Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Clear Evidence that Flight 77 Hit The Pentagon on 9/11: - a Parody -
Top Secret!
Clear Evidence that Flight 77 Hit The Pentagon on 9/11
- a Parody -
by
Simon Sackville AKA
The Pied Piper of Swindle Swindon
With so much debate going on over what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, and the obvious dire lack of coherent commentators to put and end to it once and for all, I decided that it was high time that I added my own reality-based voice to the debate and, in doing so, allow common sense to finally prevail over the ranting of wild-eyed, hairy-knuckled, missing link type conspiracy theorists and liberals alike.
Regardless then of the reams and reams of electronic paper that have been wasted on the inane back and forward over what did or did not happen, the task of showing just what hit the Pentagon could not be easier, which makes it difficult to understand why the debate has lasted so long. If I didn't know better, I might almost think that there was some kind of conspiracy going on. Of course, I DO know better. Conspiracies simply do not exist - except for the small ones, they exist, but the big, scary ones do not, and never have. Everyone knows that.
Anyway, to get to the point. I will present conclusive evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon by way of 10 carefully selected photos that, while they speak for themselves, will be accompanied by some incisive commentary by yours truly.
Let's get started:
Just so we know where we are going, above is a nice picture of a 757-200 with the stats of the aircraft included. These stats are the same as those of Flight 77, which was also a 757-200, and which hit the Pentagon. Therefore it is logical to conclude that Flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon.
Above is an image of the actual Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200, that hit the Pentagon. This picuture was taken before it hit the Pentagon. As you all can see, the plane is real. This plane was painted in the AA colors. It also has two 757-200 engines under each wing. An aircraft engine was found in the wreckage at the Pentagon. Coincidence? This is the plane that flew from Dulles International airport and crashed into the Pentagon, therefore, it follows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Here is a photo of some wreckage at the Pentagon crash site where Flight 77 hit. Aircraft debris is visible to the left, to the right, at the top and also the bottom. If you are still in any doubt about the fact that this is the wreckage of Flight 77, notice the green aircraft primer (it's in the pile somewhere) - proof conclusive that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
In the above photo we see yet more evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Notice the firemen. They are very small compared to the large Pentagon. Now, imagine that just a few minutes before, a large passenger aircraft flew into this building. Can you see it? I know you can. Stay with me on this.
Look at the firemen again. They are American patriots. They were down there on the Pentagon lawn on that fateful September morn, when terror, in the shape of a boeing 757 with a wild-eyed Muslim terrorist a the controls, swooped out of the clear blue American sky to strike at the heart of everything we hold dear. They are the guys who stood there on that lawn and said: "nothing's gonna hurt you tonight, not on my watch." Those guys know what hit the Pentagon. The question is: do you?
Other than giving us an idea of what it is to be a true American, the above photo allows us to see the relative size of the Pentagon (relative to a fireman) and the area that was damaged by Flight 77. Firemen are always called out to air crashes. Obviously then, Flight 77 did this damage to the Pentagon.
Notice the facade is missing a large chunk. Obviously, this is where a part of Flight 77 hit. The smoke and fire is evidence that a large passenger aircraft hit the building about 25 minutes before this photo was taken. Notice the police car in the foreground for further reference. Police men are just ordinary guys. They know what a passenger plane looks like.
All of this provides us with more evidence that it was indeed Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. After all, what else could it have been.
Above we, (you and me), see more debris from Flight 77 found inside the Pentagon; don't we. I have marked a piece of metal with a red arrow to not only highlight the fact that this piece of metal came from Flight 77 but also so as you, the reader, understand that I am a competent researcher. Note how charred all of this debris is. Obviously charring of this nature results from the impact of large passenger jets into large stationary buildings. If you are still unconvinced, notice that the piece of metal, while badly burned, is obviously green, and therefore came from Flight 77. Notice also that the piece of metal has "rivet holes". Boeing 757-200s have rivet holes. Further evidence that this is a part of Flight 77.
One of my personal favorites. The above image is damning to the claims of all 9/11 conspiracy crackpots. Very clearly, we can identify a piece of aluminum hanging from the ceiling of the interior of the Pentagon. Flight 77 was made of aluminum. Conclusion? Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
The 'piece de resistance'. Bold as life, what you are witnessing here with your very own eyes is part of the Rolls Royce engine of Flight 77. You see that circular shape with the small holes in it? That is part of a Rolls Royce 757 engine. If you don't believe me, compare with the photo below.
See? Enough said
Here again we see clear evidence of the remains of Flight 77, where the fragile nose cone punched through ring C of the Pentagon. Stop for a moment and picture the nose cone (or the engine or something) of Flight 77 coming crashing out of this hole on that horrible, terrible, awful day when the Islamic terrorists attacked us. Can you see it? Of course you can.
Now note the green color on some of the debris. This is a clear sign of its origin - Flight 77. Notice also that this hole is round. The Boeing 757-200 is also a round cylinder. Flight 77 is about 13ft tall. This hole is also about 13ft tall. What does that tell us? Obviously it tell us, (you and me), that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
And finally. Notice the round thing in this photo. I have placed a yellow arrow above it in case you can't see it. Flight 77 was made up of many round things, incuding the tyres. This piece of debris looks like it might be half a tyre. If it is, (and it certainly seems that way) then it shows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
For those who need a little extra something to "seal the deal" as it were, and to forever put to rest the kooky conspiracy theories that have plagued our great nation since 9/11: look at the man in the above photo. He is an American rescue worker - a hero and patriot. Notice that his head is bowed as he walks away. Clearly, he is very sad. But why is he very sad?
He is very sad because Flight 77 had just hit the Pentagon.
Aren't you sad that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?
Let's review the facts:
The U.S. government says that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
There are pictures of the Pentagon that show clearly that something hit it.
There was a big explosion.
The U.S. government says that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
There are pictures of debris that show that whatever hit the Pentagon was quite big and had a lot of force.
A 757 is quite big and has a lot of force.
The U.S. government says that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
Flight 77 and its passengers are missing
The U.S. government says that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
Eyewitnesses said they saw a plane hitting the Pentagon
The attack on the Pentagon placed guilt for the 9/11 attacks firmly at the door of the Islamic terrorists. The US government has made it clear that Islamic terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden says he carried out the 9/11 attacks.
The U.S. government says that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
Conclusion:
Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Clear Evidence that Flight 77 Hit The Pentagon on 9/11
- a Parody -
by
Simon Sackville AKA
The Pied Piper of Swindle Swindon
With so much debate going on over what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, and the obvious dire lack of coherent commentators to put and end to it once and for all, I decided that it was high time that I added my own reality-based voice to the debate and, in doing so, allow common sense to finally prevail over the ranting of wild-eyed, hairy-knuckled, missing link type conspiracy theorists and liberals alike.
Regardless then of the reams and reams of electronic paper that have been wasted on the inane back and forward over what did or did not happen, the task of showing just what hit the Pentagon could not be easier, which makes it difficult to understand why the debate has lasted so long. If I didn't know better, I might almost think that there was some kind of conspiracy going on. Of course, I DO know better. Conspiracies simply do not exist - except for the small ones, they exist, but the big, scary ones do not, and never have. Everyone knows that.
Anyway, to get to the point. I will present conclusive evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon by way of 10 carefully selected photos that, while they speak for themselves, will be accompanied by some incisive commentary by yours truly.
Let's get started:
Just so we know where we are going, above is a nice picture of a 757-200 with the stats of the aircraft included. These stats are the same as those of Flight 77, which was also a 757-200, and which hit the Pentagon. Therefore it is logical to conclude that Flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon.
Above is an image of the actual Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200, that hit the Pentagon. This picuture was taken before it hit the Pentagon. As you all can see, the plane is real. This plane was painted in the AA colors. It also has two 757-200 engines under each wing. An aircraft engine was found in the wreckage at the Pentagon. Coincidence? This is the plane that flew from Dulles International airport and crashed into the Pentagon, therefore, it follows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Here is a photo of some wreckage at the Pentagon crash site where Flight 77 hit. Aircraft debris is visible to the left, to the right, at the top and also the bottom. If you are still in any doubt about the fact that this is the wreckage of Flight 77, notice the green aircraft primer (it's in the pile somewhere) - proof conclusive that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
In the above photo we see yet more evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Notice the firemen. They are very small compared to the large Pentagon. Now, imagine that just a few minutes before, a large passenger aircraft flew into this building. Can you see it? I know you can. Stay with me on this.
Look at the firemen again. They are American patriots. They were down there on the Pentagon lawn on that fateful September morn, when terror, in the shape of a boeing 757 with a wild-eyed Muslim terrorist a the controls, swooped out of the clear blue American sky to strike at the heart of everything we hold dear. They are the guys who stood there on that lawn and said: "nothing's gonna hurt you tonight, not on my watch." Those guys know what hit the Pentagon. The question is: do you?
Other than giving us an idea of what it is to be a true American, the above photo allows us to see the relative size of the Pentagon (relative to a fireman) and the area that was damaged by Flight 77. Firemen are always called out to air crashes. Obviously then, Flight 77 did this damage to the Pentagon.
Notice the facade is missing a large chunk. Obviously, this is where a part of Flight 77 hit. The smoke and fire is evidence that a large passenger aircraft hit the building about 25 minutes before this photo was taken. Notice the police car in the foreground for further reference. Police men are just ordinary guys. They know what a passenger plane looks like.
All of this provides us with more evidence that it was indeed Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. After all, what else could it have been.
Above we, (you and me), see more debris from Flight 77 found inside the Pentagon; don't we. I have marked a piece of metal with a red arrow to not only highlight the fact that this piece of metal came from Flight 77 but also so as you, the reader, understand that I am a competent researcher. Note how charred all of this debris is. Obviously charring of this nature results from the impact of large passenger jets into large stationary buildings. If you are still unconvinced, notice that the piece of metal, while badly burned, is obviously green, and therefore came from Flight 77. Notice also that the piece of metal has "rivet holes". Boeing 757-200s have rivet holes. Further evidence that this is a part of Flight 77.
One of my personal favorites. The above image is damning to the claims of all 9/11 conspiracy crackpots. Very clearly, we can identify a piece of aluminum hanging from the ceiling of the interior of the Pentagon. Flight 77 was made of aluminum. Conclusion? Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
The 'piece de resistance'. Bold as life, what you are witnessing here with your very own eyes is part of the Rolls Royce engine of Flight 77. You see that circular shape with the small holes in it? That is part of a Rolls Royce 757 engine. If you don't believe me, compare with the photo below.
See? Enough said
Here again we see clear evidence of the remains of Flight 77, where the fragile nose cone punched through ring C of the Pentagon. Stop for a moment and picture the nose cone (or the engine or something) of Flight 77 coming crashing out of this hole on that horrible, terrible, awful day when the Islamic terrorists attacked us. Can you see it? Of course you can.
Now note the green color on some of the debris. This is a clear sign of its origin - Flight 77. Notice also that this hole is round. The Boeing 757-200 is also a round cylinder. Flight 77 is about 13ft tall. This hole is also about 13ft tall. What does that tell us? Obviously it tell us, (you and me), that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
And finally. Notice the round thing in this photo. I have placed a yellow arrow above it in case you can't see it. Flight 77 was made up of many round things, incuding the tyres. This piece of debris looks like it might be half a tyre. If it is, (and it certainly seems that way) then it shows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
For those who need a little extra something to "seal the deal" as it were, and to forever put to rest the kooky conspiracy theories that have plagued our great nation since 9/11: look at the man in the above photo. He is an American rescue worker - a hero and patriot. Notice that his head is bowed as he walks away. Clearly, he is very sad. But why is he very sad?
He is very sad because Flight 77 had just hit the Pentagon.
Aren't you sad that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?
Let's review the facts:
The U.S. government says that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
There are pictures of the Pentagon that show clearly that something hit it.
There was a big explosion.
The U.S. government says that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
There are pictures of debris that show that whatever hit the Pentagon was quite big and had a lot of force.
A 757 is quite big and has a lot of force.
The U.S. government says that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
Flight 77 and its passengers are missing
The U.S. government says that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
Eyewitnesses said they saw a plane hitting the Pentagon
The attack on the Pentagon placed guilt for the 9/11 attacks firmly at the door of the Islamic terrorists. The US government has made it clear that Islamic terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden says he carried out the 9/11 attacks.
The U.S. government says that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon
Conclusion:
Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.
Propaganda Alert!: Flight 93 Movie Ignores Officially Reported Facts About The Fate Of Flight 93
Alternative News
Propaganda Alert!Flight 93 Movie Ignores Officially Reported Facts About The Fate Of Flight 93SOTTJoe Quinn31/01/2006
While browsing the news websites recently, I noticed an advertisement for an upcoming movie about Flight 93 that 'crashed' in the Pennsylvannia countryside on September 11th 2001.
Here's the ad:
Without doubt, this is a deliberate government-sponsored/inspired attempt to further brainwash the masses about the truth of what happened on 9/11. Unfortunately for the Bush gang, the officially recorded events about the final moments of Flight 93 present us with some of the clearest evidence that the U.S. government is lying about what really happened to Flight 93, and by implication, about all other aspects of the 9/11 event. Consider the following facts:
According to NORAD’s initial statement, Flight 93 was hijacked at 9: 16 a.m., yet they were unable to say when the FAA notified them of the hijacking or how the FAA knew. Flight 93 is the only flight where NORAD could not at least supply this time of notification of hijacking. Despite this, the 9/11 Commission concluded that the hijacking of Flight 93 began at 9:28 a.m. saying only that the original statement by NORAD was incorrect without giving any explanation as to how or why such an error was made. At this same time, Cleveland flight controllers noticed Flight 93 climbing and descending in an erratic way, and shortly thereafter screams and shouts of “get out of here” were heard by controllers over the cockpit transmission. Arabic voices are also heard. At this point contact was lost with Flight 93. Yet despite this, we are told that no one notified NORAD. According to the 9/11 Commission, at 9:36 a.m. Cleveland flight control specifically asked the FAA Command Center whether someone had requested the military to launch fighters toward Flight 93. Cleveland offered to contact a nearby military base. The Command Center replied that FAA personnel well above them in the chain of command have to make that decision and were working on the issue.This single fact suggests that somewhere along the chain of command someone was preventing the implementation of standard procedures taken in respect of suspect aircraft, which is the immediate scrambling of fighter jets.
At about 9:36 am Flight 93 made a 180 degree turn and headed back to Washington. Still no fighters were scrambled.From 9:30 am until Flight 93 "crashed", several passengers were alleged to have made calls to their family members and to phone operators specifying that a hijacking was taking place. According to NORAD, Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 am. However, a seismic study authorized by the US Army to determine when the plane crashed concluded that the crash happened at 10:06:05. Furthermore, according to a CNN report, the cockpit voice recording of Flight 93 was recorded on a 30-minute reel which started at 9:31am and ended at 10:02 am, with the last minute of recording apparently missing. This fact led some victim’s family members to wonder if the tape had been tampered with.So what exactly happened in that last minute before flight 93 hit the ground in Pennsylvania? Several eyewitness reports of the crash of Flight 93 attest to the presence of a white unmarked military-style jet over-flying the crash scene. The mayor of Shanksville, the closest town to where Flight 93 "crashed" stated:
"I know of two people - I will not mention names - that heard a missile, They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards...This one fellow served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day." The mayor adds that based on what he knows about that morning, military F-16 fighter jets were very, very close.
Another eyewitness stated that he heard two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees. It is also a matter of record that the debris of the crash was strewn across an area of approximately 8 miles. Ask yourself: how could parts of a commercial jet that allegedly hit the ground intact be 8 miles from the crash site!?Even CNN reported that:
"Near the end of [Flight 93’s] cockpit voice recording, loud wind sounds can be heard."And the UK Mirror then confirmed:
"Sources claim the last thing heard on the cockpit voice recorder is the sound of wind—suggesting the plane had been holed."
All of these facts are clearly consistent with the idea that Flight 93 was shot down. Heck, the evidence that Flight 93 was shot down is so stark that even Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld couldn't help blurting it out:
According to the CNN transcript of the event, while he was addressing U.S. troops in Iraq in December 2004, Rumsfeld made the following remark:
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: And to changethat way of living, would strike at the very essence of our country.
And 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.
Of course, if Flight 93 was shot down and did not crash as claimed by the US government and 9/11 Commission, not only does this pose serious questions about the authenticity of the alleged phone calls made by passengers to the effect that they were going to try and "do something" to take control of Flight 93 from the hijackers, but it throws all other facets of the official story of what happened on 9/11 into doubt..
Assuming some kind of government conspriracy then, how, you might ask, could the conspriators have possibly faked at least some of the famous cell phone calls?
Consider a 1999 report in the Washington Post entitled When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing, where it was stated:
“’Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government.’ So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.
At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.
But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice “morphing” technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner’s voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.
Steiner was hardly the first or last victim to be spoofed by Papcun’s team members. To refine their method, they took various high quality recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements. One of the most memorable is Colin Powell stating, ‘I am being treated well by my captors.’
‘Once you can take any kind of information and reduce it into ones and zeros, you can do some pretty interesting things’, says Daniel T. Kuehl, chairman of the Information Operations department of the National Defense University in Washington, the military’s school for information warfare.
Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.
To some, PSYOPS is a backwater military discipline of leaflet dropping and radio propaganda. To a growing group of information war technologists, it is the nexus of fantasy and reality. Being able to manufacture convincing audio or video, they say, might be the difference in a successful military operation or coup.”
“The nexus of fantasy and reality” indeed. Given the scope and depth of the conspiracy with which we are dealing, it is entirely possible that at least some of the cell phone calls that were made from the planes on 9/11 - if those reporting them are sincere and believe they received such calls - were actually the result of a ‘real time’ application of this voice morphing technology.
Who could forget the rousing reports of the “soldier citizens” on Flight 93 who courageously decided to “do something” about the hijackers with the words “let’s roll”?
Mark Bingham, a California PR executive, was a passenger on Flight 93 and one of those involved in the alleged attempts to take back the plane. According to his mother, Bingham called her to tell her that his flight had been hijacked. Bizarrely however, the very first words that Bingham said to his mother, with whom he was very close by all accounts, were, "hi mom, this is Mark Bingham."The only other words he is claimed to have said before hanging up were, "I love you".
Now think about this: Why would anyone use their full name when calling their mother?! Would you, in a similar circumstance, call your mother and announce your full name? Really stop and think about it a moment. Could this small and seemingly innocuous detail be an example of the faking of the cell phone calls and just one of the many flaws in the general cover-up attempts by the conspirators?
Due to these many striking facts that point to Flight 93 having been shot down, we decided that it was our duty to modifiy the Flight 93 movie advertisement in such a way that it more closely reflects the reality of the situation
For the full details of what really went on behind the scenes on the day of September 11th 2001 and a unique expose on who was ultimately responsible for the attacks, see Laura Knight-Jadczyk's new book 9/11:The Ultimate Truth
Propaganda Alert!Flight 93 Movie Ignores Officially Reported Facts About The Fate Of Flight 93SOTTJoe Quinn31/01/2006
While browsing the news websites recently, I noticed an advertisement for an upcoming movie about Flight 93 that 'crashed' in the Pennsylvannia countryside on September 11th 2001.
Here's the ad:
Without doubt, this is a deliberate government-sponsored/inspired attempt to further brainwash the masses about the truth of what happened on 9/11. Unfortunately for the Bush gang, the officially recorded events about the final moments of Flight 93 present us with some of the clearest evidence that the U.S. government is lying about what really happened to Flight 93, and by implication, about all other aspects of the 9/11 event. Consider the following facts:
According to NORAD’s initial statement, Flight 93 was hijacked at 9: 16 a.m., yet they were unable to say when the FAA notified them of the hijacking or how the FAA knew. Flight 93 is the only flight where NORAD could not at least supply this time of notification of hijacking. Despite this, the 9/11 Commission concluded that the hijacking of Flight 93 began at 9:28 a.m. saying only that the original statement by NORAD was incorrect without giving any explanation as to how or why such an error was made. At this same time, Cleveland flight controllers noticed Flight 93 climbing and descending in an erratic way, and shortly thereafter screams and shouts of “get out of here” were heard by controllers over the cockpit transmission. Arabic voices are also heard. At this point contact was lost with Flight 93. Yet despite this, we are told that no one notified NORAD. According to the 9/11 Commission, at 9:36 a.m. Cleveland flight control specifically asked the FAA Command Center whether someone had requested the military to launch fighters toward Flight 93. Cleveland offered to contact a nearby military base. The Command Center replied that FAA personnel well above them in the chain of command have to make that decision and were working on the issue.This single fact suggests that somewhere along the chain of command someone was preventing the implementation of standard procedures taken in respect of suspect aircraft, which is the immediate scrambling of fighter jets.
At about 9:36 am Flight 93 made a 180 degree turn and headed back to Washington. Still no fighters were scrambled.From 9:30 am until Flight 93 "crashed", several passengers were alleged to have made calls to their family members and to phone operators specifying that a hijacking was taking place. According to NORAD, Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 am. However, a seismic study authorized by the US Army to determine when the plane crashed concluded that the crash happened at 10:06:05. Furthermore, according to a CNN report, the cockpit voice recording of Flight 93 was recorded on a 30-minute reel which started at 9:31am and ended at 10:02 am, with the last minute of recording apparently missing. This fact led some victim’s family members to wonder if the tape had been tampered with.So what exactly happened in that last minute before flight 93 hit the ground in Pennsylvania? Several eyewitness reports of the crash of Flight 93 attest to the presence of a white unmarked military-style jet over-flying the crash scene. The mayor of Shanksville, the closest town to where Flight 93 "crashed" stated:
"I know of two people - I will not mention names - that heard a missile, They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards...This one fellow served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day." The mayor adds that based on what he knows about that morning, military F-16 fighter jets were very, very close.
Another eyewitness stated that he heard two loud bangs before watching the plane take a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees. It is also a matter of record that the debris of the crash was strewn across an area of approximately 8 miles. Ask yourself: how could parts of a commercial jet that allegedly hit the ground intact be 8 miles from the crash site!?Even CNN reported that:
"Near the end of [Flight 93’s] cockpit voice recording, loud wind sounds can be heard."And the UK Mirror then confirmed:
"Sources claim the last thing heard on the cockpit voice recorder is the sound of wind—suggesting the plane had been holed."
All of these facts are clearly consistent with the idea that Flight 93 was shot down. Heck, the evidence that Flight 93 was shot down is so stark that even Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld couldn't help blurting it out:
According to the CNN transcript of the event, while he was addressing U.S. troops in Iraq in December 2004, Rumsfeld made the following remark:
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: And to changethat way of living, would strike at the very essence of our country.
And 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.
Of course, if Flight 93 was shot down and did not crash as claimed by the US government and 9/11 Commission, not only does this pose serious questions about the authenticity of the alleged phone calls made by passengers to the effect that they were going to try and "do something" to take control of Flight 93 from the hijackers, but it throws all other facets of the official story of what happened on 9/11 into doubt..
Assuming some kind of government conspriracy then, how, you might ask, could the conspriators have possibly faked at least some of the famous cell phone calls?
Consider a 1999 report in the Washington Post entitled When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing, where it was stated:
“’Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government.’ So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.
At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.
But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice “morphing” technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner’s voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.
Steiner was hardly the first or last victim to be spoofed by Papcun’s team members. To refine their method, they took various high quality recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements. One of the most memorable is Colin Powell stating, ‘I am being treated well by my captors.’
‘Once you can take any kind of information and reduce it into ones and zeros, you can do some pretty interesting things’, says Daniel T. Kuehl, chairman of the Information Operations department of the National Defense University in Washington, the military’s school for information warfare.
Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.
To some, PSYOPS is a backwater military discipline of leaflet dropping and radio propaganda. To a growing group of information war technologists, it is the nexus of fantasy and reality. Being able to manufacture convincing audio or video, they say, might be the difference in a successful military operation or coup.”
“The nexus of fantasy and reality” indeed. Given the scope and depth of the conspiracy with which we are dealing, it is entirely possible that at least some of the cell phone calls that were made from the planes on 9/11 - if those reporting them are sincere and believe they received such calls - were actually the result of a ‘real time’ application of this voice morphing technology.
Who could forget the rousing reports of the “soldier citizens” on Flight 93 who courageously decided to “do something” about the hijackers with the words “let’s roll”?
Mark Bingham, a California PR executive, was a passenger on Flight 93 and one of those involved in the alleged attempts to take back the plane. According to his mother, Bingham called her to tell her that his flight had been hijacked. Bizarrely however, the very first words that Bingham said to his mother, with whom he was very close by all accounts, were, "hi mom, this is Mark Bingham."The only other words he is claimed to have said before hanging up were, "I love you".
Now think about this: Why would anyone use their full name when calling their mother?! Would you, in a similar circumstance, call your mother and announce your full name? Really stop and think about it a moment. Could this small and seemingly innocuous detail be an example of the faking of the cell phone calls and just one of the many flaws in the general cover-up attempts by the conspirators?
Due to these many striking facts that point to Flight 93 having been shot down, we decided that it was our duty to modifiy the Flight 93 movie advertisement in such a way that it more closely reflects the reality of the situation
For the full details of what really went on behind the scenes on the day of September 11th 2001 and a unique expose on who was ultimately responsible for the attacks, see Laura Knight-Jadczyk's new book 9/11:The Ultimate Truth
Informed Comment: State of the Union
Informed Comment
Top Ten things Bush won't Tell you About the State of the Nation1. US economic growth during the last quarter was an anemic 1.1%, the worst in 3 years.2. The US inflation rate has jumped to 3.4 percent, the highest rate in 5 years.3. The number of daily attacks in Iraq rose from 52 in December, 2004 to 77 in December, 2005.4. A third of US veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, some 40,000 persons, exhibit at least some signs of mental health disorders. Some 14,000 were treated for drug dependencies, and 11,000 for depression. 5. Increases in American consumer spending come from borrowing. 6. The $320 - $400 bilion deficits run by the Bush administration may push up the cost of mortgages and loans.7. 58% of Americans think Bush is painting Iraq as rosier than it is. A majority thinks we should never have invaded the country.8. The US military is at a breaking point.9. In fact, The US and Iran are tacit allies in Iraq.10. Mor e money would be needed to finish the US reconstruction projects begun in Iraq.
posted by Juan @ 1/31/2006 06:30:00 AM
9 Comments:
At 7:13 AM, Calculator said...
Juan, Apparently, the US is expereincing an economic crises. Do you think their situation will improve or worsen in the near future? And what about the unemployment rates; are they increasing or decreasing?
At 12:05 PM, Christiane said...
Concerning your 9th point and the US/Iran tacit alliance; it's a possibility you are right to point at. However I don't think that the US is seizing that opportunity.I was rather surprised to hear this morning that Russia and China agreed to bring the case of Iran's nuclear activities in front of the UN Security Council. Well, it doesn't say that they will all agree on economic sanctions toward Iran.. Nevertheless, this is intriguing, are we heading toward a kind of new Yalta agreement concerning energy ressources ? What about the recent clashes concerning Russian gaz deliveries to the former USSR republics ? Indirectly, they hurt the EU as well. So this may have been a way for Russia to assert her power in the Energy game, right when energy shares are negotiated behind the scene.I find all this verbal escalation against Iran highly alarming. It smells of war in the whole ME.
At 12:48 PM, Jack P Toerson said...
The best thing for that kind of political speech is to play it after last year's. Running them back-to-back gives viewers a chance to compare.I wish they'd do it with party political broadcasts here in the UK.
At 4:32 PM, Abhinav Aima said...
One of the things Bush will talk about, of course, is staying the course... You know, like the guy who is horribly lost but insists that if he keeps driving long enough the road will sort itself out...My real concern at this point is the stance against Iran, and that Bush might very well be playing good cop till the 2006 elections are safely out of the way... His one major success has been in convincing the press, and that doesn't take much, that Iran is pursuing an advanced nuclear weapons program...And the proof for that is - since when did the U.S. news media need proof to advocate war hysteria? But if you do need proof, I am sure there are plenty of American Shahs waiting in the corridors of power, to present long winded testimonies on the evil Iranians (didn't they also throw babies out of incubators?) and how they could launch a WMD attack on America and its allies (within 45 minutes?).Remember the Maine, and to hell with Spain... And never mind how we got there in the first place.
At 7:55 PM, fish said...
Don't forget personal savings was in the negative this year (-0.5%).
At 10:20 PM, William Tally said...
Recent economic reports put economic growth at a "strong" 3.5% for 2005. However, the annual budget deficit will reach 400+ billion dollars or around 16% of expenditures. The annual interest paid on our accumulated national debt will end up being around 350 billion dollars for 2005—almost as much as we are borrowing each year! . . .
At 12:25 AM, Carleton Lufteufel said...
Regarding point 4, in the tradition of President Regan, here's a link to a story illustrating the PTSD statistics: how many people remember the photo of the Marlboro Man from the battle of Fallujah?
At 2:01 AM, CuriousHamster said...
Re. Link in point 9. I agree that the main motivation for Iranian nuclear ambition is self-defence but I'm not sure that better regional security would contain the Iranian nuclear programme. The Iranians are looking for long term security and they may well judge any improvement in relations with Washington as a temporary lull. From their point of view, there's never been a better time to build a nuclear weapon. They might well take the view that it's now or never. And choose now. They may already have done so. If they have, and that's a big if obviously, it's hard to see what could be done to stop them. The military option would be disasterous and the US army doesn't appear to have the capacity to carry it out in any event (not without the draft anyway, and that won't be happening in this (election) year). Targeted airstrikes are of limited value in a country the size of Iran unless you have very specific, very accurate intelligence (and that's not something the US and British governments are familiar with apparently).The extraordinary hysteria expressed by some at the prospect of a Nuclear Iran is troubling. Nevertheless, no-one wants more yet nuclear proliferation, especially in the turbulent Middle East. The irony is that a Nuclear Iran may be the enduring legacy of the war to find non-existent WMD in Iraq. Irony doesn't seem a big enough word to describe it actually.
At 4:43 AM, Steve said...
You forgot to mention the city of New Orleans.
Top Ten things Bush won't Tell you About the State of the Nation1. US economic growth during the last quarter was an anemic 1.1%, the worst in 3 years.2. The US inflation rate has jumped to 3.4 percent, the highest rate in 5 years.3. The number of daily attacks in Iraq rose from 52 in December, 2004 to 77 in December, 2005.4. A third of US veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, some 40,000 persons, exhibit at least some signs of mental health disorders. Some 14,000 were treated for drug dependencies, and 11,000 for depression. 5. Increases in American consumer spending come from borrowing. 6. The $320 - $400 bilion deficits run by the Bush administration may push up the cost of mortgages and loans.7. 58% of Americans think Bush is painting Iraq as rosier than it is. A majority thinks we should never have invaded the country.8. The US military is at a breaking point.9. In fact, The US and Iran are tacit allies in Iraq.10. Mor e money would be needed to finish the US reconstruction projects begun in Iraq.
posted by Juan @ 1/31/2006 06:30:00 AM
9 Comments:
At 7:13 AM, Calculator said...
Juan, Apparently, the US is expereincing an economic crises. Do you think their situation will improve or worsen in the near future? And what about the unemployment rates; are they increasing or decreasing?
At 12:05 PM, Christiane said...
Concerning your 9th point and the US/Iran tacit alliance; it's a possibility you are right to point at. However I don't think that the US is seizing that opportunity.I was rather surprised to hear this morning that Russia and China agreed to bring the case of Iran's nuclear activities in front of the UN Security Council. Well, it doesn't say that they will all agree on economic sanctions toward Iran.. Nevertheless, this is intriguing, are we heading toward a kind of new Yalta agreement concerning energy ressources ? What about the recent clashes concerning Russian gaz deliveries to the former USSR republics ? Indirectly, they hurt the EU as well. So this may have been a way for Russia to assert her power in the Energy game, right when energy shares are negotiated behind the scene.I find all this verbal escalation against Iran highly alarming. It smells of war in the whole ME.
At 12:48 PM, Jack P Toerson said...
The best thing for that kind of political speech is to play it after last year's. Running them back-to-back gives viewers a chance to compare.I wish they'd do it with party political broadcasts here in the UK.
At 4:32 PM, Abhinav Aima said...
One of the things Bush will talk about, of course, is staying the course... You know, like the guy who is horribly lost but insists that if he keeps driving long enough the road will sort itself out...My real concern at this point is the stance against Iran, and that Bush might very well be playing good cop till the 2006 elections are safely out of the way... His one major success has been in convincing the press, and that doesn't take much, that Iran is pursuing an advanced nuclear weapons program...And the proof for that is - since when did the U.S. news media need proof to advocate war hysteria? But if you do need proof, I am sure there are plenty of American Shahs waiting in the corridors of power, to present long winded testimonies on the evil Iranians (didn't they also throw babies out of incubators?) and how they could launch a WMD attack on America and its allies (within 45 minutes?).Remember the Maine, and to hell with Spain... And never mind how we got there in the first place.
At 7:55 PM, fish said...
Don't forget personal savings was in the negative this year (-0.5%).
At 10:20 PM, William Tally said...
Recent economic reports put economic growth at a "strong" 3.5% for 2005. However, the annual budget deficit will reach 400+ billion dollars or around 16% of expenditures. The annual interest paid on our accumulated national debt will end up being around 350 billion dollars for 2005—almost as much as we are borrowing each year! . . .
At 12:25 AM, Carleton Lufteufel said...
Regarding point 4, in the tradition of President Regan, here's a link to a story illustrating the PTSD statistics: how many people remember the photo of the Marlboro Man from the battle of Fallujah?
At 2:01 AM, CuriousHamster said...
Re. Link in point 9. I agree that the main motivation for Iranian nuclear ambition is self-defence but I'm not sure that better regional security would contain the Iranian nuclear programme. The Iranians are looking for long term security and they may well judge any improvement in relations with Washington as a temporary lull. From their point of view, there's never been a better time to build a nuclear weapon. They might well take the view that it's now or never. And choose now. They may already have done so. If they have, and that's a big if obviously, it's hard to see what could be done to stop them. The military option would be disasterous and the US army doesn't appear to have the capacity to carry it out in any event (not without the draft anyway, and that won't be happening in this (election) year). Targeted airstrikes are of limited value in a country the size of Iran unless you have very specific, very accurate intelligence (and that's not something the US and British governments are familiar with apparently).The extraordinary hysteria expressed by some at the prospect of a Nuclear Iran is troubling. Nevertheless, no-one wants more yet nuclear proliferation, especially in the turbulent Middle East. The irony is that a Nuclear Iran may be the enduring legacy of the war to find non-existent WMD in Iraq. Irony doesn't seem a big enough word to describe it actually.
At 4:43 AM, Steve said...
You forgot to mention the city of New Orleans.
Bush's 9/11 Wiretapping BS
"In his State of the Union address, President Bush highlighted the case of 9/11 hijackers Khalid Al-Midhar and Salem Al-Hazmi to make the case for his so-called "terrorist surveillance program," which is actually a domestic wiretapping program which may have been used against ordinary Americans...read on"
Tasting Victory, Liberals Instead Have a Food Fight
Tasting Victory, Liberals Instead Have a Food Fight
Blogger Thoughts: Dana Milbank and Wash Post derides the brave (including the 9/11 reference).
Blogger Thoughts: Dana Milbank and Wash Post derides the brave (including the 9/11 reference).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)