Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
operator kos:
Although I find remote control to be a believable hypothesis, the rest seems like overly elaborate BS. Why would you do ANY of that if you could just remote control the planes into their targets with the passengers on board? And "no plane at the Pentagon" has been debunked from within the movement time and time again...
http://oilempire.us/pentagon.html
http://oilempire.us/no-plane-timeline.html
http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Chandler_ ... ation.html
Harvey » Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:08 pm wrote:There is a small irony about the police procedural story we're all so familiar with in crime fiction. That when actually followed, it often works. The official theory is the story of how not to do it. The dog that didn't bark is that the procedures were never really followed. The dog was that someone already knew who had done it. The official theory doesn't fit the facts. All any competing theory has to do is merely account for the facts. That's all. Another small irony.
chump » Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:25 pm wrote:
Those links are a waste of time.
What do you mean the 'no plane at the Pentagon' has been debunked? Where? I've yet to see verifiable evidence of a "large passenger plane" at either location! Show me. Please! I would love to dispel this 'myth'.
operator kos » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:05 pm wrote:chump » Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:25 pm wrote:
Those links are a waste of time.
What do you mean the 'no plane at the Pentagon' has been debunked? Where? I've yet to see verifiable evidence of a "large passenger plane" at either location! Show me. Please! I would love to dispel this 'myth'.
On the contrary, arguing with no-planers is a waste of time, and you've just demonstrated exactly why. Anything showing that there was a plane is automatically called junk in the most generally dismissive way. The specific facts are never addressed. YOU explain away the scores of people who saw a large passenger jet if you want to contend that there wasn't one.
Jeff's blast from the past:
I've always liked Judge, and this is one of my favourites. I was thinking of posting it yesterday myself, so thanks.
Pretty good companion piece here by Sander Hicks, from 2004, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of "9/11 Truth":
At its worst moments, 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.
Similarly, the 9/11 Truth Movement bears the seeds of its own destruction. At times, the serious questions seem threatened to be drowned by the theories about “pods” being attached to the bottom of the planes, “napalm” being planted in the World Trade Center explosions, or the real ringer, “Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon at all.”
This reporter attended the movement’s first national conference in San Francisco in late March. Anyone who still believed that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon was instantly labeled an agent of “limited hangout.” In the movement, this term (coined by President Nixon while trying to limit disclosure on Watergate) is always pronounced with a sneer.
...
The No-Plane-Hit-the-Pentagon theory was first advanced by Thierry Meyssan, in two books he first published in France, The Big Lie, and then in the follow-up, Pentagate. Due to the lack of evidence left by the wreckage, the flight pattern of the plane, and the lack of security video footage, the theory goes: American Airlines Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Instead, it was probably a smaller plane or a cruise missile.
On the other side of the argument are people like John Judge, director of 9/11 Citizens Watch, and Penny Schoner. The former personally knows a female flight attendant who was regularly on flight 77. Visiting the wreckage, she was shocked to find a bracelet that once belonged to her friend. (Which is not the only odd coincidence in 9/11 information: Kristen Breitweiser was unable to recover any of her late husband’s Ron’s remains from the WTC, except for his ring finger, still wearing their wedding ring.) In a widely-read piece entitled “Not all conspiracies are created equal,” Judge lashed out at the No Plane posse, writing, “Rumor is not research, and we only sully the truth by jumping to believe the sensational. Cynicism is healthy, but informed cynicism is the only way to avoid paranoia and confusion. Not all conspiracies’ are created equal. The government did kill JFK, and they lied about it. That does not mean there was never a Holocaust, or that the world is run by the Illuminati.”
Penny Schoner is a colleague of Judge’s and published a booklet called “American Airlines #77 Hit the Pentagon on 9/11/01.” Spiral bound and self-published, the book includes 86 eyewitnesses, most of whom saw the American flight actually make impact with the Pentagon. This reporter bought a copy from Schoner at the conference in San Francisco. Even though she charged me $20, the full color photos made it totally worth it.
Part of Meysan’s theory is that the nose cone of the plane could not have penetrated 3 layers of the Pentagon, and have made such a small distinct hole on the third. At the street level, most proponents of the theory (most of whom obviously haven’t read Meysan’s book) believe that his theory is that the original hole on the outside of the Pentagon was too small for a 757 to have caused it. After reading Schoner’s booklett and viewing her pictures, I realize something. Part of the problem is the image that has come to be associated with Pentagate, and Meyssan’s entire theory is this one:
Yet that photo is admittedly inside, on the third layer of the Pentagon (and on the front cover of Pentagate.)
...
for the sake of argument here, let’s consider that John Judge and Peggy Schoner are correct, that No Plane theory is just a distraction. It certainly is an effective way to discredit the movement. How can I prove it? My mom.
Mom’s a right-leaning “independent” who voted for Bush I, Reagan and Bush II. She’s vocal, and stubborn and fiercely anti-abortion. But after the London Daily Mail favorably reviewed David Ray Griffin’s New Pearl Harbor, and after she saw Fahrenheit 9/11, things began to change. She swiftly withdrew her support for Bush, and (temporarily) planned to vote for Kerry/Edwards. But what about 9/11? Are the theories that she once dismissed as “kooky” now more considerable?
No.
Why not Mom?
“I know two people who saw the PLANE (not a missile) go into the Pentagon.”
The entire 9/11 Truth Movement can be dismissed by the dismissal of its most outlandish theory. The 9/11 argument is a chain of logic, but in any chain, with a big weakest link. Mom happens to live within ten miles from the Pentagon. She knows a priest and a friend’s daughter who saw the plane hit. Neither want to talk about it much.
...
How can this movement advance when people who are skeptical and smart find an unacceptably illogical theory? They will be turned off, and run from the entire inquiry. If there’s one theory out there that is obviously false, the masses can be kept in intellectual submission, because the official story will represent safety, validation, freedom from ridicule. The 9/11 Commission report acts as a kind of co-dependent parent, offering the promise of comfort and delivering more addiction to a big family lie. The architects of disinformation take it as given that people fear ridicule
82_28 » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:03 pm wrote:Where did I miss the part of this being a "no plane thread". Seems to be pretty open to me.
82_28 » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:03 am wrote:Where did I miss the part of this being a "no plane thread". Seems to be pretty open to me.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests