A
Anders
Guest
This thread is one of three threads with the aim in mind of seeing who continues to support the 757 theory and who doesn’t.
A lot of sites have done research into 9-11 and contributed greatly in bringing awareness to the American Coup d’etat that happened on 9-11. Few sites questioned initially the story about the 757 theory. As time has gone on this has changed.
Since this very likely is the Achilles heel of the whole story and where focused energy would be most fruitful, then it is interesting to see, who continues to push the story about the 757 after all the overwhelming evidence there is to the contrary. Even if a site is pushing this story does not mean that all the contributors to that site are unreliable or that the whole site is rubbish, yet time will tell if there is some pattern going on.
Setting up bogus sites or infiltrating bonafide sites is standard Cointelpro operating procedure. See Richard Dolan’s book UFO’s and the National Security State for more on Cointelpro.
This thread is encouraging posts regarding other sites that also draws the conclusion that a 757 was involved at the Pentagon attack. Please attach a url to evidence supporting that conclusion. Similarly corrections to various posts is essential, if mistakes or wrong conclusions have been made. If there is a key investigator or author of the analysis, then put that in as well.
Links to many 911 sites are given here http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911links.html
So feel free to join in the sorting.
The two sister threads are
Websites supporting "No 757 hit the Pentagon"
Fence sitters on the 9-11 Pentagon attack
The following is a start. The intention is to update the thread as more info comes along.
1) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/122705_identifiying_misinformation.shtml
Author Michael Ruppert.
On his website he beat his chest about how he was amongst the first, who did some real serious research into 9-11, yet it is hard to find any info on 9-11 on his current site. What I did find was, that he adamantly calls the idea that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon a hoax. Interesting.
Is linking to articles from oilempire.us
2) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Web_Links&file=index&req=viewlink&cid=3
Hard to find any thing on this site about the Pentagon. After clicking on their weblink I get Michael Rupperts site.
3) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Paul Thompson, a main contributor to their 911 timeline. Does not appear to question the official story on the Pentagon hit.
4) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)911truth.org/
Pretending to be sitting on the fence, yet wishing that the Pentagon story would go away. Here is what they had to say to the Pentagon release:
5) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)oilempire.us/911.html
Sees the NO-plane theory as an annoying distraction that they say is not at all supported by anything.
6) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)madcowprod.com/greenbayreview.htm
Author Daniel Hopsicker. It is hard to find anything about the 911 story on his site any longer apart from bits and pieces. Some of the links pointing to old 9-11 files are no longer valid. Anyway, he has no doubt that a 757 hit the Pentagon.
7) http:(doubleslash)villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72254,6.htm
Author Jarrett Murphy. A sleek piece of debunking. Mentioning a lot of the controversial points of the average sceptic in good NLP style, and then in a continual vein of ridicule and sarcasm states without saying it directly the official line.
Key man here is Fred Burks.
In a recent newsletter 20060227 on 9-11 there was this note
9) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
Author Michael Rivero. He goes with the 757 theory after a quick analysis with selected witness accounts. For more on an ongoing investigation into Rivero see http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1159
10) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
A site which appears to have taken over from staunch 757advocates such as Hopsicker and Michael Ruppert. Their analysis is very cleverly put together. It uses selected photos and draws on in their words “conspiracy sites” info when it suits the argument. Objective? NO. For a detailed analysis of why see Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11
Has powerful backers, which in this case has a high probability of being Cointelpro. See http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/cointelpro-updates-above-top-secret.html for an in-depth exposure.
11) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)pentagonresearch.com/conclusions.html
Leans reluctantly towards the 757 theory primarily based on what he says is 757 debris (some of the support for that was found on Rense). A lot of the other info in his analysis he finds very inconsistent with the 757 theory, thus the more puzzling his choice.
12) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)rense.com/general32/phot.htm
Rense did initially put on a site from Thierry Meyssan, but with an extremely rare disclaimer on Rense, that this site most likely was a big hoax. He quickly scrapped that site all together and put up the above url on his site. The email address of the investigator Sarah Roberts is quite amusing.
A lot of sites have done research into 9-11 and contributed greatly in bringing awareness to the American Coup d’etat that happened on 9-11. Few sites questioned initially the story about the 757 theory. As time has gone on this has changed.
Since this very likely is the Achilles heel of the whole story and where focused energy would be most fruitful, then it is interesting to see, who continues to push the story about the 757 after all the overwhelming evidence there is to the contrary. Even if a site is pushing this story does not mean that all the contributors to that site are unreliable or that the whole site is rubbish, yet time will tell if there is some pattern going on.
Setting up bogus sites or infiltrating bonafide sites is standard Cointelpro operating procedure. See Richard Dolan’s book UFO’s and the National Security State for more on Cointelpro.
This thread is encouraging posts regarding other sites that also draws the conclusion that a 757 was involved at the Pentagon attack. Please attach a url to evidence supporting that conclusion. Similarly corrections to various posts is essential, if mistakes or wrong conclusions have been made. If there is a key investigator or author of the analysis, then put that in as well.
Links to many 911 sites are given here http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911links.html
So feel free to join in the sorting.
The two sister threads are
Websites supporting "No 757 hit the Pentagon"
Fence sitters on the 9-11 Pentagon attack
The following is a start. The intention is to update the thread as more info comes along.
1) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/122705_identifiying_misinformation.shtml
Author Michael Ruppert.
On his website he beat his chest about how he was amongst the first, who did some real serious research into 9-11, yet it is hard to find any info on 9-11 on his current site. What I did find was, that he adamantly calls the idea that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon a hoax. Interesting.
Is linking to articles from oilempire.us
2) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Web_Links&file=index&req=viewlink&cid=3
Hard to find any thing on this site about the Pentagon. After clicking on their weblink I get Michael Rupperts site.
3) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Paul Thompson, a main contributor to their 911 timeline. Does not appear to question the official story on the Pentagon hit.
4) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)911truth.org/
Pretending to be sitting on the fence, yet wishing that the Pentagon story would go away. Here is what they had to say to the Pentagon release:
Amongst their links that they support are Oilempire and Fromthewilderness.While the spin on today's release of Pentagon video is evident in the media's persistent assurance that what we're seeing really is "video footage of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon building," this article from ABCNEWS.com fairly accurately quotes Mike Berger and Barrie Zwicker, in a reasonable manner. Undoubtedly, the preferred story title would have been "New Tape Finally Ends 9/11 Conspiracy Theories"; unfortunately, what we're seeing remains as unclear as ever.
5) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)oilempire.us/911.html
Sees the NO-plane theory as an annoying distraction that they say is not at all supported by anything.
6) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)madcowprod.com/greenbayreview.htm
Author Daniel Hopsicker. It is hard to find anything about the 911 story on his site any longer apart from bits and pieces. Some of the links pointing to old 9-11 files are no longer valid. Anyway, he has no doubt that a 757 hit the Pentagon.
7) http:(doubleslash)villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72254,6.htm
Author Jarrett Murphy. A sleek piece of debunking. Mentioning a lot of the controversial points of the average sceptic in good NLP style, and then in a continual vein of ridicule and sarcasm states without saying it directly the official line.
8) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)wanttoknow.info/It's odd. For a group of people who harbor so many doubts about the intentions of their own and other governments, the media, and fellow citizens, much of the Truth movement does not suspect for a moment that our defense spending has been a rip-off, that the FBI is a clumsy bureaucracy, that our spy agencies are deaf and dumb, and that our skyscrapers are not 100 percent safe. They do not seem worried that they could be unwitting partners in a more mundane conspiracy to obscure the limits of security and science.
Key man here is Fred Burks.
In a recent newsletter 20060227 on 9-11 there was this note
As their key reference for reliable info only is a reference to an article debunking 9-11 sceptics then for me that said a lot.Note: We generally avoid partisan sources, but as so few are reporting the vital questions around 9-11, we've included this article. You can find another informative article from the same newspaper on the same day at http:(dobleslash)villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72254,6.html. For our highly reliable, verifiable information on the 9-11 cover-up, see http:(doubleslash)www(dot)WantToKnow.info/911information
9) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
Author Michael Rivero. He goes with the 757 theory after a quick analysis with selected witness accounts. For more on an ongoing investigation into Rivero see http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1159
10) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
A site which appears to have taken over from staunch 757advocates such as Hopsicker and Michael Ruppert. Their analysis is very cleverly put together. It uses selected photos and draws on in their words “conspiracy sites” info when it suits the argument. Objective? NO. For a detailed analysis of why see Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11
Has powerful backers, which in this case has a high probability of being Cointelpro. See http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/cointelpro-updates-above-top-secret.html for an in-depth exposure.
11) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)pentagonresearch.com/conclusions.html
Leans reluctantly towards the 757 theory primarily based on what he says is 757 debris (some of the support for that was found on Rense). A lot of the other info in his analysis he finds very inconsistent with the 757 theory, thus the more puzzling his choice.
12) http:(doubleslash)www(dot)rense.com/general32/phot.htm
Rense did initially put on a site from Thierry Meyssan, but with an extremely rare disclaimer on Rense, that this site most likely was a big hoax. He quickly scrapped that site all together and put up the above url on his site. The email address of the investigator Sarah Roberts is quite amusing.