Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ----Caveat Lector-
"911 In Plane Site," a new movie by a website called "The Power Hour," mixes accurate material about September 11 with easily disproved, bogus information. It is toxic to the cause of exposing the Bush regime's complicity in 9/11, since much of it is based on poor quality, manipulated photos and misunderstandings.
http://www.911inplanesite.com/
What is this "pod" attached to the bottom of "Flight 175" and why is it there What is this bright flash seen right before impact of both the North & South Towers Why did an eye witness report seeing no windows on "Flight 175" a commercial United Airlines jetliner
[rebuttal: poor quality, altered images are not a basis for making new, implausible theories of 9/11 conspiracies - they only serve to discredit the proven material that shows it was not a surprise attack and probably was an "inside job" Photoshop is an amazing tool.]
If both towers are still standing, what caused this huge explosion at the base of the WTC complex
[rebuttal: the photo that this references is actually of the collapse of the South Tower, partially obscured by the still standing North Tower. The billowing dust next to WTC 7 is not from a "huge explosion," it is the result of the South Tower collapse dust cloud. This one is extremely easy to rebut.]
How does a plane 125 ft. wide & 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across [rebuttal: the hole is about the diameter of the fuselage of the plane. None of the "no plane at the Pentagon" theories
Why did firefighters, reporters and other eye witnesses describe a pancake collapse of the WTC
[this is true -- there were eyewitnesses who definitely did think the buildings were intentionally demolished. But the "pancake" theory is not intentional demolition. See http://www.wtc7.net for a more accurate description.]
Why is there no wreckage or crater from "Flight 77" on the lawn of the Pentagon
[rebuttal: There was lots of tiny wreckage on the lawn. The crater was in the side of the building. Plane crashes at 400 mph into extra reinforced concrete / steel generally don't leave large pieces of wreckage.]
Why were there dozens of reports of bombs & explosions going off in and around the WTC before any buildings collapsed
[There were also reports of explosions at the State Department in Washington and other locations that turned out to have been false.]
How does a 757 exit the Pentagon's 3rd ring & leave a hole approximately 16 ft. across with no visible wreckage
[note: this is an anomaly that is very difficult to explain. If it really is true that the plane did go through several rings of the Pentagon, that would be strong evidence for the something-other-than-a-plane theory. However, there were way too many witnesses from a variety of backgrounds who saw a large jet at the Pentagon. The real, 100% provable fact of the Pentagon crash, which nobody disputes, is that the Pentagon was hit in the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector, which minimized casualties. See http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html and http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html for details.]
While it's blatantly obvious that 9/11 was an "inside job," bogus claims based on altered images that make no sense only discredit factual inquiry into "the event that changed the world."
New at questionsquestions.net: an analysis by Eric Salter, refuting several widely-circulated claims about the WTC airliner impacts on 9/11. These include the claims that original video recordings of the impacts were fabricated or altered using computer graphics, that aircraft other than 767s struck the the towers, and even that no planes hit the two towers, the planes supposedly being replaced by super high-tech "holographic" illusions [!]. The analysis shows that these claims, which unfortunately have been lingering around for some time, have no solid basis in the evidence -- video, photographic, or otherwise -- nor any solid basis in logic, and could help to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"? http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html
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."
http://www.oilempire.us/911intro.html#disinformation Disinformation masquerading as 9/11 Truth exposure
In addition to phony evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory, there is also the problem of bogus material pretending to be investigative journalism that does not bother to present even a scintilla of credible evidence. 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 letsroll911.org (mirrored at 911uncovered), 911hoax.org, physics911.org and the fairy godmother of this modus operandi - webfairy.org Oilempire.us doesn't provide direct links to these sites, which are a mix of accurate material and disinformation -- but they are easy enough to find.
The "webfairy" theories claim that no planes hit the World Trade Center, it was done with missiles and high-tech hologram, and uses video clips that supposedly prove these arguments. The "letsroll911" site claims that a missile was fired at the South tower just before the plane crashed into it, and also uses poor quality photos to "prove" this argument. However, blurry low resolution photos that magically appear two years later are not evidence of alternative views of what happened, they are only evidence of people's unfamiliarity with photo editing software and their gullibility. The "physical evidence" clearly shows that large jets hit the towers - the hole in the side of the North tower (which was hit first) is the size of a 767. And the idea that a missile was fired a split second before the South tower was hit makes no sense, 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).
The "missile pod at the WTC," "no plane at the WTC" and "plane plus missile" theory are toxic to the cause of 9/11 truth. It is a sign that our political efforts are having an effect -- that these "theories" (unsupported by any credible evidence) are being distributed to "muddy the waters" to make those who seek to expose the lies of 9/11 as crackpots who have no idea what we are talking about.
There was no extra "pod" that was used to fire a missile from the 767. A quick search on the web will show several sites with photos of 767's with a structure under the plane to hold the wings together. It is sad that 9/11 truth exposers are forced to waste our time dealing with this. There are NO photos with high resolution that show an extra "pod," there is no credible theory to suggest the need for any alleged pod.
The same thing happened during the citizen investigations into the coup against President Kennedy -- people popped up claiming inside knowledge that turned out to be psychotic ravings. One particularly memorable occurrence was during the Jim Garrison prosecution of Clay Shaw, a CIA agent who participated in the plot against Kennedy - the film JFK covers this episode very well. 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.
Bogus 9/11 Truth Sites -- Muddying the Waters with easily disproved phony claims
webfairy
physics911
911hoax
911review.org ( http://www.911review.com is a nice rebuttal of the sloppy work on 911review.org. 911review.com is a companion site to http://www.wtc7.net, the best of the "9/11 physical evidence" sites.)
911blimp.net [possibly the strangest 9/11 site] http://users.adelphia.net/~earthwatch/ [by the same author as the "blimp" site]
letsroll911 911uncovered
www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
