911 DISINFORMATION and Far-out Theories : Proof of Coverup

reply to post by Shadow Herder


S&F.

Wow, what depressing videos. I couldn't get to the end of either of them.

And, yes, I admit to considering the NPT at one time, and asked in a thread here if it bought us anything. I got, I think, more chastised than I deserved for simply being open-minded, as I was at pains to point out that I was not espousing the theory, I just wanted to see what some of the more informed people here had to say about it after seeing a YouTube video that seemed to strongly suggest that the planes simply couldn't have been travelling as fast as they were purported to.

I heard someone say the other day that the planes were either holograms or GCI artefacts... and my answer these days is that, ok, so why didn't they make the planes look exactly like commercial airliners? My current thesis is that there was a switch and remote-controlled military aircraft were used on the Towers. I'm even leaning towards the idea that there weren't any commercial airliners in the first place... I don't have any fixed ideas about missile pods or whatever, but the visual analyses I've seen of available footage suggests a military rather than civilian configuration to the planes.

I also hear the argument that "the planes were made out of aluminium, and the external face of the towers was steel, so the planes couldn't have penetrated them. Well... I saw an interview with an architect involved with the WTC who said that the external columns wouldn't offer much resistance but the core would withstand the impacts: and I have a compelling memory from childhood...

On UK TV when I was a kid, there was a programme called "How" which was for me compulsory viewing, and one week, one of the presenters asked the question, "How can I get this candle to go through this thick piece of plywood?"

He used a shotgun, and the candle went straight through. It didn't look quite pristine, but it did survive.

Anyway... disinfo people are certainly out there, and my tip for a oarticularly sneaky one is this guy
, who purports to be outing CIA disinfo... but the people he targets have been the source of great information and analysis, not just about 9/11 but about many other topics too.

If you look at the website, you'll find a lot of innuendo and smear, and a complete lack of hard facts.

It's been interesting watching the Jones/Fetzer/Wood schism. Judy Wood's looking pretty marginal. It's also interesting that the more coverage Jones has got, the harder they've tried to smear him with his involvement in the cold fusion furore of a few years back. I looked into all that and couldn't identify anything that he did that was out of line. Heaven knows, there's enough trouble getting science done at the best of times, and however the CF thing shakes out in the end, Jones' involvement doesn't really demonstrate anything other than the usual level of scientific disagreement.

Question: what do you do about people who are obviously provocateurs, like the guy in the second video who turned up to a previous event in a dinosaur costume? The Karl Rove school would say, find out who he is, find out where he gets his money, and smear it all over the net... and if that fails, well, we can find out where he lives...

OTOH, those are the kind of tactics employed by the people we rightfully despise. Who wants to turn into Karl Rove?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The 911 movement consists of not only debunkers but Pseudo-truthers. These people act like truthers but solicit far-out theories in the name of 911 truth. These theories usually are about already debunked or overly discussed topics such as Space weapons, Missile Pods, Holograms, Tv Fakery, Windowless planes, CGI, Flight 93 shoot down, no planes at wtc, Exotic weapons, and other nonsensical theories meant to discredit the 911 truth movement and really lead you down a dead end dirty road.

Flight 93 shoot down?

OK. I'm not up to speed on this. The last time I looked at this - which was some time ago - it seemed as if the evidence did point to 93 being shot down. I'd heard (and this was before the end of 2001, I'm fairly sure) that a mystery plane had been seen, that the actual plane wreckage was strewn over several miles indicating that the plane had broken up in mid air, and that the so-called crash site had even less wreckage than the Pentagon.

The conclusion I drew from this at the time was that the plane had been shot down but no-one wanted to admit to this. What's the current truth-movement-approved position on this? What evidence has emerged to support it and counter my initial impression? Why is it contentious to say 93 was shot down? We're not going "let's roll" on this, are we?

reply to post by Shadow Herder


I am sorry, but I do think you are barking up the wrong tree....

What has been disclosed is that some of these users are actually people who hate the 911 truth movement and log on and pretend to be 911 truthers. Their aim is to discredit the movement.

That is quite an inflammatory statement. I certainly hope you have solid evidence to substantiate such a claim. There are ample numbers of sites, off of ATS that propose these alternate theories. I think most of those who come here to ATS and post them do so with true intent, because they happen to belive what they've read on those other sites, and wish to state their opinions here. I think most of them are sincere, not part of some "scheme". So, if you have evidence to the contrary, then I'm all eyes.


I find it ironic, though, that the OP employs many of the same tactics that he is decrying, vis-a-vis the Shanksville crash site. I am having trouble reconciling this discrepancy, I hope it can be cleared up.

I can see that some people are hard at work trying to discredit 911 truth. Many of these pseudo-thruthers always seem to say that they were contacted by very important people and that these people seem to discredit legitimate evidence that goes against the official story and attempt to replace it with far out theories that no real researcher accepted and had been proven as complete flase and disinformation.


There is a heavy disinformation and smear campaign in play right now on these and other forums. So be diligent and take these far out claims with a grain of salt.

Topic to look away from are Space beam, energy weapons, Missile pods on 175, Holograms, tv fakery just to name a few.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

I am glad for your responses and support. I am also glad that this discussion has been delivered and received in a mature manner.

Keep it up.

This is a relevant topic and has been proven. Educate yourself.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Why, briefly, should one assume that flight 93 shoot down is disinfo?

Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Why, briefly, should one assume that flight 93 shoot down is disinfo?

Well these people claim that 911 was an inside job and the planes were remote controlled or empty therefore negating any reason to shootdown. Besides the crater is too small to have been caused by a boeing 757 and the lack of debris proves that one didnt let alone one that has been compromised.

agree with u

but, NOT all disinfo comes from the gov

a lot of disinfo comes from stupid, dumb, or crazy people that thinks they know everything

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Well these people claim that 911 was an inside job and the planes were remote controlled or empty therefore negating any reason to shootdown. Besides the crater is too small to have been caused by a boeing 757 and the lack of debris proves that one didnt let alone one that has been compromised.

Right. This is exactly why you should be careful about which theories or questions you deem disinfo. We simply don't know enough! The conclusion you draw, "negating any reason to shoot down" is simply too much of a stretch from the available facts. There could be all sorts of reasons why the plane was shot down and a hurried "crash site" created. We simply don't know enough to write off this particular thing as disinfo, unless you can come up with a better argument than that.

I'm quite happy that the no-planers are disinfo people, some knowingly, some not: but I haven't yet seen any compelling evidence or argument to show that the flight 93 shootdown didn't take place as the initial reports seemed to indicate. And you haven't given me any. So, still waiting.

If you want to see some real disinfo about 9/11, you could look at this site, which purports to expose CIA fakes.

And here's a thread I posted which shows why I think so.

reply to post by rich23



So its agreed. No plane the size of a Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville. That is a fact.

That is all the evidence needed. Ty.

reply to post by rich23


In your thread about cia fakes it listed letsroll911.org as a cia site. Well for your information, that site is the one that started the 'happy holligans shot down flight 93' and all that nonsense including windowless tanker, missile pods, holograms, tv fakery, laser guidance, abl etc.

The shootdown theory was meant to throw you off the fact that no being 757 crashed in Shanksville on 911.

So, all you're interested in doing is winning your little argument. I'm trying to have a rational debate here, and you clearly didn't look at the thread properly.

So its agreed. No plane the size of a Boeing 757 crashed in Shanksville. That is a fact.

That is all the evidence needed. Ty.

That is a puerile reply and uses Aristotelian logic incorrectly. The fact that the crash site is unconvincing does not exclude the idea of a shoot-down. You've lost sight of how little we know here and are desperate to push the idea that this particular notion is disinfo. If you have better information, please come up with it, but don't flatter yourself you're doing a good job of convincing someone who's at present agnostic about this.

The sites that Dunne says are CIA fakes are, for the most part, pretty reliable. By your logic, all of them must be fake if you can point to one of them as disinfo. And someone even tried to "prove" that Alex Jones is CIA on this very forum by referencing BreakForNews... I love it when people use the word "PROOF" like they know what it means. You can look at the thread to see what happened.

In your thread about cia fakes it listed letsroll911.org as a cia site. Well for your information, that site is the one that started the 'happy holligans shot down flight 93' and all that nonsense including windowless tanker, missile pods, holograms, tv fakery, laser guidance, abl etc.

The title alone - "letsroll911" - put me off the site, and I've never seen it. But of course you assume that because I'm doubting the shootdown scenario to be disinfo I must therefore believe in the crash site at Shanksville. Look at my posts again. I'm asking for information, you give me dogma. It might work for you, but it won't wash with me. I'm an agnostic, which means I consider quite a lot of ideas without rejecting them out of hand, and am pretty slow to come to firm (i.e., firm-ish - never set in stone) conclusions about things.

The shootdown theory was meant to throw you off the fact that no being 757 crashed in Shanksville on 911.

This assertion seems illogical to me. I can well imagine that if the plane had been shot down, that fact would have to be covered up, and the nauseating "let's roll" American Heroes scenario concocted to do just that. As I said, I got the impression of a shootdown pretty quickly, long before I'd heard about "pods" or the NPT. Part of the problem with a shootdown scenario is that the plane wreckage would have been scattered for miles, and I heard testimony to suggest that within a very few days of 9/11.

I've considered the NPT and have rejected it. You don't want me even to think about things for myself, apparently, so, either change your attitude or come up with something I can get my teeth into, please.

Like I say, I'm interested in finding out some good reasons why the idea that 93 was shot down is disinfo. I'm swayed by externally linked evidence or good arguments, and so far neither is on offer.

reply to post by rich23


Not too many people know 100% whether or not there was a shootdown on 9/11. Insiders have revealed that there were multiple hijacking simulations taking place that day using live fly aircraft. Many of these live fly simulations were tracked by civilian and private flight controllers and radar personnel. That is one possible scenario as to create a crater or a shootdown story. The elimination of the multiple blips on screen were crucial.

With the lack of evidence to support a crash of a Boeing 757 in Shanksville on 911 a shoot down theory was spread to mislead people from learning that the plane did not create that little crater a.k.a Shanksville crash site.

Debunkers love the shootdown theory because there is no evidence to that and is easily debunked. considering that there is no wreckage in the hole or around let alone leading up to the 'crash site' which would indicate a compromised aircraft.

The shootdown theory was started by Rumsfeld then whored around by the Letsroll911 pod people.

When you are trying to find someone guilty or not guilty of a crime, making up theories is not one way to do it. The Charge was that a Boeing 757 crashed intact and created a 6-10 ft deep and 10-30 feet wide crater. The evidence shows that it is impossible for a 124+ foot wide Boeing 757 to have created such a small crater considering the trajectory was around a 40 degree angle and over 450mph.

The point is to find out if the official story is a false claim and that has been established. Offering different theories is not necessary and may lead you off course and missing the point.

Without doubt, the single most divisive topic with regards to 9/11 is the alleged use of commercial aircraft. Since the collapse sequence of the four buildings could have been (and probably was) accomplished without the need for aircraft, then what was the purpose of these alleged airplanes to the official narrative? Why were the alleged use of commercial aircraft key to the success of the operation and the subsequent explanation of events?

Since a thorough, professional, transparent and competent investigation was not conducted into the events of 9/11, I find it best to abstain from drawing any conclusions relative to what types of aircraft were used, if any were used at all.

Although most individuals argue whether or not there were airplanes or were not airplanes utilized, the reality is anywhere from zero to four commercial aircraft could have been used for the attack. Just like the possibility of anywhere from zero to four of the flights actually existing. And just like it could have been from zero to any number of military aircraft (including command and backup) in use. Thanks mostly to a piss poor investigation and massive cover up, we just do not have enough information to draw any conclusions.

Below are several reasons why alleged commercial aircraft were essential to the Government's Official Narrative:

1) Commercial airliners were inserted into the official narrative so the naive public could make the natural connection between the hijackers and extremist Muslim "Jihadists". If you just have bombs in four secure structures and no claims of hijacked airplanes, then the story becomes extremely suspicious. This is a no-brainer.

What was the purpose of framing these extremists? Certainly, two unjust and unending wars later one need no longer ask that question. In addition, the restriction of Civil Liberties for Americans also tells the tale more honestly than any media or political puppet ever will.

2) Commercial airliners being inserted into the official narrative at the WTC was a very necessary distraction to trick people into NOT noticing the alleged underground simultaneous bombing of those structures.

You see, while everybody is looking up at the towers and sees a huge explosion, they do not take into account the underground explosion(s) which are happening simultaneously. Most people would just recall that those two simultaneous explosions were one in the same. This is where the commercial aircraft deception plays a vital roll in the actual operation.

What was the purpose of the underground bombs? Obviously to weaken the foundation of the structure, possibly destroy any targets of evidence at those locations and basically set off the demolition process. I will not speculate what type of explosive device(s) could have been used, but it is safe to say they do exist.

3) Finally, the story of Commercial Airliners is important to the official caveman story because it is arguably the most divisive issue of 9/11. Theoretically, one can argue forever about how many planes were used, were cellphone calls made from planes, did the jet fuel from the airplanes cause the collapse, was this or that plane shot down, what happened to the passengers, etc. Anyone who is asking these questions, should know there is now way of correctly answering them without a proper investigation.

In summary, the airplanes have not only been used to allegedly frame and vilify innocent targets, they were apparently used to mask the real reason for the Towers' collapse (bombs, cutter charges and/or other demo resources, some of which may be classified).

However, in the aftermath of 9/11, it appears the alleged airplanes' biggest success has been to divide those who are attempting to uncover some semblance of truth about the operation. In essence, the airplanes continue to play a vital role in perpetuating the 9/11 cavemen fable.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by rich23

 

Not too many people know 100% whether or not there was a shootdown on 9/11.

Well, at least there's some doubt there. This I see as progress. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Acknowledging the limits of one's own knowledge is important so you don't commit yourself to an untenable theory.

Insiders have revealed that there were multiple hijacking simulations taking place that day using live fly aircraft. Many of these live fly simulations were tracked by civilian and private flight controllers and radar personnel.

Agreed.

That is one possible scenario as to create a crater or a shootdown story. The elimination of the multiple blips on screen were crucial.

I'm not, at this point, seeing any necessary logical connection between the two.

On the day, we were told that there had been four aircraft. You need the fiction of a flight to hit the Pentagon, even though I don't think any sizeable jet did the damage there. Shanksville puzzles me, because there's no real reason to make up the entire flight unless the whole "let's roll" scenario was planned in advance, and I don't go for that simply because it took a while for the "evidence" supporting it to come out. That comforting myth would, I believe, have been pushed a lot sooner if it had been pre-prepared.

I can only see two alternatives: either that the let's roll myth was the sole reason for flight 93, or that something went wrong, and either some lucky pilot caught up with it and shot it down, or there was a malfunction of some sort, and whoever was running the game decided a shootdown was the best option.

Ok. I'm digging for myself now. This is the first link I've found. I'm not completely sure I trust the video as presented here, because at one point fast-forward bars are on-screen with no interruption to the sound. I also have no idea whether, as the caption states, this video footage was never again broadcast on TV. However, the female commentator says, at 13 seconds in,

the debris here has been spread over a three to four mile radius...

The rest of the video supports the premise that the "official" crash site was bogus. As I said, I don't see any mutual exclusivity between a bogus official crash site and a shoot-down - in fact an "official" crash site would keep reporters away from the real debris field, which could be quietly cleared up. I couldn't find a link now, but I remember at the time coming across testimony that one of the engines was found miles away. That, to me, supports a shoot-down.

So I think that plane was intended to do something, but what, I don't know.

Assumptions: the hijackers are on board a real airliner, but fail to take control. There's also the possibility of a Mossad agent on board. At any rate, there are witnesses on the plane who could blow big holes in the official myth because they've seen for themselves how incompetent the hijackers were.

In that situation, either a shoot-down or the possible re-routing of the flight (rumoured to Cleveland? Is that correct?) and disposal of the passengers becomes quite logical.

With the lack of evidence to support a crash of a Boeing 757 in Shanksville on 911 a shoot down theory was spread to mislead people from learning that the plane did not create that little crater a.k.a Shanksville crash site.

I'm sorry, but that paragraph simply makes no sense to me.

What you're saying there, in so many words, is that a fake theory was invented, which completely contradicts the OS, to stop people from learning evidence that doesn't support the OS. That makes no little sense to me that I can't even figure out where the logical flaw is - there's more logic in a Marz Brothers setpiece.

Debunkers love the shootdown theory because there is no evidence to that and is easily debunked. considering that there is no wreckage in the hole or around let alone leading up to the 'crash site' which would indicate a compromised aircraft.

I'd refer you to the quote above from the video I found. That female reporter said there was, let's say it again,

the debris here has been spread over a three to four mile radius...

And supposedly those early reports have vanished into the memory hole. It's possible that there was evidence of a shoot-down, but reporters (and the local coroner, who said, IIRC, "I didn't hang around because there was nothing for me to do - no bodies" or words to that effect) were taken to the fake site to keep them away from evidence of a shoot-down.

The shootdown theory was started by Rumsfeld then whored around by the Letsroll911 pod people.

Factually incorrect.

I heard rumours of a shoot-down within days of 9/11. In the video where Rumsfeld talks about the shooting down of the plane, he also talks about "the people who did the bombing in Spain". The shoot-down was rumoured long, long before Rumsfeld opened his mouth on the subject. The bombing in Spain took place in 2004.

Get your facts right before you make assertions like this, please. It doesn't do the truth movement any favours.

I'd also remind you that Rumsfeld made the slip-up about the missile hitting the Pentagon. Is that disinfo too? Because I'm afraid that I absolutely do not believe that a passenger plane hit it, because

• the initial hole was too small
  
• there was no damage to the lawn
  
• there's no indication of jet wash affecting any cars
  
• the CIT cops' testimony suggests a different line of approach (I'm going with a flyover for the moment)
  

When you are trying to find someone guilty or not guilty of a crime, making up theories is not one way to do it.

Dear me, more sloppy thinking. First, we need to establish, in so far as we can, what happened. As time goes on and I see more and more evidence emerge, I'm inclined to think certain people were very likely involved (Cheney, Porter Goss, Rumsfeld, some people from COG, but not Dubya). Nobody's in court, yet. We're not remotely at the stage where we can find anyone in particular guilty or not guilty.

I'm just trying to figure out

1. what facts we can establish
   
2. what inferences we can legitimately draw from those facts
   
3. what theories these facts and inferences support or discredit
   

The Charge was that a Boeing 757 crashed intact and created a 6-10 ft deep and 10-30 feet wide crater. The evidence shows that it is impossible for a 124+ foot wide Boeing 757 to have created such a small crater considering the trajectory was around a 40 degree angle and over 450mph.

That's not a "Charge" (what's the capital letter supposed to do? make it look more official? If so, it doesn't work for me), it's the official story, which we're agreed on is nonsense. Beating it to death and conflating it with a Charge against Unnamed Persons is the kind of thinking I believe brings the truth movement into disrepute almost as much as the NPT.

The point is to find out if the official story is a false claim and that has been established. Offering different theories is not necessary and may lead you off course and missing the point.

My point - you might remember, the question I asked ages ago - was, why is a shoot-down of flight 93 disinfo? It is not a question you have satisfactorily answered.

There is a world of difference between trying to figure out what happened as best we can (without resorting to ludicrous leaps of logic a la NPT and DEWs) and being active disinfo agents.

Your original post, IMO, showed active disinfo agents at work - the no-planer-no-hopers disrupting an otherwise sensible demo. But what you're saying now is, don't think about what happened at Shanksville! There was no plane in the wreckage and that's all you need to know! Anything else and you're a disinfo agent or playing into their hands!

Well, that's not good enough, as far as I'm concerned. I'd like to know what the hell Shanksville was all about. So far, you haven't convinced me either that there was no shootdown or that to say there might have been puts me on the side of disinfo people.

And you've shot yourself in the foot with the Rumsfeld thing, I'm afraid. Buck your ideas up, please.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


I broadly agree with your post.

Like many people here, I'm just trying to make sense of what happened. But like I say, the Shanksville thing bugs me. Who knows, maybe it was inserted into the narrative just to be a loose end for "CTs" like ourselves to worry at. But it seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to just to provide some annoying loose ends.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


I agree too that the crater in Shanksville depicts something other than a full sized airliner crash site.

However...

Just because anyone agrees with one side or the other is far from being validated as any "evidence" showing or proving what did or did not happen as far as that crater is concerned.

One thing I have noticed is the lack of the inhouse debunkers that should have a field day with these nonsensical theories but you dont see that. Maybe they like these threads of out there theories because it really does hurt the movement.

I have been on other forums and played both sides of the fence and these tactics of spreading lies to discredit a group or site is nothing spectacular or new. Imho.

Hoax-Promoting Videos

Of all the media used to disseminate misinformation and disinformation videos are perhaps the most effective. Whereas websites with disinformation can be critiqued by other websites which are easily located using the Web's search capabilities, a video is unlikely to occupy a shelf with another video critiquing it. This page reviews three of the '9/11 videos' that have received some of the most extensive promotion.

911 Ripple Effect
In Plane Site
Loose Change (Editions 1,2)
9/11 Eyewitness
PentaCon

To name a few
911review.com...

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Shadow Herder... you're becoming part of the problem.

By concentrating on the disinfo aspect, you're further encouraging division within the movement.

I absolutely agree that the no-plane people from the video you posted are very likely disinfo agents.

But this last piece you linked?

It throws around the word "hoax" (always a favourite among the hysterics at ATS) rather too freely... and with precious little evidence to back things up. Here's a novel idea for you to consider:

Occasionally, people get their facts wrong.

You did yourself... the Rumsfeld thing? Gracious of you to acknowledge that, btw... not.

You stated as fact that Rumsfeld started the shootdown disinfo. No, he didn't. Should I cry, HOAX HOAX HOAX? Should I accuse you of being a disinfo agent?

It's rather more productive to get people to stick to the facts, imo. And when establishing these facts is itself a tricky business, accusing people of deliberate hoaxing is usually premature.

One of the things I do when I look at arguments like this is examine the language used very closely. Let's look at this paragraph from the link you just posted:

The description of videos listed here as "hoax-promoting" asserts that they promote ideas which function as hoaxes, not necessarily that the creators of these documentaries knowingly make false or misleading claims. Hoaxes are designed to fool people, and a well-crafted hoax can motivate sincere dedicated people to promote it.

I don't know if you can see anything wrong with that paragraph. I certainly can. I think it's actually pretty meretricious, and is, at the very least, misleading. Let's look at it again...

The description of videos listed here as "hoax-promoting" asserts that they promote ideas which function as hoaxes, not necessarily that the creators of these documentaries knowingly make false or misleading claims. Hoaxes are designed to fool people, and a well-crafted hoax can motivate sincere dedicated people to promote it.

Mmm, yes, so... we have a nice disclaimer that is completely undercut by the assertion that "hoaxes are designed to fool people".

Well, no-one wants to be fooled, do they? And - importantly - the idea of design is snuck in through the back door. Who is crafting these HOAXES? (I'm sorry, but the urge to capitalise this hysterical accusation is irresistible.)

The paranoia is reinforced. And, importantly, the possibility that people are just fallible and have made their own mistakes is completely eliminated.

The next paragraph says,

Of the four reviewed videos, Loose Change shows a willingness by its creators to reject hoax claims, the film's third edition having far fewer errors than its earlier editions.

Therefore, all mistakes in Loose Change are the result of deliberate hoaxes, sorry, HOAXES, by persons unknown.

When the author wrote that paragraph, do you think he took the trouble to contact Dylan and Corey to ask which of their errors had been the result of deliberate hoaxes? Does he pick out any of these errors and demonstrate that they were more than just simple errors, that they were, in his words, "well-crafted hoaxes"?

By simply taking stuff like this at face value and doing some mudslinging, you're doing the perps' work for them.