BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Battlefield Ohio

 
 
Pita
17:00 / 27.10.04
Breaking news fron the front!

A half page ad was placed in the Columbus Dispatch today which goes into detail describing the REMOTE CONTROL plane which hit the Pentagon on 9-11. The ad includes pictures as well as an explanation of the intention behind its placement.

Unfortunately I have no access to OCR software here at work but I do have a scanner

scanned page
 
 
alas
18:25 / 27.10.04
Well, that's bizarre. Feels a bit "weekly world news"-ish in its presentation, the voice of the conspiracy buff. But I admit to having to push back suspicions about nearly every event on 9/11 ...
 
 
Chiropteran
18:34 / 27.10.04
More from James Hanson, for additional context.

Am I convinced by the 'ad'? No.

Would I be shocked if it's true? No.

Do I think we'll ever find out for sure? I'd be surprised.

Still, work all the angles 'til Tuesday! (Voices carry...)

~L
 
 
FinderWolf
18:35 / 27.10.04
It has ALWAYS seemed VERY fishy to me that the Pentagon, which must be surrounded by more surveillance cameras than anywhere else on the planet, has NEVER SHOWN US AN IMAGE OF THE PLANE APPROACHING OR CRASHING INTO THE BUILDING.
 
 
rizla mission
07:29 / 28.10.04
If, as assumed, this is meant to be an anti-Bush move I can't really see it being anything but counter-productive.

It's such a crappy and unimaginative conspiracy theory I can't really see it blowing anybody's mind - surely people are just going to think it's tasteless and get pissed off.
 
 
LykeX
08:49 / 28.10.04
It's probably intended to just keep the questions about 9/11 alive in the back of people's heads. Noone expects Bush to crack and admit to having planned it all.

I think the finishing words of the article are very interesting. It should be very easy to disprove his allegations, so why don't they?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:07 / 28.10.04
Because it's baroque and weird and they don't want to dignify it?
 
 
+#'s, - names
12:08 / 28.10.04
Pentagon Conspiracy Video?
 
 
crogdad
13:36 / 28.10.04
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
 
 
FinderWolf
13:48 / 28.10.04
I just sent this to snopes (I know this is a bit off-topic, as the thread title indicates election-related Ohio stuff and the thread is really about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but what the hell...):

Re: the 9/11 Pentagon conspiracy theories

Your article on this subject is all well and good, but can you or anyone explain why there are ABSOLUTELY NO PHOTOS of a plane in the air about to hit or even approaching the Pentagon, which must have more surveillance around it than most any other building in the WORLD? We have hundreds of images of the planes hitting the WTC, but not one single image of a plane approaching or striking the Pentagon. The Pentagon showed us pictures of the Pentagon sitting there minding its own business on a bright sunny day with nothing in the sky, and then various pictures of a large explosion, smoke, etc.

This absence of pictures of a plane approaching or striking the Pentagon is what's most troubling to me. And I don't buy the argument that they're suppressing the pictures because they don't want the Pentagon to look vulnerable, image-wise. It was vulnerable and was it, where's the shame in showing the American public a picture of a plane approaching it?

I would like to see Snopes at least try to debunk this question and add it to your list of questions on this story.
 
 
ibis the being
14:58 / 28.10.04
I'm not terribly surprised or curious about the lack of surveillance photos from the Pentagon. We already know that the government was not exactly on the ball as far as Homeland Security and terrorism policies in the pre-911 Bush days. Though you'd logically assume there would be cameras all over the Pentagon, that doesn't mean they weren't totally incompetent in that area as in so many others. I think it's actually more questionable that after the planes hit the WTC towers, nothing was done about the other hijacked flights still in the air.
 
 
FinderWolf
17:53 / 28.10.04
It's inconceivable, though, that there's not ONE PICTURE of the plane flying towards or hitting the Pentagon.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
20:21 / 28.10.04
I thought the plane came from a) a vertical angle and b) very fast, but I might be wrong. Certainly its good that someone placed this ad.
 
 
grant
20:46 / 28.10.04
I think it's actually more questionable that after the planes hit the WTC towers, nothing was done about the other hijacked flights still in the air.

According to radio transcripts, the jets that were scrambled were actually looking for incoming missiles. They had no idea. (Or so NPR told me a few months ago.)
 
 
Simplist
01:08 / 29.10.04
If, as assumed, this is meant to be an anti-Bush move I can't really see it being anything but counter-productive.

That was my reaction as well. Just going to make the anti-Bush crowd look loony to the (subjectively) sober middle...
 
 
Baz Auckland
01:15 / 29.10.04
I think the lack of another explanation of what happened to Flight 77 sort of kills this theory in my mind... If Flight 77 didn't hit the building, then where did it go?
 
 
rizla mission
08:18 / 29.10.04
Well exactly.

Certain other 9/11 theories carry a lot of weight, but this one's just plain dumb - how does a "remote control plane" account for all those dead airline passengers lying around..
 
 
LVX23
00:27 / 02.11.04
There is some evidence to suggest that certain parties allied with the Saudi Royals are actively supporting the dissemination of various forms of "911 Truth" propaganda that all manages to steer people away from the real smoking gun - The Saudi's.

I suggest reading through Daniel Hopsicker's work, especially this piece.
 
 
LykeX
06:03 / 02.11.04
Because it's baroque and weird and they don't want to dignify it?

I'm not saying this theory is true, I'm sure you could cook up hundreds of explanations that all fit the current evidence. However, that's exactly the problem. Governments, for some reason, seem to think that it's a good idea to constantly hide the truth as much as possible, even if there's no real reason.
That's the very cause of all these conspiracy theories popping up. People sense that they are being kept in the dark, and so they try to speculate about what really happened. Naturally some of those speculations will be slightly absurd.

I'm thinking maybe it's some form of authoritarian arrogance. They believe that people should accept their explanation even without evidence, so they don't bother to prove it, even though they could?
 
 
FinderWolf
11:27 / 02.11.04
On a separate Ohio subject, a judge overturned another judge's previous decision that Republicans should not be allowed to challenge voters at Ohio poll stations. But the new judge said Dems and Repub's should each have 1 challenger at each station, so at least that's a little more fair.
 
 
Mister Six, whom all the girls
12:41 / 02.11.04
... anything to deter voters further!

Back to the vid. I saw this a few weeks ago, stranfely because my mum sent it to me... I had no idea she was into conspiracy techno. As I watched it, I was struck by a cold terror because it rang true with what I saw that morning. I was unemployed at the time and as I watched one tower get hit an inset of the Pentagon came up saying it was attacked. There was no skidmark of a jet, no fuselage (sp?), etc. Just a hole. It never really entered my head, BUT I did notice that morning that nothing more was said about it. No follow-up, no continued coverage. Just 'the Pentagon's been attacked' and that was it.

That really concerned me. Then this comes up... It definitely wasn't a plane, I agree with the video. Beyond that... I'm not sure the specifics matter but his theory that it was a remote control plane seems sound given the evidence, etc. There's been nothing I can see to support otherwise other than a statement that it was a passenger airliner.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
05:29 / 09.11.04
We're still missing a bunch of passengers, though.

As is so often the case these days, I don't know what to believe.

But if you're interested in this stuff, Thierry Meyssan's book "9/11 The big lie" may be up your alley.
 
 
vajramukti
16:19 / 09.11.04
I actually have a friend who's a civilian expert in explosives and demolitions, and he said he took one look at the pentagon photos and knew instantly that it could not have been done by a plane. he figured it had to have been an air dropped guided bomb of some sort.
 
 
FinderWolf
17:37 / 09.11.04
Again, there ARE NO PICTURES OF THE PLANE APPROACHING OR HITTING WHAT MUST BE ONE OF THE MOST HEAVILY-SURVIELANCED BUILDINGS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

(maybe the title of this thread should be changed to 9/11 conspiracy or something like that, since I look at the title and think it's about contested votes or voter fraud/intimidation in the recent election...)
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
17:44 / 09.11.04
If you repeat that next time using italics, then bold italics, then you'll have done enough to convince me something was astray.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
17:49 / 09.11.04
Yes, it's a little odd. But that does not mean there's a conspiracy to hide the truth. "Who benefits?" Why fake an attack on the Pentagon when you've got nice media friendly attacks on the WTC? The Pentagon is full of the people that work for Bush. Are you seriously suggesting that without the Pentagon attack the American people wouldn't have supported Bush going to war?
 
 
FinderWolf
20:15 / 09.11.04
*LOL* Touche, Lady. I just feel like it's so bizarre that that fact alone warrants massive suspicion.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:55 / 09.11.04
Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there isn't something fishy about the whole thing.

But where are the passengers?
 
 
FinderWolf
14:31 / 28.12.04
---------------------------------------------------------

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112

Rumsfeld says 9-11 plane
'shot down' in Pennsylvania
During surprise Christmas Eve trip, defense secretary contradicts official story

Posted: December 27, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, there have been questions about Flight 93, the ill-fated plane that crashed in the rural fields of Pennsylvania.

The official story has been that passengers on the United Airlines flight rushed the hijackers in an effort to prevent them from crashing the plane into a strategic target – possibly the U.S. Capitol.

During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down – long a suspicion because of the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers.

Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane.

Although the onboard struggle between hijackers and passengers – immortalized by the courageous "Let's roll" call to action by Todd Beamer – became one of the enduring memories of that disastrous day, the actual cause of Flight 93's crash, of the four hijacked jumbo jets, remains the most unclear.

Several residents in and around Shanksville, Pa., describing the crash as they saw it, claim to have seen a second plane – an unmarked military-style jet.

Well-founded uncertainly as to just what happened to Flight 93 is nothing new. Just three days after the worst terrorist attack in American history, on Sept. 14, 2001, The (Bergen County, N.J.) Record newspaper reported that five eyewitnesses reported seeing a second plane at the Flight 93 crash site.

That same day, reported the Record, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken, dismissing rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C.

Although government officials insist there was never any pursuit of Flight 93, they were informed the flight was suspected of having been hijacked at 9:16 am, fully 50 minutes before the plane came down.

On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93 specifically, spoke clearly to the administration's clear policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets.

Vice President Cheney: "Well, the – I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."

NBC's Tim Russert: "And you decided?"

Cheney: "We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time ...

"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."

Russert: "So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?"

Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision ... that if the plane would not divert ... as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by ... terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?

"... It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York.'"
_________________
 
  
Add Your Reply