9/11: Debunking The Myths

[sanch]

Here is an interesting article by Dr. Michael Green. Once one cracks open one conspiracy theory there are invariably more in the egg. Here he looks at the evidence for In Plane Sight and Loose Change.

My views on 911 are as dark and conspiratorial as most. I believe that the National Security Act of 1947 was masterminded by key members of the Council on Foreign Relations to create a privatized mercenary force (CIA Department of Plans) to undermine and topple secular nationalist governments that put the interests of their own peoples before the economic interests of the ruling faction of the United States. I believe that subsequent draconian secrecy laws and oaths, and outsourcing by means of Reagan's (read: BUSH's) Executive Order 12333, have created privatized covert action mercenaries whose moles and contacts within the military and intelligence agencies permit them even greater freedom of action than they had in the assassinations of JFK, X, MLK, and RFK, so that WTC93, OKC, and 911 are also their handiwork. I believe that the so-called "corporate" media is in large part, when needed for crisis management and gross disinformation, under the direct operational control of the intelligence agencies by means of class allegiances within the ruling elite. I also believe that the neocon cabal is at odds with the traditional Eastern Liberal Establishment and that there is currently a war amongst the rulers over who shall hold the reins of power; the "other side" is roughly a combination of Leo Straussian Zionists, crusading imperial Christian military of the Jerry Boykin cut, and pro-American imperialists like Tom Friedman of the New York Times. Although US world domination has long been the goal of the CFR, the muscular militancy of the neocons has gained especial appeal in a world of diminishing resources where an unregulated profit-driven economy has made the brute solution of military might attractive to many with limited compassion, wit, and imagination.

The conclusion Dr. Green reaches is that there are intelligence community moles--many of whom are paid--who are engaged in polluting the air waves with nonsense to discredit the very good data that is there to show what happened with the WTC. The missile theory for the pentagon is the work of moles paid by the intelligence community. These moles work forums such as this one and their style is so outrageous that they discredit the real information that would otherwise be taken seriously were if it were not for their hysterics.

Both videos contain much good evidence and valuable material of explosions in the WTC that brought down WTC1, 2,7 that cannot be suppressed. I suggest that the purpose in including both junk and substantive evidence is to discredit the latter. If rotten fish is wrapped in the same package as delicious truffles, few people with good judgment or good taste will attempt to retrieve and salvage the truffles. It is also to scant good evidence and thorough analysis in favor of cheap shots and one-liners that have no evidentiary value whatsoever. VonKleist wraps the good meat of the WTC blowing up between two pieces of rotten bread: the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon, and the Pod & Flash fraud. If Mr. VonKleist is not a paid intelligence disinformation asset, then he is the dream of the intelligence community: someone who dissembles as artfully as they do, and with all their wit, but who doesn't draw a salary (4).

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/2005_07_21_Michael_Green_Loose_Change_analysis.htm

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

Welcome back to the debate Aeon. Well you have a theory on what really hit these buildings but you still have no theory of what happened to the missing flights. I would truly like to know your thoughts.

If I was to ask my govt. what happened they would say Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Some claims, it was shoot down, some other claim, it landed safely somewhere, but who knows? the only thing i know is i see absotly nothing on the video they released.

Some claimed it was shot down... any idea where? The plane was heading west. Is the Bush Administration that clever that they could bring down an airliner on US soil and hide the crash site?

Some say it landed safely... so basically you are saying that all of the passengers were probably killed upon landing. Killed by whom? If not killed but imprisoned. And if they are imprisoned where are they being held? Who is watching them. They will obviously have to be imprisoned until they die so to keep the cover up intact. Who did the killing or who is keeping all those people in prison?

Do you think that maybe the plane was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon?

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

Well if the plane was hyjacked and flown into the pentagrame, where is the damn picture? It's a big plane it should be on one of the videos, or am I just being silly? Hey EagleSmack if none of the surveylenzz cameras got a shot of that great big airplane somebody got ripped off on the video equipment. :lol:

 

[mabudon]

RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

have to quickly agree with DB on that point, what the HELL good is the surveillance equipment on what is one of the most "surveilled" places in the history of humans if it cannot catch a cingle FRAME of a giant aircraft??? from the crappy videos I've seen so far, the frigging michelin man could have walked right up to the pentagon wearing a belt loaded with explosives and caused the damage we've seen and non of us would be the wiser- maybe that is what happened, and Michelin has just paid out a LOT of hush money??

 

[aeon]

Here is an interesting article by Dr. Michael Green. Once one cracks open one conspiracy theory there are invariably more in the egg. Here he looks at the evidence for In Plane Sight and Loose Change.




The conclusion Dr. Green reaches is that there are intelligence community moles--many of whom are paid--who are engaged in polluting the air waves with nonsense to discredit the very good data that is there to show what happened with the WTC. The missile theory for the pentagon is the work of moles paid by the intelligence community. These moles work forums such as this one and their style is so outrageous that they discredit the real information that would otherwise be taken seriously were if it were not for their hysterics.


http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/2005_07_21_Michael_Green_Loose_Change_analysis.htm

This guy can say whatever he wants, but the moles has nothing to do with the fact that the leaseholder of building 7 admitted they have controlled demolition the building, and the fact that the building wasnt hit by any airplane, and the fact that the building fell faster than a free fall speed, support that claim. Already he is being discredited.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

Well if the plane was hyjacked and flown into the pentagrame, where is the damn picture? It's a big plane it should be on one of the videos, or am I just being silly? Hey EagleSmack if none of the surveylenzz cameras got a shot of that great big airplane somebody got ripped off on the video equipment. :lol:

Then where is Flight 77? Because they had a lousy survellience system at one gate at the Pentagon you come to the conclusion that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. I agree it was a frame by frame camera that did not capture the plane hitting the Pentagon. In hindsight maybe they should have had real streaming video.

So there are all sorts of missle, small plane, small plane and missle conspiracies but not one answers the dissapearence of Flight 77.

Again... where did they go? Where are the people? What about the phone call from the American journalist on Flight 77 to her husband saying that they have been hijacked? Was she lying? Is he lying? Did he not receive the phone call and is part of the cover up?

Flight 77 had to land/crash somewhere in the US as it was heading west over land.

WHERE IS FLIGHT 77 and its PASSENGERS AND CREW!

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

It's a big world EagleSmack lots of places to ditch an aircraft with passengers.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

The only thing debunked in this thread has been ITN who started it.

Actually, nobody has been able to dispute anything the original report claimed in their own words.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

The only thing debunked in this thread has been ITN who started it.

Actually, nobody has been able to dispute anything the original report claimed in their own words.

The fact that Building 7 that was controlled demolition contracdicted the original report.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

The fact that Building 7 that was controlled demolition contracdicted the original report.

Aeon, you have no evidence of this, only an intepretation of a phrase. Where is the mounting evidence that would hold up in court. Which jury would condemn Silverstein based on what you say, tell me that.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

Nice to see you back ITN, I for one missed your wit and charm.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

Nice to see you back ITN, I for one missed your wit and charm.

:lol:

 

[mabudon]

RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

Yes, it IS a big planet, it seems that the inabilty to answer "where IS flight whatever" is a moot point... the questioners seem to already "know" the answer, and they see fit to mock any who would say "I don't know"
truly fascinating this intellectual opacity, let's hope for more GIFs and more emoticons and more "all caps" posts to prove the pfficial story

 

[Jay]

I accually don't give a shit where "flight whatever" is...it's the frick'n people on it I'm worried about.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

Yes, it IS a big planet, it seems that the inabilty to answer "where IS flight whatever" is a moot point... the questioners seem to already "know" the answer, and they see fit to mock any who would say "I don't know"
truly fascinating this intellectual opacity, let's hope for more GIFs and more emoticons and more "all caps" posts to prove the pfficial story

PERFECT!

This is exactly what I mean. You say the dissapearence of Flight 77 is a "moot" point. So it is irrelevant that Flight 77 went missing in and around the DC area because in all essence Flight 77 and it's vanishing doesn't fit into your conspiracy !

Thanks for proving what I have known all along.

Flight 77? Who knows and who cares what happened to it... it has no bearing on your conspiracy theory so the easiest thing is to just ignore that there was a Flight 77 and now it is gone along with the passengers and crew.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

Yes, it IS a big planet, it seems that the inabilty to answer "where IS flight whatever" is a moot point... the questioners seem to already "know" the answer, and they see fit to mock any who would say "I don't know"
truly fascinating this intellectual opacity, let's hope for more GIFs and more emoticons and more "all caps" posts to prove the pfficial story

PERFECT!

This is exactly what I mean. You say the dissapearence of Flight 77 is a "moot" point. So it is irrelevant that Flight 77 went missing in and around the DC area because in all essence Flight 77 and it's vanishing doesn't fit into your conspiracy !

Thanks for proving what I have known all along.

Flight 77? Who knows and who cares what happened to it... it has no bearing on your conspiracy theory so the easiest thing is to just ignore that there was a Flight 77 and now it is gone along with the passengers and crew.

What happened to flight 77, is irrelevent on 9-11, as long as we will never know what crashed into the pentagone, it means nothing at all, simple as that.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

What happened to flight 77, is irrelevent on 9-11, as long as we will never know what crashed into the pentagone, it means nothing at all, simple as that.

But Silverstein "pulling" WTC 7 is directly relevant innit?

 

[Mogz]

I've tried to steer clear of this thread because it's moronic, but I have to weigh in here briefly:

1. The point has been brought up, what happened to the plane? It can't have crashed/been shot down in the U.S. withot someone noticing. Why would they bother landing the plane, then killing and/or imprisoning the passengers? Wouldn't it make more sense to just fly the f.ucking thing in to the Pentagon? Where's the motivation to pretend a plane crashed in to the Pentagon, then hit it with a f.ucking missile? Furthermore, why would they attack the chief location for all the future planning of Afghanistan and/or Iraq with something like a missile? The potential for lost/damaged data is too great. Wouldn't it have made more sense to zip a missile in to Congress instead of the location they "knew" they'd be using to stage the invasion of Afghansitan? So tell me, where was the motivation for using a missile instead of the fully loaded jet liner that has since magically disappeared?

2.

It's a big world EagleSmack lots of places to ditch an aircraft with passengers.

Without anyone noticing? Do you honestly think that could be kept quiet? Hell Brangelina can't even have their kid in the middle of butt-f.uck Africa without people finding them. What makes you think a fully loaded aircraft, being tracked by the FAA, could just disappear? Obviously you have no concept of how air traffic control works. Each aircraft (civilian) is fitted with a radar beacon, said beacon cannot be deactivated without alerting the FAA. Couple that with the fact, that even if said beacon were damaged/inoperable, modern radar could still track the aircraft. When the FAA cleared the airspace over North America, there wasn't a single civilian aircraft in the sky. Where could an aircraft have gone, under a ban on air travel, when the best air defence team in the World (Canada-US) is monitoring all air traffic?

 

[I think not]

Poor Mogz, you used a bad word, "reason". There is no such thing in this thread.

 

[EagleSmack]

I agree... this whole thread borders on moronic.

But the mere fact that Flight 77 is as they call it "irrellevent" to them.

I have repeatedly posed this question and they dance about. However after my repeated postings and provoking an answer to my question I sort of got a reply....

"Who cares... it didn't hit the Pentagon."
"Who knows... ask your govt."
"Flt. 77 is irrellavent"

Flight 77 was tracked as every plane is and dissapeared on 9/11 in the DC area. It just so happened at the same time of it's dissapearence there was a big crash at the Pentagon complete with wreckage.

But yet you still maintain something other than Flt. 77 hit the Pentagon even though Flt. 77 went off radar in Washington DC?