portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation

9/11 activists visit Tony Blair home

UK 9/11 activists confront security guards at TB's house in a pleasant interaction while delivering some dvds and t-shirts earlier last week. Instead of outrage, they use cordial/joking interaction, with a serious message, the security guards respond well. Looks like another opportunity for deception dollars and counter psyop
Blair visit
Blair visit
With a few days before the general election, the UK 9-11 Truth network in association with Reopen911.org paid a visit to Tony Blair's constituency of Sedgefield, in the north of England.

In an unprecedented move, 17,000 "Confronting The Evidence" DVDs were distributed to the voters of Sedgefield in an attempt to educate Blair's constituency about the 9-11 cover-up and to contribute towards efforts to unseat the Prime Minister.

Additionally, several prominent newspaper adverts were placed in two of the regional newspapers, the "The Northern Echo" and the "Darlington, Aycliffe and Sedgefield Advertiser". Below is one example.

However, what really showed that the UK 9-11 Truth Movement would do whatever it takes to expose the truth about 9-11 was their visit to Prime Minister Tony Blair's constituency house. Eight 9-11 activists, sporting T-Shirts with the slogan "9/11 IS A LIE", delivered a "Confronting The Evidence" DVD, some Deception Dollars and an identical T-Shirt. These were handed to the armed police officer at the front gate to be passed on to Mr Blair.



Scientific American plans hit piece on 9/11 truth

I just found out that Scientific American is writing a hit piece on 9-11. Have no idea when its coming out. I learned about this because a friend, who I'm trying to convince about 9-11, corresponded with the author of the article, Michael Shermer, who is the head of something called "the Skeptics Society".


Shermer just wrote me. He thinks the Scientific American 9-11 issue will be out next month. Here's his message:


I wrote one of my Scientific American columns on 9/11 conspiracy theories, which I think will be out . . .

That is so cool! 11.May.2005 09:34

Jody Paulson

We need to get organized groups like that right here in the US.

Great but also SAD 11.May.2005 11:21


The great thing about this is that people are doing direct action to expose the 9/11 scam.

The problem is that a portion of what they're putting out is disinfo designed to discredit the 9/11 movement.

Here's the group:


Their speakers include 1/2 bogus, 1/2 real :

1. Eric Hufschmid - has gotten out a lot of good info but has ALSO done a lot of sloppy stuff and endorses more extremist stuff openly (no landing on the moon) which can discredit the 9/11 movement. He has pushed ideas at the Pentagon which are now causing trouble, such as a Global Hawk or something other than a commercial jet, and this is being used to discredit the movement in the press - Wash Post, NYTimes, Popular Mechanics, etc.

2. Barrie Zwicker - Good, but sad to see he's going along with a group that are mostly discredited by serious 9/11 researchers (DVK, Meyssan) and associated with holocaust revisionist publications (Bollyn). He could do a lot better.

3. Dave von Kleist - Spreading lies about what happened on 9/11 and admits he's wrong, then continues to spread them. He's the guy with the '1-800' operators standing by 24/7 to take your dollars for his bogus slick film 'In Plane Site' that pushes NO COMMERCIAL JETS AT THE PENTAGON OR WTC.

"David von Kleist, the narrator of "In Plane Site," has been more forthcoming, in person admitting to a major error in the film. The film shows images of a "plume" of dust rising up against the facade of World Trade Center Building 7, attributing this to a large explosion at World Trade Center Building 6, in advance of the Twin Tower collapses. However, the images of the plume do not show "both towers standing," as the film claims. The South Tower has already collapsed, and the plume is actually part of the resulting dust cloud. While the web page for "In Plane Site" has yet to acknowledge this mistake, we expect it will, since von Kleist was open about it in talks with many people during his recent visit to New York (9/11/04). We do not question whether his heart is in the right place; our doubts pertain to the quality of his video forensics. (For now, Brian Salter provides an analysis of the plume at questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html. He and Eric Salter take on a variety of other fallacies from "In Plane Site" and "Letsroll911" at questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html.)"

4. Webster Tarpley - Good, but apparently naiive about the bogus stuff he's taking in on the Pentagon. He hasn't done the research himself, and is going along with it. Sad, because he does great stuff on how the players work in the intelligence scams.

5. Thierry Meyssan - "Meyssan's "no plane" claim was debunked as BS a long time ago by 9/11 truth activists. It's all a distraction from the evidence that Flight 77 was hijacked via remote control and flown into the empty part of the Pentagon.


The "no plane" theories are used to discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven evidence of complicity.

The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics

perhaps the best list of eyewitness accounts

 http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html VERY detailed analyses of how the "no plane" claims are fake, compiled by a writer who formerly believed they were real.

another 9/11 skeptic stops buying the "no plane at Pentagon" claims

Jimmy Walter (reopen911.org): A sugar daddy with poison pills

25 February 2005: Jamie McIntyre CNN Pentagon footage

24 February 2005: Another Pentagon distraction

You had rush hour traffic on I-395 that saw the plane hit, you have 100 eyewitnesses compiled in the pamphlet published by Penny Schoner. Where the hell did this theory come from? Thierry Meyssan's book "The Horrible Fraud" was the original source. Meyssan wrote his book from Paris, he didn't travel over here. The book is highly imaginative, and in the middle of a trauma, people are searching for answers. A lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement glommed onto this one and I think it's hurt our credibility over all. You have to wonder if that was by design.
"Sander Hicks and the 9/11 Truth Movement"

The Pentagon Attack and American Airlines Flight 77 by John Judge

Not all conspiracies are created equal by John Judge

BURNING QUESTIONS What Really Happened at the Pentagon on 9/11?
some of the photos "proving" a small hole (and therefore no plane) at the Pentagon were digitally altered



6. Christopher Bollyn - Puts out a mixture of the fake and real, supports the idea there was DU at the Pentagon with zero evidence, advocate of No Commercial Jet . . . he's promoted for his story that there was NO JET AT ALL in Pennsylvania on the well-debunked disinfo site 'letsroll911.'

7. Jimmy Walter - "The truly serious matter, however, is that Walter has set about promoting some of the most dubious and questionable claims that have emerged of late many of which are already denounced by a wide range of 9/11 activists as obvious disinfo and he has also shown himself to be reckless and inaccurate in his handling of the evidence.

At his new site, Walter gives top billing on his "books and DVDs" page to the dubious 911 In Plane Site:  http://reopen911.org/books_dvds.htm

A film that is hotly disputed by a great many 9/11 skeptics, from an already controversial source, and which is not at all representative of any broad consensus views within the 9/11 "Truth Movement", is an extremely poor choice for top billing. The annotations added on the promotional page reveal a hornet's nest of dubious claims:

'What is this "pod" attached to the bottom of "Flight 175" and why is it there?'

Debunked:  http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

'If both towers are still standing, what caused this huge explosion at the base of the WTC complex?'

DEBUNKED!!! It is horrible and unforgivable for anyone still to be promoting this widely-exposed B.S.:

'How does a plane 125ft. wide & 155ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16ft. across?'

This is false info the ground-level entry area (where the walls were missing and support columns were missing or severely damaged and severed) was about 90 feet wide. Only the second floor area of the hole was small. Both In Plane Site and the Pentagon Strike web movie disingenuously use selective photos in which the 90-foot ground level hole is hidden behind smoke & water being sprayed by a firetruck, and it isn't even mentioned. But note that not all Pentagon no-757 advocates hide the real proportions of the hole in this way, which makes this misprepresentation even more egregious.

'What is this bright flash seen right before impact of both the North & South Towers?'

The flashes did not occur before the impacts; they occured precisely AT the moment of impact. This is another of the rather obvious mistakes in In Plane Site. And thus far, no one that I am aware of has shown they can conclusively rule out natural, spontaneous causes. There is some discussion at  http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html#flash.

'Why is there no wreckage or crater from "Flight 77" on the lawn of the Pentagon?'

The crater issue is a red herring. And there IS wreckage, not on the lawn (another example of deceptive, selective choice of photographs) but all over the South parking lot and part of the Heliport (easily visible in the photos taken by Steve Riskus), which were in fact closer to the impact point than the area of lawn that is shown (severe telephoto foreshortening illusion makes the lawn area look close to the building). Sure, one might attempt to debate whether the existing debris field is consistent with an airliner impact, but not acknowledging its existence at all (or the existence of the ground-level 90 foot entry hole) as is the case with In Plane Site and Pentagon Strike, only serves to make 911 skeptics look like conniving liars.

'Why did an eye witness report seeing no windows on "Flight 175" a commercial United Airlines jetliner?'

This dude, the ONLY witness on record with such a claim, was watching from BROOKLYN! He also claimed to see an anomalous, non-United Airlines paint scheme that does not appear in photos of the airplane. See discussion at  http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html#cargo

'How does a 757 exit the Pentagon's 3rd ring & leave a hole approximately 16ft. across with no visible wreckage?'

The C-ring exit hole is a real anomaly, but there was some apparent wreckage photographed in that area, and has been much discussed & debated. So, this is yet another misrepresentation of the evidence.

In his two appearances on CNN, Walter has done a reasonable job discussing WTC7, but there are some serious problems with his claims about the Pentagon. For example, here's one excerpt from the transcript of Walter's second interview (Nov. 11):

POSNER: The question on the Pentagon, which I am still not clear. What about the dozens of witnesses outside the Pentagon who saw the plane fly into the building? Are your saying that all those people are part of a conspiracy.

WALTER: Those dozens of witnesses said it was a commuter aircraft. We have at least four witnesses who said it wasn't big enough to be an airliner.

To see what an outrageously embarrassing misstatement this is, it is worth the time to read through this compilation of Pentagon eyewitness reports, the most comprehensive one available on the web:

Only two observers describe a "commuter" jet, and both were a considerable distance from the scene.

Walter is apparently just making stuff up. Or, he has been duped by someone coaching him with bogus info. It might worthwhile to investigate which "9/11 activists" have been working closely with him...

In any case, I'm really perturbed to see so many 9/11 activists rally around Walter in a knee-jerk way just because he's being picked on by Posner. Wake up folks! How much of a fool does one have to be to MAKE GERALD POSNER LOOK GOOD? Even worse, the fact that he is focusing so strongly on the WTC7 issue means that this substantive and powerful part of the 9/11 skeptic's case will be discredited by association with the faulty claims he's promoting alongside it.

I'm willing to believe that he is a well-intentioned "eccentric", but thus far, Jimmy Walter's newfound status as a figurehead of 9/11 skepticism is shaping up to be a disaster. Frankly, there are times when good intentions just aren't enough, and this is one of those times. "

8. Jenna Orkin
Mother of Ground Zero area high school kid
WTC Environmental Organisation

I'm sorry to see she's involved with this group, and she probably doesn't realize what she's gotten into.

Great but nothing 11.May.2005 17:30


Obviously differences of opinion exist as to what exactly happened on 9-11. Focusing on minor differences is a waste of time and, in my opinion, exactly what the true perpetrators of 9-11 want Truth Activists to do. If we are busy fighting amongst ourselves it makes it impossible for us to focus on the real issues: that 9-11 was an inside job, orchestrated to appear as if a terrorist attack occurred. The details are not nearly as important as the underlying implications. Our government is our enemy, no doubt about it. Was it a Predator Hawk that hit the Pentagon? Or was it Flight77? Who gives a shit? The fact is that it wasn't Al Qaeda, but The Neo-Cons behind the attack. We must keep that Truth in mind at all times. When you have one theorist arguing one set of ideas and another arguing another, don't let that take away from the reason they are making the arguments. Yes, there are many unknowns surrounding 9-11. So let's not waste time fighting one-another, but instead let's continue to encourage each other to make others aware of the fact that the official version of events is a lie. We All know this and those who disagree with that proposition are either ignorant or part of the lie. We have a common enemy and it is our government, scary, but true.

Keep fighting for the Truth.

fights 11.May.2005 17:51


The fightings had been provoked by 911truth.org, their obscure supporters and the peak oil cult from Mike Ruppert.
If the more progressive part of the 9/11 truth movement would ignore their distractions and just go on, then we would have progress.
Unfortunately too many supporters of 911truth.org and Ruppert still believe, they can't do much, "need more patience" and better wait until the next "election".

Our problems are not the ego-fights, our problem is that the pieces of the puzzles of 9/11 had been designed that way to divert this movement.

The second wave should increase their public events, work on creative ideas and plan constructive protests, become the media and much much more.

OILEMPIRE SHILLS 12.May.2005 02:21

Igor Vovchanchyn

flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, United Airlines actually admitted on 9/11 that it crashed into the WTC as reported to the BBC.

according to the 12.May.2005 06:23


it never even took off

and according to senator dayton, the norad timeline is a "lie"

The Ministry of Truth -- Minitrue, in Newspeak -- was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:




watcha lookin for out here?
watcha lookin for out here?

it was a plane bomb 16.May.2005 21:51

plane cyteh

What would best explain the damage inside the Pentagon, the hiding of all the available videos, the process of covering-up with faked images, the oddities in the civil engineers reports, etc., is the hypothesis that the plane contained an aggressive warhead based on a shaped charge, perhaps associated with a depleted uranium mass.

Yes, there was a plane, and the best explanation for the evidence is that it was a plane bomb.