The Archeology of 9/11: unearthing the evidence
Sifting through the volumes of 9-11 evidence is analogous to archeology. Only some of the evidence for the distant ancestors of all living beings has been unearthed and catalogued. However, the fact that the currently known fossil record is incomplete does not prevent science from attempting to determine patterns and draw tentative conclusions about the history of life on Earth, knowing that additional evidence is likely to alter the story as we gain further knowledge. The early days of archeology saw spectacular forgeries "revealed" by unscrupulous advocates of particular theories, which parallels current efforts to distract and discredit 9/11 skeptics with disinformation. It is unlikely that any story of 9/11 is completely true, and hopefully enough of the documentation will be made public in the years to come - and enough whistleblowers step forward - so that historians will be able to more fully explain what happened to the United States of America.
Whatever details future archeologists of truth will unearth are unlikely to discredit the Reichstag Fire paradigm for understanding 9/11 - they merely will add to our understanding of the details of how the "Reichstag" was burned. The real issue is to explain why the attacks were perpetrated.
For introductions to the best evidence:
http://www.oilempire.us/911.html - 9/11 parables, best websites
http://www.oilempire.us/911why.html - WHY is more important than HOW
http://www.oilempire.us/dictionary.html - 9/11 Dictionary (introductions to complex issues)
http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html - evidence for remote control technology
http://www.oilempire.us/standdown.html - the Trillion Dollar Air Force did not defend its headquarters
http://www.oilempire.us/understanding.html - Incompetence, Blowback, Pearl Harbor or Reichstag Fire?
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html - the 9/11 wargames
Peak Oil is the real connection between Iraq and 9/11
"We are being told to accept an assemblage of facts that would not stand up in a court of law to prove the guilt of a man, bin Laden and his organization, that somehow succeeded in penetrating the most restricted airspace in the world approximately 55 minutes after the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center. These facts, while not sufficient to prevent the day that changed the world, nonetheless were more than sufficient to identify the culprit in less than the next 24 hours; who was then the justification for embarking on a war that, according to Dick Cheney, "may never end. At least, not in our lifetime"; and who less than a year later has dropped off the world stage slowing down this lifetime war, on his behalf, not one iota. Whose interests are advanced by this monumental campaign to trade our liberty for security?
-- David Ratcliffe, Domestic Terrorism: The Big Lie - The "War" On Terrorism is a Total Fabrication, September 2002
A guide to DISINFORMATION about 9/11 that distracts from real evidence of complicity
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html Bogus 9/11 websites that muddy the waters
A tactic similar to (if not part of) the Karl Rove strategy of promoting true material wrapped in a package of lies, such as the supposedly fake documents that were given to CBS News that had the accurate conclusion that Bush went AWOL from the National Guard. see http://www.oilempire.us/karlrove.html
"There's fool's gold because there's real gold."
-16th-century Persian poet Rumi
"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
"The 9/11 Truth Movement gives one insight why the term 'conspiracy theorist' came to be shorthand for "discredited whacko" in the invisible guidebook of mainstream media. "Suddenly, it's not hard to understand why the obvious anomalies in the JFK assassination never received proper attention in accepted media channels."
"If you have just as many nutty theories about the driver of the limo turning around and shooting JFK as you have honest scientific inquiries about the real probability of multiple shooters, the wheat drowns in the chaff."
-- Sander Hicks, journalist and publisher
"No Planes" The disinformation from those "muddying the waters" has denied all four plane crashes:
No Plane at the Pentagon -- the original hoax (and the most successful one)
This has been the most popular hoax, and has been promoted the longest of all of these stories (since a few months after 9/11).
At least a few hundred people saw the plane from numerous vantage points and there are photos of plane debris in the wreckage if you look at ALL of the evidence. "No Pentagon plane" discredits 9/11 skeptics in the Washington, DC area, since a lot of people saw the plane, and presumably they all told their families, friends, co-workers, etc. about their experience. There are a number of websites trying 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 should be a big clue that the corporate media efforts to discredit 9/11 skeptics all focus on this claim (the absence of Flight 77).
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.
These "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.
The "no plane" theories are used to discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven evidence of complicity.
A growing list of 9/11 "truth" websites that don't buy the "no plane" claims
The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
perhaps the best list of eyewitness accounts
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html VERY detailed analyses of how the "no plane" claims are fake, compiled by a writer who formerly believed they were real.
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html 757 maneuvers
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html no debris
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html crash debris
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html small impact hole
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/missingwings.html missing wings
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html turbofans 101
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/columns.html standing columns
another 9/11 skeptic stops buying the "no plane at Pentagon" claims
Jimmy Walter (reopen911.org): A sugar daddy with poison pills
"You had rush hour traffic on I-395 that saw the plane hit, you have 100 eyewitnesses compiled in the pamphlet published by Penny Schoner. Where the hell did this theory come from? Thierry Meyssan's book 'The Horrible Fraud' was the original source. Meyssan wrote his book from Paris, he didn't travel over here. The book is highly imaginative, and in the middle of a trauma, people are searching for answers. A lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement glommed onto this one and I think it's hurt our credibility over all. You have to wonder if that was by design."
-- Sander Hicks and the 9/11 Truth Movement
The Pentagon Attack and American Airlines Flight 77 by John Judge
BURNING QUESTIONS What Really Happened at the Pentagon on 9/11?
discusses how some of the photos "proving" a small hole at the Pentagon were digitally altered
"In the information society, bad information drives out good information. The proliferation of misinformation causes the dilution of good, factual information. Valuable information on actual cover-ups, for instance, is discredited when other alleged, but non-factual and misleading, conspiracy theories are given undue currency. In short, bad conspiracy theories discredit all assertions of conspiracy, making for fertile ground in which actual conspiracies thrive."
Sites that don't think there was official complicity
(the false choice between "no plane at Pentagon" and "Bush is innocent")
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html Photos of Boeing debris in the rubble
http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14 "Hunt the Boeing" Answers
No Plane at the North Tower -- the "missile / hologram" theory (it was masked by a King Kong sized hologram)
No Plane at the North Tower (the first to be hit). This "theory" was created by a website called "webfairy" but has failed to get much attention, since the claim (that it was merely a missile masked by a King Kong sized hologram) is too ridiculous even for most gullible internet publishers. It is trying to take advantage of the fact that there weren't any high quality movies taken of the first WTC crash, the only publicly available footage is very low quality. It did have some impact making 9/11 skeptics look ridiculous, but it hasn't been mentioned in most official "debunkings" of the 9/11 truth movement and it has not been effective at discrediting the skeptics in the New York area. The "webfairy" site is a video editing operation supposedly run by a grandmother in the Chicago area -- it is probably the source for the film footage used in the fake film "In Plane Site" (although the "hologram" material was not included in "Plane Site," presumably because it would instantly expose that film as disinformation). Most of the attention that the sponsoring site (webfairy) gets is due to its hosting of video "evidence" (much of it looks photoshopped) and mirroring of a variety of relatively incompetent 9/11 "truth" websites on its server.
Webfairy's Reign of Error
The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?
The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits", Part 2 The no-planers respond
"Pod Plane" at the South Tower (the one that hit second, with lots of witnesses)
The "Pod Plane" instead of Flight 175 at the South Tower. This story has gotten a bit more attention than the webfairy, but less than the Pentagon plane claims. This claim was first floated in 2003, but the "pod" was promoted more aggressively after the 9/11 International Inquiry in San Francisco (Marh 2004), presumably to distract from the "reality based" part of the 9/11 truth movement and to distract from more productive areas of analysis as the Presidential Election drew closer.
The "pod" is the claim that Flight 175 (the second plane to hit the WTC) supposedly had an anomaly underneath it that "proves" the planes were substituted in mid-flight and therefore 9/11 was an inside job. This claim is based on blurry photos of an alleged "pod" underneath the wing that fired a missile, contained a bomb or remote control equipment (depending on which website you read). The "pod" it is easily exposed as a hoax comparing the photos of the plane with a normal photo of a Boeing 767 -- the mythical "pod" is just the normal connector between the wing and the fuselage, called a "fairing."
The "pod" is the primary thesis of the "In Plane Site" film that was released in July 2004. No matter how many times this story is exposed as fake, its primary proponents continue on as if the Earth really is still flat, facts are obviously irrelevant for their campaign.
"Pod People" try to hijack the 9/11 truth movement
Expert photographic analysis debunks "pod" claims
No Plane in Pennsylvania (and no gas chambers in the Holocaust)
This "theory" was created by the ultra-right-wing "American Free Press" in September 2004, claiming that the fourth plane crash on 9/11 did not really happen (even though there were multiple witnesses and plane debris was scattered over several miles, which suggests the plane was actually shot down). The so-called AFP also publishes a neo-Nazi Holocaust Denial publication called "Barnes Review" (they are shrewd enough to keep the Nazi crap off the AFP site, and "segregated" onto the Barnes Review site, even though they are the same office.) Perhaps their motto should be "No Planes and No Gas Chambers." It's just a trick to discredit the real evidence of complicity.
Perhaps AFP/Barnes will soon reveal a "No Buildings" theory.
"In Plane Site" movie by the "Power Hour"
This film, released a few months before the 2004 Presidential Election, is a conglomeration of most of the red herrings surrounding the 9/11 truth movement. Nearly every piece of "evidence" in it is wrong, even if the conclusion ("inside job") is correct. "Plane Site" includes hoaxes, misinterpreted evidence, logical leaps unsupported by evidence, and some footage that is almost certainly completely fraudulent. The video clips that can be proven to be authentic are merely those plagiarized from other films, such as the WTC 7 collapse, the firefighter sequence, and the footage from Oklahoma City.
In Plane Site only promotes the "Letsroll911" website (the loudest promoter of the "pod" claim), which means that "In Plane Site" is probably a "Webfairy" production (the video operation still churning out "new" videos of 9/11 years after the fact).
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of this fake film is that the cover graphic shows the same photo of a Boeing 757 that was posted to the "911truthalliance" list in May 2004 pointing out that the "pod" was merely an illusion. In other words, the manufacturers of "Plane Site" put a photo showing the "pod" is a fake claim on the cover of the DVD -- a bad joke "hidden in plain sight."
"911: In Plane Site" - a bad joke hidden "in plain sight"
"911 - In Plane Site: A Critical Review" by Jeremy Baker
Video debunking of several "planesite" claims by 9/11 Visibility Project member
16 November 2004: Jimmy Walter, a sugar daddy with poison pills
(millionaire promoter of "In Plane Site" at reopen911.org)
Dave Von Kleist, lost in foam (about some of the misrepresentations)
perhaps this spreading of such nonsense around is part of some psyop by some intelligence agency in the government the purpose of which is to create people just like me who are reacting with growing disgust and deep mistrust and suspicion to each and every new 9-11 conspiracy type story that comes out, having been burned so many times before, and thus this psyop can work to undermine any 9-11 investigation
9/11: In Plane Site should have been a fun, Fox Mulder-y conspiracy diatribe--it features both an exceedingly annoying crackpot theorist and outlandish, unsubstantiated allegations about blurrily pixelized photos that don't really show anything. But there's something still very raw and powerful about the imagery from 9/11 that Plane Site so gleefully throws around in its half-assed allegations that 9/11 was a staged event, and the role that the film ultimately fills is that of the cheapest, most unintelligent form of cashing-in on the day it so poorly tries to redefine.
"Abiotic oil" - a theory that predates the discovery of plate tectonics that has been revived by a few voices in the "9/11 truth movement" to discredit conclusions that 9/11 was permitted partly to prepare the US for Peak Oil (to get the pretext to seize the Middle East oil fields and to impose a domestic "Homeland Security" police state to muzzle dissent)
Stanley Hilton's phony lawsuit about 9/11 complicity (the only named plaintiff bases his legal strategy to sue the Bush administration on his being fired from Nieman Marcus department store for passing out anti-war literature). Mr. Hilton used to be an assistant to Senator Bob Dole.