 | ||
 | ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
|
More From the Debunker
The Debunker, Mr. Gerard Holmgren responds:
This is the classic logical fallacy. "Something hit the building. A 757 is something. Therefore this is a 757." And if this clip is genuine, then its the absolute proof that it was an inside job. because we can see a flying object of some kind on the far right, perhaps a plane, perhaps a missile - but the explosion in the building is already happening! Therefore - either a planted bomb goes off moments before impact or its a remote controlled military craft firing a missile ahead of itself before entering the building itself. If the footage is faked, then we have proof of a propaganda frame up to sell a story. If the footage is genuine then we have proof of an extra explosion before impact, either from a planted bomb or a missile fired ahead of the craft. Furthermore, the officials have got themsleves into all kinds of trouble with this in claiming that the Boeing hit the ground an instant before impact. This dates from March 2002. In October 2002, I published a lengthly article which proved that it was simply impossible for a plane of that size to have hit the building:
Physical and mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash. At the time it was the most sophisticated analysis that had been done, and it raised the debate out of the vague specualtive drivel which had previously characterised it ( "the plane went on its wing, and then blew up" "it burned into nothing after the crash" it slid in on its belly and got buried under the rubble" etc) Precisely because it raised the level of anlayisis, it also provoked more sophisticated disinformation, and officials have now put together a slickly packaged, although still ludicrously impossible analysis of exactly how the 757 is alleged to have entered the building. And guess what? They've now decided that it didn't hit the ground after all! The official report now says that it entered the building at an elevation of 6 ft, fusealge dead level, right wing tilted fractionally up. So if this footage shows it hitting the ground, why have they since changed the story? If there's a " huge trench" then how was it created if the plane never hit the ground? If there's no huge trench, why was our resident conspiracy theorist trumpeting one? And if the footage doesn't unequivocably demonstrate it hitting the ground, then why does this media presentation state this as if it were an observable and indisputable fact? Here's a photo which demonstrates the lack of any evidence of ground impact or significant wreckage. Remember that a 757 is about 52 yards long, so if it hit the ground 20 yards out, we should see a ground impact extending at least 65 to 70 yards out. Remember also, that there's a neat circular hole, punched through the back of the third ring (310 ft into the building), exactly as a missile would make, and that this is at about a 50 degree angle to the front entry hole, proving that if a single craft is to be postulated as having caused the impact , then it had to have entered at about a 50 degree angle, so if its postualted to have hit the ground first, then thats the angle that the ground impact must indicate. A 757 has a wingspan of 125 ft. At a 50 degree angle of impact, with wings level that makes a hole 160 ft wide,unless the wings broke off before entry, in which case where have they gone?
http://66.129.143.7/june2aa.htm
And where's the wreckage, "strewn " everywhere? The alleged plane is 52 yards long. Where's it gone? http://www.pbase.com/image/536173
And remember that a section of wall collpased about 1/2 hour after the impact, significantly widening the hole. The above photo shows the post-collapse hole - and there's still no room for a plane 125 by 155 ft.(especially if its come in at a 50 degree angle). Furthermore, all my calculations weighted the argument impossibly towards the 757 story, by assuming that the post collapse hole was actually the space that it had to fit through, rather than the much smaller original impact hole. A concession which favours the 757 story beyond the limits of credible analysis - and its still nowhere near fitting in. And to give it some context, this is what real wreckage of real plane crashes looks like.
Here�s a good comparison. An American Airlines Boeing 757 which crashed into a mountain. 4 people survived the crash. http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w951220.htm Here�s three more 757 crashes and a 767 http://www.airsafetyonline.com/photos/britannia226/1.shtml This plane crashed into a field 80 degrees nose down. http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/yr-lcc/photo.shtml This DC 10 crashed into a mountain. This one crashed right next to a petrol station and still didn�t blow anything up. And here�s a whole lot of other crashes. http://www.airsafetyonline.com/photos/aa1420/1.shtml Wreckage photos of the plane which crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945 are unclear, but here is a description of the wreckage. [[ Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor.Still, a bulk of wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building. ]] Here's the wreckage of the cessna which crashed into a building in Tampa in Jan 2002. That should be enough to make the point. But in case you want to see more, these sites - from which the above photos were sourced, have photos of hundreds more crashes which I haven�t linked to individually. http://www.airsafetyonline.com/photos/ Crashed planes just don't disappear into nothing. To answer your other points. My 5 names? I'm not claiming to have thousands of witnesses to a missile or small military craft. I'm not claiming that witness reports prove anything at all. So I have no 5 witnesses to produce. What I'm saying is that eyewitness reports do NOT confirm a large passenger jet hitting the pentagon. The best that one can say about eyewitness reports is that they are so confused and contradictory as to be meaningless, they are poorly verified, and there is some evidence of deliberate fabrication of pro 757 witness reports. This is not the same thing as claiming that witness reports, when taken in isolation, prove what it was or wasn't. They simply don't tell us anything (except perhaps that the media was fixated on creating a general impression of 757 witnesses, without really having any) Therefore we fall back on the overwhelming physical proof that a plane of that size cannot possibly have entered the building. If someone alleges an event which would appear to be physically impossible, then we may reconsider that assumption if someone produces overwhelming force of eyewitness accounts of the event.(Hundreds of reasonably consistent and well verified reports) This then at least gives a situation to debate. But one of the most pernicious myhts around is this rubbish that "hundreds of people saw it." When asked to name 5 witnesses, with verification, who clearly and unambigously claim to have seen a large passenger jet hit the pentagon, this vague claim always melts away into nothing, let alone hundreds of wintesses, let alone thousands, as drivelled by our resident conspiracy theorist. One may manage to come up with 5 who make a claim of some sort of a large passenger jet, but although one expects some variation in the reports, one will always find that they contradict each other so wildly that no more than 2 can be truthful or accurate, even when one ignores photographic evidence which demonstrates their reports to be impossible.And this is before taking apart the reports individually to expose seriopus credibility flaws and internal inconsistencies.The onus is on those claiming to have overwhelming eyewitness evidence to produce it, and they can't. Now, what happened to AA 77? Its the wrong question to ask in the context of a debate about whether or not it hit the pentagon. To find out what happened, one first lists the possibilities, and to list the possibilities one must first eliminate that which is not possible. We know that it did not hit the Pentagon. It's not necessary to prove exactly what happened in order to observe what didn't happen. If I come home and find a window broken, and its not clear exactly how it happened, I might speculate that someone kicked it, or threw a brick through it, and then removed the brick, or hit it with a sledgehammer. In the absence of any real evidence, these are all reasonable but unproven speculations. However, I don't need to prove which of them it was in order to rule out the idea that it was a herd of flying elephants, because I know thats impossible. Now, if someone wants to argue that it was a herd of flying elephants (which is about as possible as a 757 having hit that building), thats fine if they want to produce some evidence for it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But it gets a bit rich, when the person, without any evidence to support this mad theory, then asserts it as a default truth and argues that if I can't positively prove that it was brick,as opposed to a sledghammer, or someone kicking it as opposed to a cricket ball, then that proves it was a herd of flying elephants. I don't know what happened to AA 77, and we probably won't know for sure until Bush and his cronies are tried for treason and the full details of exactly what happened can be pieced together. In general terms, it makes sense to speculate that either it was shot down or crashed by remote control, or else the plane was landed somewhere, and the passengers disposed of in some other manner. If it was shot down or crashed by remote control, then it could have been over the ocean, or else in a place so restricted as to prevent any possibility of inquisitive journalists, public, or even official investigators finding it, for example the restricted space around Camp David. If it was landed somwhere, then one would have to speculate a secret or highly restricted military base. Since this then would have required subsequent organized murder of the passengers and crew, and the subsequent, disposal or disguising of the plane, this seems the less likely opotion. It is instructive to remember that in 1962, the CIA proposed a plane called operation mongoose, in which it was propsed to frame Cuba for an aviation atrocity. The plan was to take footage of a group of college students boarding a plane for a holiday,then shoot down a remote controlled plane mocked up to look like the students' plane, and blame Cuba for it.Tthe supposedly dead college students were to be given new IDs. This may sound fantastic, but it got as far as being approved by the joint chiefs of staff. And thats with 1962 technology. Its in the national security archives. Friendly Fire -- Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba, by David Ruppe, 1 May 2001
Northwoods - a plan for terror to justify war. Comments by Jared Israel.
And here's the scanned images of the actual document
Now regarding Bin laden, and his supposed confession. You are of course referring to the video tape. The tape is a fake.
The Phantom - Pentagon's Bin Laden Video Tape of Dec 13 by Arbeiterfotographie:
And to read how easy it is to do a better fake than this ham fisted job:
Last word in High Tech trickery. by David Higgins Sydney Morning Herald. May 16 2002
Sept 11 attacks- evidence of US collusion by Steve Grey. (Read the section called "Evidence please !")
And here's what Bin laden is actually reported as saying about the Sept 11 attacks. Not that his word is gospel. I'm just saying that the assertion that he's admitted it simply isnt true and is based soley on generalized media hype over a fabricated tape put together by the US. Here's what the very same media actaully reported about Bin laden and Sept 11 in a more sober, more verifiable and less publicized context.
Bin laden denies terror attacks and points finger at jews. Annanova news.
Bin laden denies attacks as Taliban talks holy war. ABC news online Sept 17 2001.
Bin Laden denies being behind attacks. JS ONline Milwaukee Jornal Sentinal Sept 16 2001
Osama Bin Laden claims terrorist attacks in USA were committed by some American terrorist group. Pravda Sept 12 2001
Bin laden Denies US attack says paper. Middle East News
Bin laden says he wasn't behind attacks CNN Sept 17 2001
Bin Laden denies role in attacks. Newsday.com Sept 17 2001
Taliban says Bin Laden denied role in attacks. Yahoo news Sept 13 2001.
And Cheney let the cat out of the bag, about why they made such a big deal of the tape. When it was released, I heard him on radio, and he said (as close to word for word as I can remember) "Now hopefully this will put an end to these insane conspriracy theories that - ah - that - that someone esle did it." Sounds like Cheney got halfway through and thought "Oh god, I've nearly said too much."
Sorry, I can't source that one, I remember hearing it on the car radio.
And so I return to my other questions. What about Bush reading to kids for 25 minutes, smiling, cheering and joking after being told "America is under attack." ? And then wasting more time with a pointless speech. Even as he was giving that speech, Bush knew what nobody else knew: that AA 77 had also been reported hijacked - 35 minutes before he began that speech. Bush knew about two more hijacked planes, before he even entered the classroom and so when he was told that a second one had hit the WTC, he knew that at least one more was on the loose. Even people who didn't know that were amazed that he wasn't attending to the problem. At one stage, a journalist in the classroom asked whether the president shouldn't be addressing himself to the situation in NY rather than laughing with 2nd graders about pet goat stories. Bush sternly rebuked that now was not the time to address it and that he would have something to say later. As he said this - he knew! that at least one more hijacked plane was on the loose. And then when he began his pointless speech, the treacherous bastard knew very well that one more plane had been hijacked 35 minutes ago and that the air force was stood down. What about the subsequent lies he told to try to cover up his movements and knowledge that morning? The insider trading on airline stocks by highly placed CIA people? The standown of the air force? The fact that even if AA 77 had hit the pentagon, then it means that Andrews airbase was stood down? So in a sense, this debate about AA 77 is peripheral to the question of govt guilt, relevant only to the debate of whether they deliberately allowed it to happen, or whether they actually organized the whole thing. That the attack on Afgahnistan was already planned prior to sept 11? That there isn't a shred of evidence that those Arabs were actually on the planes? That some of the alleged hijackers have since turned up alive? That Rice has told lie after lie about what warnings they got beforehand? That the WTC demolition was clearly a controlled demolition? etc etc. ~Did You Miss These?~ Just a Reminder - Tuesday, Nov. 04, 2003 Ravyne Is Moving - Friday, Oct. 17, 2003 The Mission - Sunday, Oct. 12, 2003 Siege Heil - Thursday, Oct. 09, 2003 Litany Of Lies - Wednesday, Oct. 08, 2003 |
Since I have such a huge readers' list for both my Politcal and my Personal diaries, please see my buddy lists for: Ravynespeaks Ravyne-xtend I now collaborate with Chris Vargo, JR. at The Underground Files. Many of my articles can now be found there. Featured Sites Is This Your Government? Penguins Are Geeks Too Chaos In Motion Jonas Parker Republicans Post 9/11 Timeline Show your support for a political writer. Check out Lisa Walsh Thomas' book and order your copy today!  Bev Harris' Black Box Voting Order at Plan Nine Publishing or Visit Scoop to download free chapters of her book  
~Get Registered!~ ![[ Registered ]](http://www.diarist.net/registry/button3.gif){kind=small}
|
Designed by Ravyne, June 2003, with technical assistance from Windshadow. All rights reserved.
(this means keep your fingers off my template! ::wicked grin::)