9/11 In Plane Site -- A Dissenting Opinion
oilempire.us
[NOTE: The following is the opinion of one of the best and most active members of the 9/11 Truth Alliance. I have not seen this documentary so I have no personal opinion to share.]
Bogus 9/11 websites
Muddying the waters with easily disproved phony claims
a COINTELPRO effort to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement?
The three biggest stories used to alienate the public from 9/11 truth
. debunking the "webfairy" - the most ridiculous bogus site
. Pod people try to hijack the 9/11 truth movement
(the most popular tactic, since "webfairy" didn't catch on)
. LetsRoll911.org posts "new proof" for pod claim
the "pod" is just a bad joke
. Idiot Savant -- sites that are a mix of good and bad
. 9/11: in plane site -- a film promoting the "pod"
is this incompetence, disinformation or manipulation of the film makers by covert operatives?
. KPFK Pacifica promotes "plane site"
. 911nutshell admits pod images are doctored by webfairy
are webfairy and pod people the same campaign?
------------------------------------------------------------
we should all be honored that the 9/11 truth movement is having enough political successes in shifting public consciousness to understand that 9/11 was not a surprise attack that the powers-that-be feel it necessary to create fake films and bogus websites
"we need a truth and reconciliation commission on 9/11"
-- Rep. Dennis Kucinich
"if you don't have anyone attacking you, you probably aren't shaking up the status quo."
------------------------------------------------------------
from "Painful Questions" by Eric Hufschmid, page 20
regarding a "blob" seen in some WTC photos that supposedly showed another plane overhead when the second tower was hit
"It is also possible that the blob is just an 'artifact' caused by the software that compressed the video. However, I suspect the person who posted the images deliberately created the blob to make fun of conspiracy theories or to fool people ... the best policy is to ignore theories that are based on compressed images. Demand the original, high resolution images."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A short history about bogus websites that are not "9/11 Truth"
Much of the bogus evidence about 9/11 was manufactured to support the official conspiracy theory -- 19 guys directed by a dialysis patient in a cave of Afghanistan managed to outwit the largest military and intelligence system in history, a system so incompetent that it needs a massive budget increase to protect the public from a repeat of the attack.
A different kind of bogus evidence -- which makes wild claims about complicity based on poor quality, doctored images -- has become increasingly prominent as the 9/11 Truth Movement has begun to experience long overdue political successes.
This material claims to be investigative journalism but does not present any verifiable evidence, and some of the claims have been shown to be untrue.
Webfairy
The "webfairy" and a few other websites claim that there wasn't a plane at the World Trade Center north tower, and that a missile was fired at the tower that was masked by giant holograms. The fairy godmother of this modus operandi is an internet persona called "webfairy," who claims to be an elderly, poor grandmother in Chicago who somehow has learned how to do sophisticated video analysis and host a very high bandwidth expensive website that hosts more video clips of the 9/11 attacks than any other website. Webfairy has spent years creating "new footage" of the 9/11 attacks, even though all of the authenticated video clips were taken that day.
The webfairy's "no planes at the North Tower" claim took advantage of the fact that there is really only one, low quality video publicly available of the North Tower attack. However, the webfairy is easily disproved by the most obvious "physical evidence" - the hole in the side of the North tower is the size of a 767 (see the photo below) The "webfairy" thesis has been 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.
Pod plane
Since the webfairy didn't fly, a subsequent effort was floated that has been somewhat more successful in attracting an audience. This newer campaign claims that the plane that hit the South Tower had an unusual "pod" underneath it. This pod allegedly fired a missile at the tower one-third second before impact, carried a napalm bomb, or was the location for the remote control system (the promoters have developed a variety of ideas to explain the alleged pod). The pod theories claim that this anomaly proves that the plane that hit the South Tower wasn't actually Flight 175, and therefore 9/11 was an inside job. The primary pod promoters urge the public to focus on this story, and worry about the other evidence at some point in the future.
However, the photographic "evidence" for the pod consists of blurry, low resolution photos. All that these photos reveal is the oval shaped structure that connects the wing to the fuselage, as conclusively shown by comparing a real photo of a 767 to the pod photos.
The staggering of the timing of the attacks of the twin towers resulted in maximum photographic coverage of the second crash. The idea that the plane had an extra pod makes no sense, since a single clear photo of this would instantly expose the conspiracy.
The idea that a missile was fired a split second before the South tower was hit is even more bizarre, since there was no "need" for this to happen (no tactical advantage for the attackers, since the towers were not anywhere as strong as the sector of the Pentagon that was hit - which had been strengthened against attack immediately prior to 9/11).
Blurry photos that magically appear two years later, just as the 9/11 truth movement grows in popularity and political influence, are not evidence of alternative views of what happened. Just because someone says "inside job" does not mean that their theories of what happened, whether well-intentioned or malicious, are proven or even provable. Indeed, a major component of the "inside job" thesis is that 9/11 was at least in part a "false flag" operation, staged by the US government to discredit its opponents in the Middle East in order to provide the pretext to seize the oil fields and impose the "Homeland Security" police state. It would be naive to assume that the "inside job" conspirators were not also conducting false flag operations to persuade the public that 9/11 skeptics were easily debunked in order to hide the actual evidence for complicity.
Webfairy and Letsroll
At the very least, the Webfairy and Letsroll sites are closely allied, and may be part of the same operation. Recent spam (unsolicited emails) from the pod theorists has stated that the webfairy has done photographic work for the letsroll site. Webfairy and Letsroll are both located in the same community (Chicago), a city without much 9/11 skeptic organizing. Letsroll hosts webfairy's video alteration work on their website. And the newest promotion of these themes -- a film called "In Plane Site" -- directs viewers to the Letsroll website, bypassing the credible investigations based on verifiable evidence and logic.
Webfairy and Letsroll base their material on claims that have been conclusively debunked. If they have any legitimacy and truly want to help expose official complicity in 9/11, they will remove the "no plane at the tower" and "pod plane" material, and refocus upon the actual evidence.
A similar campaign was waged to discredit the citizen investigations into the coup against President Kennedy -- people popped up claiming inside knowledge who turned out to be spreaders of disinformation. The most memorable occurrence was during Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, a CIA agent who participated in the plot against Kennedy. This episode was nicely dramatized in Oliver Stone's film JFK. Garrison's legal team had found a witness who claimed to have participated in meetings with Shaw, Lee Harvey Oswald and others, but on the stand, the man's claims of participation were totally shredded by his claims that he had fingerprinted his daughter before and after she went to college to prove that she was the same person (and therefore, this obviously insane testimony was used to discredit the genuine evidence that Garrison had used to prosecute Shaw). Shaw was found innocent by the jury (even though subsequent research and official admissions revealed he was CIA), although that jury did admit that there had been a conspiracy to kill JFK, they merely didn't believe that Shaw was a participant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How the Bogus Evidence tactic was used to sabotage the
only trial of a conspirator in the coup against President Kennedy
from Jim Garrison, "On the Trail of the Assassins,"(1988 original edition, reprinted by Warner Books 1991)
The bomb that shattered our case exploded quickly enough. His name was Charles Spiesel. The accountant from New York whom we had belatedly added to our witness list too the stand next. He said that on a trip to New Orleans he met David Ferrie at Lafitte's Blacksmith Shop in the French Quarter. Later they joined Clay Shaw in a building Spiesel recalled as being at "Dauphine and Espanade," which is approximately where Shaw's residence was located. After everyone relaxed and had a number of drinks, Spiesel said Ferrie and Shaw began discussing the possible assassination of John Kennedy. Although Spiesel was surprised when the subject first arose, everyone had been drinking heavily so the indiscretion of the conversation was understandable for him. He recalled the exchange of comments between Shaw and Ferrie in great detail, each explaining why Kennedy should be eliminated and how it should be done.
On cross-examination, the chief defense counsel uncannily seemed to know just what questions to ask Spiesel. First, Dymond asked if Spiesel had ever publicly complained about "hypnosis and psychological warfare" being used on him. Speisel replied that he indeed had been hypnotized in New York and New Jersey, and during several visits to New Orleans, in the period between 1948 and 1954.
Asked who hypnotized him, Spiesel said he did not always know He said he could tell that hypnosis was being tried "when someone tried to get your attention -- catch your eye. That's a clue right off."
Dymond then asked him what happened under hypnosis. Spiesel replied: "They plant certain thoughts in your mind and you are given the illusion that they are true." He added that he had become "rather an expert" at knowing when people were trying to hypnotize him.
Under further cross-examination, Dymond brought out Spiesel's belief that the New York City police had hypnotized him, tortured him mentally, and forced him to give up his practice as an accountant.
"Have you had trouble recently with a communist conspiracy," Dymond asked, "People following you, and tapping your phones?"
"Well," replied Spiesel hesitantly, "no particularly recently."
Then Dymond zeroed in for the kill. Was is not a fact, he asked, that when Spiesel's daughter left New York to go to school at Louisiana State University he customarily fingerprinted her? Spiesel replied in the affirmative.
Dymond then asked if it were not also a fact that he customarily fingerprinted his daughter again when she returned at the end of the semester. Again, the witness acknowledged that this was true.
Dymond then asked him why he fingerprinted her. Spiesel explained that he did this, in effect, to make sure the daughter who was returning from L.S.U. was the same one he had sent there.
For one very long moment, while I am sure that my face revealed no concern, I was swept by a feeling of nausea. I realized that the clandestine operation of the opposition was so cynical, so sophisticated, and, at the same time, so subtle, that destroying an old-fashioned state jury trial was very much like shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun.
Our only hope now was that our subsequent witnesses could drown out the memory of Spiesel .... (pp. 276-7)
"it was clear by now that no jury would find an eminently respectable, prominent, distinguished community leader guilty of conspiring to kill the President, especially following an unforgettable example of genuine lunatic testimony from a prosecution witness." (p. 293) [emphases added]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three biggest stories used to alienate the public from 9/11 truth
1. "Israel did it" and "the Jews were all warned to stay away from the WTC."
While it is true that Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11, and probably was involved at some level as a subcontractor, this story has been the single best method of discrediting 9/11 skeptics to the public, especially in New York City, where about one third of the citizens are jewish. This story has been especially popular in the Arab world, as it plays into the known duplicities of the Israeli and US governments, and helps absolve that community of any possible psychological complicity in the events.Worse, the 9/11 issue has brought out a small parade of anti-semites and neo-Nazi holocaust deniers, who use the 9/11 issue as a vehicle to promote hatred, which further serves the interests of those who want to separate the growing communities of 9/11 skeptics from the US public.
It is possible that the only involvement of the Israelis was to pretend to be involved via the "dancing Israelis" filming the burning towers (who were arrested on the New Jersey side of the Hudson after outraged bystanders noted they were taking films and acting happy about the tragedy). Whether this speculation is true or not, the "Israeli connection" was spread all over the internet by countless conspiracy theorists. Perhaps it was merely bait. Perhaps Israel helped monitor the "hijackers." Perhaps at some time in the future the truth of these sorts of claims will be proven by investigators with the skills and resources to verify what is true and what is not.
2. "no 757 hit the Pentagon"
This story was floated in late 2001, after the skeptical examinations of the 9/11 discrepancies began to get very loud on the internet. This story is almost certainly not true, since hundreds (if not more) people saw the plane, and it strains credulity to think that everyone in the vicinity that morning was somehow an agent or dupe of the "inside job" conspirators. See oilempire.us for details. This has been the primary way to discredit 9/11 in the Washington, D.C. area. The real issue is the fact that the Pentagon was hit in the nearly empty, recently reconstruted and strengthened sector, which is something a "terrorist" would not have chosen to do (nor would have been able to do). This is strong circumstantial evidence for remote control technology. Proving its use is probably impossible, but the technology is commercially available.
3. "cellphones can't be used in airplanes"
The articles on the web that discuss cellphones in planes vary in their opinions about the feasibility of this. An experiment to replicate these claims would need to know the exact altitudes and phone companies and be in the same locations -- which is probably impossible to do.
The implication of the "no cell phone calls" claim is that the calls that WERE made were (1) not made from an Airphone (which clearly DO work), and (2) were military psyop campaigns to spread the myth of the cellphone calls about the hijackers.
While it is certainly true that fake audio and video is much easier to make these days, this is probably the meme most calculated to alienate "911 researchers" from the family members. It is very unlikely that a spouse would not know they were having a phone conversation with their partner, and the extra complication to the operation this would require makes this theory one of the least credible. There is enough provable evidence of official complicity without claiming that 9/11 family members really didn't talk with their loved ones on the phone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from whatreallyhappened.com
Posted Aug 3, 2004 08:41 AM PST
To counter the growing number of websites exposing government lies and deception, the government has resorted to creating their own websites with nonsensical and easily disproved fanciful claims in an effort to make the entire issue of questioning the official story look silly. This is an old tactic dressed up in new technology. Claims that a plane did nto really hit the Pentagon, or that the planes aimed at the WTC had strange "pods" that fired missiles, are just two examples of the nonsense government agents plant on the net to try to create confusion, delay the formation of concensus as to what did happen, and to give the media easy handles with which to hold the real critics up to ridicule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xymphora.blogspot.com
Monday, December 08, 2003
There have been three bumps in the history of the discussion of the truth of what happened on November 22, 1963: the Garrison investigation of the late 1960's, the official investigations of the mid-1970's, and the release of the Oliver Stone film and the resulting forced disgorging of some secret documents during the 1990's. Between those bumps there have been long stretches of wheel-spinning, where absence of new information meant that conspiracy buffs spent their time constructing dream palaces in the air of their own imaginations. Those who conspire must love this, as the buffs themselves create the forest of misleading data in which the truth can easily hide. The main problem of conspiracy research now is separating the disinformation from the truth, with by far the greatest collection of disinformation created by well-meaning but misguided 'researchers' who, in the absence of new data, let their imaginations run wild. It is sad to see exactly the same thing happening in the field of discussion of September 11. The Bush Administration has successfully managed to completely stonewall even the rather suspicious official investigation, and I have not seen any new important revelations in at least a year. People who rode hobbyhorses in the months after September 11 are still riding the same hobbyhorses, in love with their own theories more than the truth (my personal hobbyhorse is that November 22 and September 11 were arranged by the same two American institutional groups). Now we're even beginning to see the beginnings of the grand meta-theories, with the attack blamed on some secret conspiracy involving Israel (with the happy Israeli witnesses making a video of the attack paralleling the fact that Yitzhak Rabin was in Texas at Fort Bliss on November 22, 1963; it's as if Israel makes a point of sending witnesses whenever they hear about such things), or, in a possible attempt to shield Israel, weird conspiracy chestnuts like the Bilderbergers or the Illuminati (whatever happened to the Rockefellers, who used to be blamed for everything?). These meta-theories are worse than useless, serving as a method of appearing to discuss the case while simply constructing a wall of smoke. There is significant real information readily available if the American political situation would allow it to be released. I'd like to start with testimony from the pilots who just missed reaching the targets on time, and ask them who arranged for them to be so near and yet so far.
[Continues at oilempire.us ] |
