911truthla.org/flash/pentagon_strike.swf or http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf) supposedly documents the "no plane" at the Pentagon claims. This film is slick propaganda that avoids most of the evidence, flashes quickly from point to point, distracts the viewer with loud rock music (perhaps a type of "bait" to snare youthful web surfers?), and would not qualify as forensic evidence in any courtroom. It is a form of "disinfotainment."
Post a Comment
<< Home