portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

9.11 investigation

9/11 Conspiracy Film Presentation in Victoria, B.C.

Highlights of 9/11 conspiracy film presentation in Victoria
I recently moved to B.C. from PDX and thought you might be interested in some highlights from a 9/11 film presentation I saw. Though I've been looking into the conspiracy angle since that very day, two of the films had some very compelling footage that might be helpful in reaching out to others and opening their minds. I wish you all well. Hopefully we'll be reunited some day with no national border between us. Long live Cascadia!

(Please note that this "review" is from an email I sent to people on my list and contains some editorial asides here and there):

The two most compelling films I saw portions of were "In Plane Site" from www.policestate21.com", and "Painful Deceptions" from www.ericufschmid.net/ThePainfulDeceptionsVideo.html"(upper and lowercase). I'm not going to go through all the evidence--check out the websites yourself. But what became clear to me is that, for one, there is absolutely no demonstrable evidence that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757, but definitely evidence that it was hit by a missile and Global Hawk spy plane (which either fired it, or hit at just about the same time). Highlights begin with what is visible in the news footage and pictures taken by bystanders of the impact area and firefighter activity during the 33-minute period between the impact and subsequent collapse of the roof and some walls; (and note that collapse crater was still not nearly big enough for the 757 to fit into. Plus, pictures they have of the collapse area show none of the usual airplane wreckage, luggage, bodies etc. They even brought a dog in to sniff for body parts and it found nothing at all). Anyway, in the pre-collapse footage you can clearly see some fire damage and scoring on the face of the building. What's so shocking about all of this? Well, the only actual hole in the wall, which again is clearly visible, is an almost perfectly round puncture @16 FEET IN DIAMETER. They even have snapshots of guys standing inside of it. Gee, we didn't hear much about that on CNN.

And there's much more, including that the Pentagon initially claimed they had no survelliance images of the crash (yeah, sure). Then, after a Frenchman began to sniff a massive cover-up and initially claimed it was a truck bomb, they magically found views from one camera that showed a horizontal white streak of smoke at nearly ground level and then a huge, fiery impact (in order to debunk his mad conspiracy claim). Bad move, because when the tape was slowed down and analyzed, no plane was visible. What one can see is the distinctive trail of white smoke (which airplanes don't make, excepting in certain atmospheric conditions way up when ice crystals form contrails behind them). But what does make this white trail of smoke? Rockets and missiles, because they emit mostly steam. Airplane exhaust, as you know from watching planes take off and land, is nearly invisible. Plus, the explosion itself was further analyzed, and again found to be the type (regarding color, size, rate of expansion, etc.) that would be made by a missile and not a plane.

Then, you can see Pentagon workers picking up what are some pieces of airplane wreckage...mainly thin pieces of some sort of metal that's light enough to carry almost as if it is made of paper (such as the aluminum skin of the extremely light Global Hawk). Then, there is the line of white shirted Penties who are filmed combing through the grass shortly afterward, picking up little shards of this or that. Perhaps carbon pieces from a Hawk's skeleton? But most damning is the airplane wreckage visible in one shot that certainly looks like an engine. But someone's standing right near it, and it's obviously much smaller than a 9-foot-in-diameter Boeing engine. In fact, when it's size is accounted for and it's superimposed on the schematic of another sort of plane, it exactly fits the engine of...a Global Hawk. Boy, talk about your wild conspiracy theories!

One other...let's say strange fact about the Pentagon strike is that Flight 77 was apparently lost by air traffic controllers somewhere over Ohio and never picked up on radar again. What they did track on radar was a much fainter blip some time later, not far from Washington. Gee, how could they lose a large commercial plane in this manner that everyone was specifically looking for? Well, the Hawk flies at 60,000 feet and is designed to be more or less invisible on radar when it flies at its normal altitude.

Oh yeah, as I said a long time ago, you'll be hard-pressed to find any actual eyewitnesses to a huge jet that supposedly did a 270 degree dive and hit just inches above the ground at 400 miles per hour (magically leaving no crater on the lawn whatsoever, contravening what was widely reported). Well, there was one eyewitness interviewed by newspeople shortly after. I believe he was on the highway a very short distance away. He said, on camera, that he didn't notice the plane until it was streaking almost directly overhead because "it was so quiet." Does that "sound" like the usual description of a 757 passing barely 100 feet overhead, or the ultraquiet Global Hawk spy plane? (And also remember that the supposed hijacker pilot nearly flunked out of flight school and, according to his instructor, probably couldn't steer a plane down a runway {which was actually reported in the NY Times, who despite this never looked into any of these other "anomalies" any further}).

As for the collapse of the WTC towers... wait a minute, what about Buildling 7, a 47-story steel-framed building that, it turns out, contained some of the most massive steel girders of any such building on the planet? How could it collapse from what one can clearly see from news footage were some pretty minor fires inside that should have been put out by the sprinkler system? In fact, one thing I personally remember from that awful day was a brief interview with WTC complex owner Larry Silverstein who told the newspeople that because of the instability in the building, possible loss of life etc., that they decided to "pull" it. This blurb was shown again at the presentation I attended. And then the building came down in a textbook demolition that left an amazingly small pile of rubble with, as one can clearly see from the footage, either none or almost no huge pieces left. Do you think it's possible to bring down a building this way as a spur-of-the-moment decision? Gee, I'd think that bringing down one of the most heavily structured steel skyscrapers on the planet would take months of planning, architectural studies, computerized simulations, precise setting and wiring of charges that would have to be properly integrated into some sort of computerized program and all that. But hey, I'm certainly no engineer. Maybe it is possible for someone to say "let's pull this building" and the firefighters or some unnamed people on the scene can just yank it down in a precisely controlled demolition that leaves an amazingly small and centralized pile of rubble.

As for the towers, besides the hundreds of eyewitnesses who said they heard all sort of explosions (including firefighters who said, on camera, they could see all the explosions as the floors came out "pop pop pop" right down the line), some other "anomolies" exist. Most shocking of these (other than these massive buildings falling at the rate of free fall into almost no
pieces that were longer than something like 24 feet, pretty amazing if you think about it. Very few pieces of perhaps the two most massive structures ever built had to be torched into smaller ones, which coincidentally fits into this special formula/method of the world's foremost demolition company, which is able to bring down buildings in such a manner that almost none of the pieces are too long to fit on the trucks that will haul them away) is the fact that a tape exists showing from below the second plane hitting. By zooming in, one can clearly see some strange, cylindrical thing attached under the right side of the fusillage. Then, just before the plane hits, there is a distinct white flash on the building. Now, this could have been a doctoring of this tape, or a reflection, sunspot or whatever, but the filmmakers got hold of three other videos of the event shot from three very different angles. Guess what, while the underside of the fusillage is not visible from these other
angles, the white spot is. I saw it every time. More shocking is the fact that they got hold of the only known tape of the first plane hitting (shot by a French filmmaker doing a documentary of NY firefighters who, by coincidence, was filming with the WTC as his backdrop). They analyzed this clip as well, and when they zoomed way in saw something amazing--a white flash just before the plane struck.

Now, to me this is not the realm of conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy. For one, if a missile, and not Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, that means the story of al Qaeda doing all of this is false. And if that's so, who did do it? Now, one legitimate question is how so many people could be at least passively involved without saying anything, and how the entire air defense system could so catastrophically fail without such passive involvement. (First, as for the air defense "incompetency theory," take note of the fact that not a single person was demoted or reprimanded for the 9/11 air defense failures). For a more reasonable explanation, check out the interview with the lawyer (and ex Bob Dole Chief of Staff) Stanley Hilton, who's representing the 9/11 survivors in their treason suit against the Bushies (amazingly enough, he went to U. of Chicago with Wolfowitz and Feith, studied with them under famous fascist professor Leo Strauss, did his thesis on how a Pearl Harbor event could be manufactured to lead to a dictatorship, and discussed the same with his buddies Wolfie and Feith all the time...whew!) Anyway, in his interview with Alex Jones (www.infowars.com or www.rawstory.com), he explains that the military and air traffic people had done something like 35 drills over a two-month period involving hijacked planes hitting buildings, and in fact multiple drills were going on that very morning involving exactly what happened. This has actually been reported in the mainstream media. This explains why the military was "standing down" and ultimately too late to stop anything. They thought they were drilling once again. But Hilton says that people have started talking (and happy to) under subpeona. My explanation for why lots of people didn't talk before this is that first, they weren't going to go out on a limb if no one else was talking. The newspeople wouldn't run their stories. They'd be harrased and have their careers ruined (and military people might be court-martialed in certain cases), and by themselves would be made to look like loonies (and who knows maybe jailed under the Patriot Act). Plus, many were probably afraid of being offed. But now there's strength in numbers. We'll see how the suit progresses. Count on another "terrorist event" if the suit gets some feet.

This probably also explains Bush's bizarre "press conference/town hall" statement to a young girl that he saw the first plane hit on a TV playing outside the Florida elementary school classroom before he entered. Of course, this is impossible. No one saw the first plane hit that morning because there was not footage (remember, it was in the French filmmaker's camera and did not emerge til sometime later). So why would he say something so totally bizarre (that of course the media never even followed up on). Well, the most logical explanation is that he had seen it before, in all the drills and simulations they'd done, and made some sort of Freudian slip, or just confused/conflated the events. The lawyer also explains that this is why Bush sat in the classroom for those twenty agonizing minutes (he thought it was another drill). But I disagree with this interpretation of these amazingly bizarre and truly inexplicable events (including that a news reporter, whose name currently escapes me, told Peter Jennings on air that he asked Bush, as he was leaving his hotel before 9:00 to go the school, if he knew that a plane had hit the WTC. Bush responded he was aware of it and would have something to say later on). Anyway, when Card whispers in Bush's ear in the classroom after the second plane had hit, you can clearly see his face tense, and his little mind go back and forth (it's painful to watch up close). My interpretation is that he was told to sit tight because Cheney was running things from his bunker. (Remember that no one really knew where Cheney was that morning.)

That's it from a safer, if not safe, haven. Interesting that a very conservative old timer I met up here said, as a matter of fact, "well, if the Americans decide they need our water, we sure as hell ain't gonna stop 'em from getting it." Of course, there will be some corporate elites up here only too happy to sell it off before the Marines have to come in, which is why all of us have to stay connected and see ourselves as part of something bigger. But, of course, if you didn't already know that, you wouldn't be reading this on Indymedia. So rock on, brothers and sisters.
Thanks for the reviews Ex-Pat 19.Sep.2004 11:36

Tony Blair's dog

The noose is tightening.

INFO WAR 20.Sep.2004 18:18

mm

this info has actually been around for awhile and will be updated in
new books coming out; watch for Ruperts new one!

the real trick here is getting it to large #s of the sheeple

Muddy the waters to distract from real evidence 14.Oct.2004 00:00

Karl Rove

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association." (Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184)

New 9/11 video evidence analysis at questionsquestions.net:

Analysis of Flight 175 "Pod" and related claims
 http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

Webfairy's Reign of Error
 http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/webfairy.html

The WTC "Mystery Explosion" Video Hoax
 http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html


Detailed Review of fake "Inplanesite" film
 http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

The photo on the cover of "Plane Site" uses a photo of a 757 that shows the normal "fairing" structure on the underside of the fuselage. The photo was posted in early May 2004 to the "911 Truth Alliance" email list by a member who was debunking the "pod" claim. Is it a coincidence that the film uses the exact same photo, or is it (like the pod claim) just a bad joke hidden "in plain sight?"