Note by Me: Even though Oil Empire.us is a front for Peak Oil (supported by Big Oil, CFR, and the Bilderberg Group) and are pro-abortion, they are right on this issue. Obvsiouly many Peak Oil proponent promote the depopulation agenda, an evil globalist agenda. Even decievers like Oil Empire.us are right on some issues. Unlike them, I don't believe that everyone who supports no plane in the Pentagon and the pods or missiles in the Twin Towers as shills at all. I do think that Oil Empire.us is a slick rat poison disinformation site though (i.e. 90%+ of what they say is true but the 10% is false it will kill you. They are leftists who refuse to see the corruption in the U.N., Sanger's evil, the Nazi's anti-gun stance, and won't even support the Second Amendment as individual rights though they hypocritically claiming to endorse the Bill of Rights and Constitution).
By TruthSeeker24 (Timothy)
____________________________________________________
From http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html
A quick quiz about the Pentagon attack on 9/11
What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?
a. Flight 77, an American Airlines 757b. a uranium tipped cruise missilec. a Global Hawk robot planed. 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 hitb. how the plane managed to hit the nearly empty part of the buildingc. why the fighter planes scrambled from Norfolk flew over the ocean, away from DCd. 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 buildingb. the eyewitnesses were confused about what they saw and are in contradiction to the physical evidencec. the eyewitnesses were co-conspirators with Cheney and were deliberately lyingd. 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 2001b. eyewitnesses on Interstate 395 and Route 27c. eyewitnesses who saw the missile from the Pentagon metro stationd. 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 recordedb. it was in the rubble of the plane, shot down over Ohioc. it is at the bottom of the Atlantic Oceand. Flight 77 never existed
the correct answer is (a) except for question 2., which is (d) - all of the above.
The Pentagon attack:the "no plane" theories discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven evidence of complicity
the fake debate between no plane and no complicity gets the Bush regime off the hook
there is zero evidence for any of the "no plane" claims - hundreds of people saw the plane, none saw a cruise missile, Global Hawk robot plane, smaller plane or flying saucer piloted by giant lizards
the physical evidence shows that a large twin engine jet hit the nearly empty part of the Pentagon, the "Black Boxes" were found, cleanup crews found remains of the passengers, the "hole was too small" claim was a hoax
making 9/11 complicity dependent on the no-plane claim was a brilliant tactic to discredit the real evidence for people inside the Beltway, both for the majority who vote against Bush and the political / military elites (especially the military officers who saw the plane crash or the plane debris)
the material on this page and all of the websites that are linked here should finally extinguish the "no plane" hoax -- except for those who have staked their credibility on these claims and cannot admit a mistake, and those who intentionally promote the hoax. Every claim for the "no plane" hoaxes is refuted here or at a page linked from this page
impact area of Flight 77 shown by piecing together photos taken shortly after the crash
the impact spread fire over a wide swath within seconds(the fuel is stored in the wings)
Flight 77
Official Stories
Limited Hang Outs
Best Evidence
Distracting Disinformation
flown into the nearly empty, recently reconstructed part of the Pentagon
Hani Hanjour, who flunked flight school, supposedly flew the plane into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon
Some coincidence theorists claim that it was a one-in-five chance that the nearly empty part of the Pentagon was hit, even though the flight maneuvers were world class precision flying and it is impossible to believe that a terrorist intent on causing as much damage as possible would have flown around the Pentagon to ensure that the one area with the fewest victims would be hit.
It is likely, but unprovable, that some form of remote control technology was used to steer Flight 77 into the nearly empty, recently reconstructed part of the Pentagon. Even an expert pilot substituted for flight school dropout and alleged terrorist Hani Hanjour would not have made the amazing flight pattern to minimize casualties on the ground by hitting the nearly empty part of the Pentagon.
Whether or not remote control was used, the primary concerns are why the plane was not intercepted (even after the second tower was hit), how it hit the nearly empty part of the Pentagon, and why planes scrambled from Norfolk flew the wrong way (over the ocean).
A variety of theories that claim Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, even though hundreds of people saw the plane and the "physical evidence" is consistent with a 757.These theories are needed to discredit conspiracy speculations inside the Beltway, both by the majority of the citizens (most voted against Bush) and the political and military elites (who were not part of the cabal that facilitated 9/11)
The "no plane" hoaxes discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from evidence of complicity.
"No plane at the Pentagon" has been the most popular hoax, and has been promoted the longest (since a few weeks after 9/11).
The eyewitness testimony and the physical evidence disproves the "Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon" claims. Hundreds of people saw the plane from numerous vantage points. Photos of the impact zone show how the plane struck the first and second floors of the building. There are photos of plane debris in the wreckage.
Some websites try to make the issue of official complicity dependent on the "no plane" myth (some state there was complicity, others oppose the idea), but this is a red herring tactic. It is a big clue that the media efforts to discredit 9/11 skeptics focus on this claim (the absence of Flight 77) while ignoring evidence proven beyond reasonable doubt. Some probable disinformation efforts promoting hoaxes allegedly proving complicity focus on "no plane" and ignore other claims that actually have solid evidence (why the trillion dollar Air Force did not defend its headquarters).
None of the "no Boeing" theorists have explained why the perpetrators would have risked certain exposure by a bystander capturing video of something that wasn't a Boeing 757. Video footage from nearby surveillance cameras was immediately seized by the FBI. Workers at a nearby hotel did get to see their film (prior to its impoundment) and did not report seeing anything other than a plane hitting the Pentagon. Keeping the film footage secret allows extreme speculation to flourish, which serves the interests of the plotters.
A growing number of 9/11 skeptics have realized the "no 757" story was spread to discredit / distract us. It's a tempting theory in some ways, but if you trace the story back, there's no reality to it. Photoshopped images, claims by anonymous people on the web, a blatant disregard of all of the evidence -- these and more mental gymnastics are necessary to believe "no 757."
No judge, newspaper editor or political activist can use this sort of non-existent evidence to justify any of the "no plane" theories.
"No Planes" has been the most effective means to discredit issues of complicity inside the Beltway, both for the overwhelming majority who vote against Bush and the high level military and civilian officials who had too much personal experience with plane parts -- or friends who saw the plane and/or plane parts -- to buy this hoax.
There will never be complete agreement in the 9/11 truth movement given the widely varying quality of standards used by different people, the complete lack of peer review, and the presence of hoaxers trying to keep people off balance. It's more productive to persuade people outside the "truth movement" about the best evidence, and caution them about the hoaxes. There is zero evidence for any of the "no planes" claims for the Pentagon. All of the publications, websites, etc that argue for this use crappy sources and / or distortions of the evidence.
This hoax shows the limitations of doing research on the web about highly controversial topics with enormous political stakes. While the internet, and search engines, are an incredible invention that allows access to a huge collection of knowledge, they are also imperfect means of discovering the truth due to the ease that fake websites can be created and the reality that not all of human experience is archived in google.com With the Pentagon crash, some of the witnesses did tell the media that they saw the plane, but many more were not interviewed. Therefore, instant experts writing about this issue from several time zones away who ignore the need for some on-the-ground investigation (and ignore the fact that all of the photos do indeed show a 757 sized impact zone on the outside of the Pentagon) are likely to make serious mistakes. But even just using the media quoted comments, the fact of the plane crash becomes obvious and irrefutable.
Some of those promoting the no plane stories insult the eyewitnesses by claiming they are unreliable, had a poor view of the events, or are in great disagreement (when they were not). It is interesting that there weren't any witnesses who saw a truck bomb, a missile, a global hawk, an F-15 or a flying saucer piloted by giant lizards. Some people got a very good view of it, others had a brief glimpse.
The no Boeing stories imply that the witnesses across Arlington County, especially those on the roads nearby the Pentagon, were part of the coverup, which is a great technique for alienating people in the Washington region. The people who saw the plane told their families, friends, co-workers, etc about the fact they'd seen a major, shocking, historical event (wouldn't you if you saw something like that?).
The"no plane" claims distract from evidence of complicity that is "hidden in plain sight" -- the Pentagon was struck in the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector. The alleged hijacker flunked out of flight school and even an expert pilot would not have chosen to fly the plane in a 270 degree spiral to hit the side of the least populated part of the Pentagon. Why would al-Qaida perform this bizarre flight maneuver to reduce damage the building. Who would have chosen to fly in a spiral around the building to hit the one place that would minimize casualties while maximizing the "shock and awe" of the event? Was the plane guided by remote control technology (which is commercially available)?
Why did the Trillion Dollar Air Force not defend its own headquarters, even after the second plane crash into the World Trade Center? The fighter planes that were scrambled from the Norfolk Virginia area after the WTC was hit, before the Pentagon strike, flew east over the Atlantic Ocean instead of northwest toward DC -- an "error" that has not been explained but could be related to "wargames" that apparently inserted fake blips into radar screens. Perhaps a future, authentic, independent investigation with subpoena power will examine the role of the war game exercises in confusing the military response to the hijackings.
What or Where? redirecting the 9/11 truth movement
The "no 757" story has been effective at discrediting 9/11 skepticism, especially in the DC area. It is not a coincidence that the defenders of the official "surprise attack" claim focus mostly on the "no plane at the Pentagon" story in their quest to discredit 9/11 skeptics.
Many 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 -- that avoids the issues of the NORAD, et al wargames, the failure to defend DC, the way the plane targeted the nearly empty part of the building.
The no-plane claims have distracted from what is 100% provable -- WHERE the Pentagon was hit: the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector. If the plane had hit any other part, thousands would probably have been killed instead of a little over 100 on the ground. This fact is accepted by the media, and is a clue "hidden in plain sight" as to the level of complicity within the Bush administration.
WHERE the Pentagon was hit is strong evidence for official complicity. , 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. Hani Hanjour, a flight school drop out, clearly could not have performed this extremely difficult flying maneuver. While it is possible that a Saudi or Egyptian air force expert pilot could have been substituted for Mr. Hanjour, a terrorist would not have chosen to hit the Pentagon in the one way that minimized damage and casualties. This fact suggests that 9/11 was an "inside job," arranged by a faction in 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 virtually impossible (and beyond statistical explanations).
Dov Zakheim, the 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.)
The purpose of "no planes" is to protect the plotters
Lots of military people saw the plane and wreckage, and making the conspiracy dependent on the no plane hoax gets Bush and Cheney off the hook. The issue is not what the peons (us) think about these issues -- the real issue is what the military and civilian leadership in DC think about these issues. No plane speculations and hoaxes steer people away from real evidence of complicity such as how the plane was steered into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon and the role of the wargames in paralyzing the defense of Washington. Cui bono - who benefits? How long would Cheney and Bush be in office if the rest of the military thought that the PNAC gang allowed 9/11 to happen -- or deliberately flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon via some form of remote control?
The fact that "No Plane" is the cudgel being used against the 9/11 truth movement proves it is a counterproductive strategy for exposing real evidence of complicity. Whether these hoaxes are coming from deliberate disinformation agents, the aggressively naive, the gullible or the sloppy is not relevant, since the ONLY evidence for "no plane" is altered and misleading perspective photos. There is NO evidence that even comes close to the standard of proof needed to convince a newspaper editor or a judge.
No planes anywhere on 9/11?
Due to the success of the "no plane at Pentagon" claim, several successor claims of "no planes" were floated, but none were as popular as the original. These efforts include the "webfairy" theory 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), that the plane that hit the South Tower was some sort of military plane with "pods" that were firing missiles at the building (the only evidence for the "missile" claim is blurry low resolution video that could easily have been altered with software), and even a claim that there wasn't a plane crash in Pennsylvania.
The "no plane at the towers" campaign didn't fly, partially because the idea for the missile masked by a King Kong sized hologram of a plane at the North Tower is ridiculous. So the next version of "no plane" was a claim 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.
Variations on the "pod" is that 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, which is probabaly the purpose behind this propaganda.) The "pod" plane claims have not had substantial impact, since they are strange, based on fuzzy pictures and have been clearly refuted by the 9/11 truth movement - the pod is merely a carefully chosen photo of the normal "fairing" bulge between the wing and the fuselage. (It would not be surprising to see "no building" theories as part 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 without fact-checking abilities. 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.
Logical flaw with the "no plane" claim
Are there any sensible arguments anywhere why the conspirators would have substituted a missile / drone / global hawk robot plane?
The area around the Pentagon is densely populated, and a clear photo showing something other than the 757 would compromise the entire operation.
www.ifacts.typepad.com
If this was all a government conspiracy, why go to the bother of using a missile or fighter to hit the Pentagon when a 757 would do just fine, make a bigger bang, and there would be no need for a cover-up?
from a website called "Inconvenient Facts: Thoughts on logic, critical thinking, and mind-numbing conspiracy theories" that frames 9/11 skeptics as the "9/11 Denial Movement" (linking it to Holocaust denial). Inconvenient Facts makes solid claims against the bogus claims from Gerard Holmgren and Dick Eastman (who have loudly promoted the "no plane" claims) but fails to note that there are other, real pieces of evidence of complicity.
pentagon plane conspiracy 911 in plane site inplanesite missile missilegate pod letsroll911 webfairy remote control pentagon renovation program 911review 911inplanesite bogus
No comments:
Post a Comment