Home:  Take Over WorldHome (start) Page 1
Home Page 1-A
Home Page 1-B
Amazing 9-11 info
Site Map
Video-Audio List
KEY issues covered up by DISINFO
PSYOPS - Manipulating the Mind for Tyranny
INDEX2 9-11 & Fourth Reich, Nazi history

back to psyops and disinfo on index-b

The official govt 9-11 Conspiracy Theory is drivel.  The Govt and Media are lying their asses off, deflecting suspicion with both their multiple official explanations (FAA, NORAD, and 9-11 Comm have different timelines) and hit-piece debunkings.  On examination, their puzzle pieces just don't fit. 
(The establishment seems to be INSERTING competing junk stories maybe into the web and even the mainstream media --- the 'holy television' --- junk food for the the suspicious to feed on, and the "conspiracy theorists" to play with, while simultaneously debunking them and using them to debunk serious research.  This creates doubt and confusion, as well as cocksure anti-skeptics.  Under doubt and confusion, most people will leap to conclusions which give them comfort -- either believing ALL the ridiculous stuff, or saying with a voice of certainty that "it's all crap".)

I must give credit here to Break for News and Fintan Dunne.  Before I stumbled on B4N, I had reached a point where I was reading competing conspiracy theorists, horrified by some of the John Birch propaganda of Alex Jones and gay-bashing that made him unwatchable, and wondering what to believe.  The skepticism of  Break for News helped me understand that  Donald Rumsfeld's "Office of Disinformation" (which he swore he abandoned) was likely manipulating the web, and there were mainstream reports on Pentagon hiring Bloggers to post articles or maybe troll the web and spin things the way the Pentagon wants.  The old FBI-COINTELPRO strategy involved disinformation, confusion, rumors, and ridicule.  Mockingbird was about manipulating mainstream media outlets through tight "relationships" with owners and sometimes with editors and reporters.  Also CIA infiltrating or creating faux Left organizations, even Artists like Jackson Pollock, and presumably musicians.  It worked on the Left during Vietnam.

(more research showedme that JBS is a cousin to McCarthyism and to the Nazis, via the WACL which is an underground anti-communist terror group that attacked random civilians, and which appears to be the "parent company" of Al-Qaeda)

Therefore, it's sad for me to say that Fintan Dunne and his crowd went off the rails and started accusing ME (moi!!) of being some kind of CIA asset.  They started seeing everything through the lens of conspiracy.  Some conspiracies are known and have been partly exposed, even in sworn Congressional hearings.  The late Phil Agee of the CIA told a lot of true stories.  Much of America's conspiracism has emerged out of right wing religious paranoia, the 50s version of "Obama is the Anti-Christ and a Communist".  Obama is a puppet of Wall Street banks and their CIA, the National Security State?  Sure.  Satan? Lenin? Think not.  So goodbye and thanks to Break for News.  It was wonderful while it lasted, and quite the worthwhile challenge and sparring.

NOTE: It is more than doubtful that any of this Sept 11 stuff will EVER be proven in courts or hearings.  By who?  Maybe some hearings will reveal the basics:  Bush and Condi must have read the CIA briefing on Al-Qaeda planning attacks.  That's in the movie Press for Truth, so nothing groundbreaking.  Proving HOW the Towers fell comes nowhere near to WHO or WHY, other than blaming Bush and Cheney.  Seriously, Bush was not the "mastermind" of the operation, no more than Mohamed Atta was.


The crap is part of the puzzle.
Nick Berg

The Internet is flooded with a thick slurry of mix-and-match bullshit ---  some accurate facts mixed with bizarre disinfo, mild disinfo, association of truth with wild kooky theories, and leaps from suspicions to unverifiable (or poorly analyzed) conclusions.  The way science works is it develops theories, tries to prove them, but also tries to rationally debunk their own theories, not provide knee-jerk defense.

 " ... conclusion-driven nonsense ... "

The fake or questionable BULLshit is given the widest media coverage, as if that's the whole game.
Here's a 2 minute audio of REAL evidence.
A professional pilot's view of 9-11.
(It's OK to speculate rationally about an unknown which could lead to a line of inquiry and reasoning, to form a hypothesis or several.  That's quite different from adopting speculation as fact.)

"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."

-- Sander Hicks, author of "The Big Wedding"
(Note:  The driver DID slow down, turn around, and WAIT as he watched JFK get the fatal head shot, before accelerating out of the kill zone.  Clear violation of normal security procedures.  He was never questioned.  But his "gun" was an optical illusion on the film.)

"No Planes" was debunked as early as FOUR years ago (2002).
Serious engineers and serious researchers spent a lot of time investigating 9-11, proved an inside job beyond any reasonable doubt.
They also credibly debunked some of the ideas on these documentaries.FAKE:  thepowerhour

Thierry Meyssan and his "Hunt the Boeing" 2002 book/web/flash-video, latched on by The Power Hour and the In Plane Site video from 2004. 
This was followed by "the South Tower hit was really a Hologram" by webfairy (Rosalee Grable) and Gerard Holmgren. Mud-slinging ensued.

David McGowan offers a some photos of planes being built.  An airliner is not a body with two wings attached.  It's a heavy-duty wingspan with engines and wheels and brakes attached, with a lightweight "soda can" stuck on top to contain the electronics and the passengers and luggage.  The nose cone is lightweight graphite material, surely strong enough to repel most flight debris, but not punch a round hole in a football field thickness of reinforced concrete.  The nose of a plane cannot penetrate in that manner.  The Twin Towers, of course it could partly pentrate the "skin" of glass and steel.  Just as well, the wings cannot "break off" from the body, and fold back one on each side.  The wingspan can only slam in as a single solid piece, which it is, maybe with the wingtips breaking off first.

David McGowan does not try to claim that Flight AA77 was taken somewhere and the passengers removed alive.  Loose Change (below) claims this, without explaining that this idea was one of the ideas sketched out in Operation Northwoods.  On the other hand, McGowan does claim that it's unlikely that any passenger jet hit the Pentagon, for one because it would have taken a missile to punch out that hole an airliner could NOT have done it, and two, the lack of a sizeable debris field anywhere, no big engines on the lawn, just a few scraps.

BUT THE MUCH STRONGER POINT is how AA77 could have been gotten away with approaching the Pentagon at all -- EVER -- let alone fly over it, and especially in the midst of a military crisis involving airliners striking buildings.  AA77 allegedly
circled over the Pentagon and turned back around, flying in the vicinity for almost five minutes while dropping thousands of feet, before running into the Pentagon, a terrorist flight path, a slow motion attack.  It would have been funnier if AA77 had performed some stunt flying "loop-de-loops" before crashing, for a great video, like watching "Asshole".

Critics challenged these conclusions, disputed "facts", respectfully at first, utmost detail, giving the benefit of the doubt in terms of sincerity.  When they got nowhere arguing with the promoters of this crap, one went so far as to state:  If [VonKleist] is not a paid intelligence disinformation asset, then he is the dream of the intelligence community ...


BOTH SIDES OF THE CURRENT "NO PLANE" CONSPIRACY THEORY vs. PENTAGON DEBUNKING PHOTOS -- neither the govt nor the kooks has "proven" anything.  They want it that way -- OBFUSCATION and CONFUSION.
Legitimate KEY issues covered up by "no planes" crap controversies
"Hunt the Boeing" & "In Plane Site" some major flaws, downpage on link.

NOTE:  Some think all this "popular" 9-11 rant is Liberal Bush-hating stuff.  Bush is above criticism, he was "anointed" by God to lead America.
Theirry Meyssan is a French Leftist, true.  On the other hand, Dave Von Kleist leans towards the Christian Right.

"Loose Change"
regurgitated the same theme plus more, marketed to a different audience - youth, techno sound, slick.
It's so bad it LOOKS no less than intentional disinfo.  If they ever clean it up, I'll apologize.   (Pretty solid performance on Democracy Now for Loose Change guys, but I still have problems with it, last I checked.)

(Dave von Kleist and Joyce Riley seem to accurately and sincerely advocate for civilians and Veterans who have experienced Depleted Uranium poisoning.  But he makes statements claiming that researchers who criticize his "questions" or his interpretation only want to cover up the truth about 9-11, despite the fact that his critics offer similar viewpoints but lacking all the flaws and leaps of logic.  Von Kleist might be a poison pill for DU as well.)

Some parts of Loose Change are accurate, important, and clear.  Operation Northwoods. 
Some parts point to solid facts but using bad logic, and other parts are total crap or dubious. Dubious stuff is given equal or greater weight to solid stuff.

When the Loose Change crew went to Ground Zero, they acted like jerks, as did the WING TV neo-Nazis (audio).
Screw Loose Change.blogspot.com
Screw Loose Change: My New Hero--Paul Isaac, Jr.

Michael B. Green says he was initially fooled by In Plane Site, sent out emails, had to apologize.  When he later found REAL factual info, he had lost credibility.  First hand experience in how garbage killed truth.

"I suggest that the purpose in including both junk and substantive evidence is to discredit the latter. If rotten fish is wrapped in the same package as delicious truffles, few people with good judgment or good taste will attempt to retrieve and salvage the truffles. It is also to scant good evidence and thorough analysis in favor of cheap shots and one-liners that have no evidentiary value whatsoever. 

VonKleist wraps the good meat of the WTC blowing up between two pieces of rotten bread: the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon, and the Pod & Flash fraud.
If Mr. VonKleist is not a paid intelligence disinformation asset, then he is the dream of the intelligence community
: someone who dissembles as artfully as they do, and with all their wit, but who doesn’t draw a salary."

US Office of Strategic Services 1943 - Creating a Successful Rumor Guidelines

Is it an accident that everyone knows about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" but nobody has heard of the Northwoods memoNor any of this other history of fabricated excuses for wars?

Official Strawmen are created who discredit themselves, then they backpedal later, and the media treats the backpedal as truth.  Dan Rather's staged "goof", on a side-issue of hipocrisy vs. patriotism and service, discredited all criticism of Bush.  (CBS has old CIA links).

more quotes
... damage the cause of exposing the 9/11/01 deception by steering people away from quality sites, and contextualizing the work of serious researchers as conclusion-driven nonsense.  (Bush-hating, conspiracy-obsessing)
... Even setting all the technical issues aside, the no-plane analysis simply defies common sense.

Some 9-11 research is fairly accurate but has been associated with "poison pills", like a neo-Nazi agenda, UFOs, Crop Circles, extreme religions or political views, cults and anti-cults, etc.  Some web-groups are bashing others for being INSUFFICIENTLY anti-Semitic, while any hint Jew-hating is automatically a poison pill in mainstream society.

In some ways, the worst stuff to deal with is that which is 95% accurate, because it's more difficult to dismiss.  The Trojan horse technique deals with accurate info, but it comes out of the mouth of someone "sleazy" or who later publicly discredits themselves.  See Charlie Sheen, Galloway (below).  This "poison pill" trick often appears accidental, but just too idiotic.
(Break for News below, explanations on "perception management"

Arguing about physics leads only to frustration when some variables are unknown, or when the audience doesn't sufficiently understand Physics or Math.  These arguments therefore exclude probably 80% of the population.  PhD physicists sparring with other PhD physicists is not fun to watchCrediting Ruppert with this wit: Political Physics:  For every PhD, there is an equal and opposite PhD.

Jim Hoffman (a nano-surface engineer) at 911review.com  (not dot org) offers one of the most detailed warnings about fake 9-11 conspiracy issues, theories and videos which are designed to undermine the credibility of honest and sane 9-11 activists.

Grand Deception - Second Look at the War on TerrorismNonsense as a Weapon - An effective tool for reinforcing the "loony conspiricism" meme is the dissemination of theories that that have no basis in evidence, and mixing fact with fantasy. Too blatant to be accidental.

I hope I never add to that mess.  You won't catch me offering gay stud services, like "Jeff Gannon".

In the 1960s and 1970s, federal programs like COINTELPRO used undercover operatives to infiltrate the anti-war movement and discredit groups.  Agents would pose as radicals, both to collect information and also to encourage illegal and dangerous activity, plant rumors, and to create dissention within and ridicule from without.  The practice apparently continues today, modernized for the Internet Age.

The Company We Keep
another detailed look at 9-11 Hoaxes
Brigham Young physics professor Steven E. Jones but damning his "colleagues".
Exposing Steve Jones as government op.

Jimmy Walter, a sugar daddy with poison pills, by Brian Salter

Forum discussion on Eric Hufschmid of Painful Questions and the video Painful Deceptions, and also Jimmy Walter. A chunks of Hufschmid's site is devoted to hating Jews.  As the result, many other people, characterize ALL Sept 11 stuff as anti-Semitic, esp. Liberal activists.

Brian Salter at www.questionsquestions.net and Dan Hopsicker at www.madcowprod.com both expose some "creeps" in the 911 Truth movement: "activists" selling spiritual snake oil and plausible fictions.
Several of the "9-11 activists" checked out by  had business ties to a person central to
Ollie North and Iran-Contra and North's counterpart with a long history of financial crimes, Adnan Kashoggi.

some coverage from Hopsicker:
(Kashoggi apparently also has his hands in the American voting system.) video

COINTELPRO 9.11 - Peak Oil & 'The Level Above Saudi'
COINTELPRO 9.11 - John Gray and Saudi Genesis
COINTELPRO 9.11 - Khashoggi, Cults, Cover-Ups & Mars and Venus Doing Lunch
This is good, but I have doubts about Hopsicker and his fake Amanda Keller expose.  Wrong Mohammed Atta.
Sibel Edmonds in above photo: Wry critics called her a "dog-whistle-blower", conveniently offering 'revelations beyond the range of human hearing',  However, Edmonds has been steadfastly pursuing legal actions and media coverage over and over again. She has named Dennis Hastert and "those people who were capable of slapping 20+ gag orders on her".

Flight of Fantasy: Flight 77 Didn't Hit the Pentagon?  (debunk-age performed by John Judge)
Flight 93 Eyewitness Accounts  (living witnesses in Pennsylvania saw the plane)

Fintan Dunne of Break for News casts his net of fakes a little too wide .. but he's a skeptic of whistleblowers
sample of good audio selections from BfN (or popup)
George GallowayGeorge Galloway
MP loses respect after 'Big Brother' cat caper.
("Celebrity Big Brother" is
Britain's equivalent of the Jerry Springer show)
I like Galloway and the Respect Party, but he sure looks cheesy here.

9/11 Goes 'Nuts' - August 05, 2005
overlapping Cointelpro-style Ops, homosexuality, child prostitution, satanic rituals
"The longer-term idea was to have the whole host of investigators and activist leaders take each other out, and thus run the movement into the ground.  Build up 'heroes' of the 9/11 issue. Then later expose their deliberate flaws to cause their supporters to lose heart." ~ Dunne

Penn Jillette (Penn & Teller) video "debunking" two kooks - too kooky to be anything but CIA
9/11 Cartoon Pied Pipers (discussion on BfN)

CNN: If Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, as you claim it didn't, what did and what happened to the 64 passengers who have died?
Well, I don't know. And I am not the person to ask this, I don't have the best evidence.

JIMMY WALTER later: "I firmly believe that many of the alleged passengers on the alleged hijacked aircraft are still alive. And quite frankly I think they were probably all working for the government."

The scenario of 'faked hijacking victims' WAS floated in the very real 1962 Northwoods memo plan, but no evidence has been offered to indicate this "passenger substitution" was used on 9-11.  It's also counter-intuitive: with 3000 dead, what's a few hundred more?  Jimmy does not mention this Northwoods point-of-reference to edify his wild assertion or to expand his argument into this 'open secret'.  Jimmy has gone international in his pursuit of "truth-telling".

insightful clarification about "CIA fakes" from "Hawkwind"
... your nick is crass and funny. This gives me permission to make a crude analogy in hope of allowing you some time to rephrase your main question. Let me first say that I doubt Fintan will endorse my analogy but, here it goes.

No joke, I think it’s great that you are a discerning listener/reader of “alternative” news! With that said, we are now on the scoreboard discerning listener – 1, sheeple – 1,000,000. Now let’s look at the “alternative” media from the point of view of the sheeple. From their somewhat lazy point of view, this whole mess is a mixture of unsubstantiated conspiracy and goofy “Page 6” stories. How much fluff do you have to wade through to get some useful facts? Can’t they just get that from the hypno-tube? And don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of facts to be found, you just have to search for ‘em.

Picture the “alternative” media as a very large pile of steaming dog shit. Somewhere buried in the pile is a Tic Tac breath mint. How many times are you willing to stick your face in the pile hoping to come out with fresh breath??

If the “source” of information presents his/her facts in the above manner, who is being served by that?  Surely not the sheeple, so these sources might as well be part of the organized MIC subversive disinfo process.
And sadly regarding the 911 story, all we really can prove is that the government’s story is another large pile of steaming dog shit  (with another hidden Tic Tak, … etc.).

I think Fintan has posed a VERY important question, who is in this thing for the “truth”, universal or individual, and who is contributing to the ever increasing pile of steaming dog shit. Your guess is as good as mine …

One more point I forgot to make is, because these hacks have painted us into an information corner, with their relentless nonsense, we are forced to hold ourselves up to a much higher level of scrutiny. Forgiveness is not easily given to our past, present and future mistakes.

corporatism: Corporate intell is state intell, there is no difference -- because the nation State is a myth being run by corporate interests, and each corporation is a State entity, by definition.

even further: one more very clear disinfo explanation:
If I might stick my oar in: I think Fintan's analysis is fundamentally sound. You ask why it is a question of shills taking the risk of running various conspiracy theories about 9-11, when this could bring down their entire house of cards.

Well first off, these people are smart, and second, they have a lot of experience in managing perception. Fighting wars these days is 10% actual bombing, shooting, etc., but 90% disinformation. I hope you would not be prepared to ask whether much of the so-called "Left" has made it its business to collaborate with the State (as there really is only one State in the world which counts for anything): the Gladio operation was not only about running right-wing death squads, but also about creating a phantom "resistance" to divert people's energies, confuse their thinking, split them into factions, so that half the elites' work was already done.

The point of the "organised Left" as officially manifested in trade unions and charities is to prevent people from joining the dots, from thinking politically, and so to keep them confused, afraid, and powerless. A common slogan in certain "Western democracies" these days is "It's going to happen anyway; there's nothing you can do." It's no mistake that the so-called left subscribes to this defeatism, because their propaganda is, covertly but solidly, and in varying degrees, based on the presuppositions officially laid out by the ruling elites. It's the "consensus" that political types keep telling us is so desirable. And for all their noise and bull****, the official left is concerned, above all else, with keeping the State intact.

The same goes for 9-11. Those responsible weren't waiting around twiddling their thumbs hoping no one would work out that buildings don't just fall down because of fire. They had their intelligence operatives ready with their briefs, and when websites started appearing questioning the official story, the intelligence agents jumped aboard. Their method is not to insist on the official line and construct arguments to prove it is plausible, but to construct a sophisticated distraction to protect the real culprits, and hide the real explanations.

So that is how some of the loudest and most insistent voices "questioning" the 9-11 story can be on the other side. The method is to encourage people to concentrate on details, distract them from what matters, namely why.
Everyone who is honest with themselves knows buildings can't be brought down by airlines hijacked by boxcutter-wielding terrorists with a few weeks' training in flight simulators:  so why do the fakes keep going on about how impossible it is?

Because it sounds good, because you've always wanted to be told that Kennedy wasn't shot by a man who couldn't even hold a rifle straight; but analysis of the reasons, the context, the structure of the plan?? No chance.

A few ways to recognize a "Psy-ops" campaign ...
... similar to a snake oil sales pitch, a family guilt trip.  Psych 101. (per me)

Their biggest wish is that most Americans will remain utterly stupid and snowed -- or too timid or too apathetic to say anything.  So they spend millions and billions on continual "PR" (public realations a.k.a. propaganda) combined with layers of "reverse-PR" to assure seamless confusion, panicked dependence, and blind loyalty, while they roll out more rumors, more terror and more tyranny to help fix the terror problem.  I mustn't forget to mention 'bread and circuses'.
Bush BIO

Broadly speaking, there are three layers of cover-up:  (Jim Hoffman)
  • The mainstream official story: This is the story as told by the mainstream media since the day of the attack.
  • The "limited hangouts": These are revelations that seem shocking to adherents to the official story, but fall far short of the whole truth. Examples are the many warnings of the attack that the administration should have acted on.
  • The poison pills: These are extreme ideas that have no basis in evidence and serve to discredit evidence-based research about the core facts of the attack through guilt-by-association. Examples are the no-planes and pod-planesIn Plane Site, and racist ideas like "the Jews did it." ideas popularized by propaganda such as
Disinfo sites described here appear to be designed to accomplish two simultaneous goals targeted at two different groups:
  • To gain the trust of people in the community of "9/11 skeptics" by strongly asserting that the attack was an inside job, while seeming to back up the claim with abundant resources.
  • To convince the larger public that the skepticism about the official story is based on prejudice, sloppy research, and bad science.
These sites have the potential to damage the cause of exposing the 9/11/01 deception by steering people away from quality sites, and contextualizing the work of serious researchers as conclusion-driven nonsense.

Identifying Misinformation:
“These discussions of what possibly induced that [collapse of the towers] is a major psychological operations campaign designed to keep the American people from looking at the evidence of guilt.”
- Michael Ruppert, February 14, 2005, interview on KZYX, “The Party’s Over”
Identifying Ruppert

Check the video below.  It's on-the-scene coverage (and analysis) about how Fed authorities engineered RIOTS, MAYHEM, VIOLENCE, and PROPERTY DAMAGE in Seattle in 1999, in order to shut down legit political demonstation by normal people --- which was opposition to the same Globalization that Jerome Corsi of Swift Boats is finally coming out against now. www.Takeoverworld.info/vid/AJ-Police_State_Provocateurs-012505mdm.wmv 


The other key point in my 2001 comments was that reference to the 9/11 PsyOp being like a cliché-ridden B-movie script. In a way, it was a rerun of the infamous terror-inspiring Orson Wells radio broadcast. It seems farcical that people actually bought those fake news reports of mayhem following an alien invasion of the U.S.A. --but they did.

Learn what's real, watch out for intentional disinfo sites meant to discredit all "skeptics" and watch out for blanket "ad-hominem" name-calling.
Some physical evidence on 9-11 videos is important, and some is fake, but this official documentation and mainstream news reports showing links btw Al-Qaida and US leaders is sufficient.

Some disinfo exposes:
Here is a page in part-support, part-rebuke of vonKleist.
Brian Salter: Even setting all the technical issues aside, the no-plane analysis simply defies common sense.
I'm alarmed at the current situation. Many of the most important 9/11 sites rely on Holmgren's analysis of the Pentagon anomalies. If he persists in pushing this baseless theory, large portions of the 9/11 truth movement stand to be tainted through this association. The debunkers would approach it like this: "Within the community of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, broad support is given to a man that believes that no 767s hit the World Trade Center." Guilt by association may not be an honorable debating tactic, but the other side is anything but honorable.
The WTC no-plane theories are a danger to the 9/11 truth movement and should be vigorously rejected.
research on physical collapse:
Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century -- NIST's Report sidesteps the very question it purported to investigate: what caused the total destruction of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers?

WTC "Pancake Collapse" should have taken 96 seconds.
- scientific case for controlled demolition
9/11 Truth: NOVA's "Pancake Theory" Simulation Debunked

SEARCH  If anyone has had the misfortune of sitting through NOVA's attempt and validating the official government myth about 9/11, here's a piece that debunks the "pancake theory" computer simulation NOVA's graphic artists came up with to make the Bush administration's 9/11 story seem plausible.   (however 9/11 Eyewitness, where this came from, has also made some untested leaps into imaginary conclusions, different from the govt's)
Flash video: 9-11_Truth--Pancake_Theory_IMPOSSIBLE.flv from NOVA
install FLVplayer or Videolan VLC  (good clean programs)
9-11_Truth--Pancake_Theory_IMPOSSIBLE.avi  (first 5 sec blank)

Sander Hicks dissecting 9-11 public inquiry with Mickey Z:
... when you have 9/11 people who know nothing about history or foreign policy or politics who advance theories that completely ignore smoking guns, like the CIA/ISI connection. Their theories tend to veer into the esoteric. Really imaginative territory, like the "In Plane Sight" video. I'm not sure who they blame, they seem to think that the attack originated deep inside the war machine itself.  But Arab anger is real.  The real trick is to not only see it, but to understand it, and then to understand how it could have been manipulated (one more possible outlook - did Al-Qaeda do it under manipulation, or was the whole event manufactured with Arabs serving as Patsys?)

"‘9/11’" Great Crimes / A Greater Cover-Up
DON PAUL & JIM HOFFMAN, et al 2003
source: http://wtc7.net/books/greatcrimes/

Letter to Dear Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission

more complex and kinky PSYOPS - NICK BERG
Bloggers doubt Berg execution video
More graphically, some claim that cutting the throat's artery would cause a significant amount of blood to gush out. But little emerges and when the head was raised – not a drop of blood is seen to fall.

9-11 conveniently made US citizens the top suspects for future crimes.
9-11 conveniently made DISSENT not just any crime, but equal to
according to the USA PATRIOT Act.  America Must Not Bend

Remember, Attorney General Ashcroft said that if you question the government, you're suppporting terrorists.  So this is a terrorist web page.

The White House also said a real 9-11 inquiry-investigation would impede the execution of their War on TerrorismI'll bet it would.

Specific Debunking summed up HERE

John Judge 5/19/2002

  ... They have spent $13 trillion tax dollars since the end of WWII on this military/intelligence complex, and it cannot protect its own headquarters?
It can track every electronic communication on earth, crack the codes of the Al Quaeda in advance of 9-11, locate bin Laden's cell phone, but it can't decipher what it all means?

And beyond that question is the more pertinent one hardly anyone is asking.
* Bush clearly and undeniably had advance knowledge of a terrorist attack on US soil using planes as weapons by 9:05 am on September 11.
* NORAD had it by 8:45 in an unprecedented simultaneous hijacking of four planes.
* The Pentagon had it, as did everyone in DC by 9:05 as well.
* The Pentagon began to evacuate the building, as did the White House and Capitol.
* EVERYONE had advance knowledge of Flight 77 coming towards DC for 40 minutes.Yet, there was a complete defensive stand-down. Interceptors from distant Langley AFB took off late and flew at subsonic speeds to arrive 5 minutes too late. Planes from nearby Anacostia Naval Air Station, Andrews Air Force Base, and the 73rd Air Wing at Atlantic City, NJ never took off.  Scramblers in the air already at 9:05 from Otis AFB turned to target Flight 77 and were called off, despite a formal shoot-down order from Bush/Cheney "moments after" the 9:05 crash -- which had ended any speculation of accident or coincidence or hijacking motives.

By that moment they undeniably knew in advance what was coming and where it was headed.  Local news announced that DC was the destination. Surface-to-air missiles at the White House and Pentagon remained sheathed in their silos. Despite the planes having turned off communications with ground control towers and their identifying transponders (which also shuts off their own near-range radar screens to avoid mid-air collisions), they were clearly visible to all external radars, they were being tracked by NORAD and DC towers, and they were somehow being navigated directly to their target.
How were they allowed to come into the most restricted air space in the world with no challenge or defense?  That is the question that answers both when Bush knew in advance and begs any rational response.
The White House and Pentagon officials have been lying since day one about both advance intelligence knowledge that could have foiled the operation, and about their own ability to prevent, at least, the attack on the Pentagon. Let them answer that.

(This assumes that 'enemies' attacked us.  Or it challenges the idea. If 'they' were 'allowed' to attack, were 'they' really enemies?)

Remote controlled planes

The State Department claims that remote controlled Boeing planes are not possible.

Remotely Controlled Flight Not Possible
A Boeing Company official stated that Boeing has designed its commercial airplanes so that it is impossible to control them remotely.
Elizabeth Verdiev, a spokesperson for Boeing, stated on June 16, 2005:

No Boeing commercial jet transport can be controlled from outside the airplane. No Boeing commercial jet transport can be "commanded" or have its flight controlled other than from within the flight deck by the pilots. Pilots can program the airplane to take off, fly to a destination and land automatically, but Boeing design philosophy keeps pilots in control and in the decision-making loop at all times.

USA Today published an article shortly after 9/11 admitting that remote control technologies actually do exist for Boeing planes.

10/02/2001 - Updated 12:18 PM ET
Remote piloting: Solution or disaster-in-the-making?
A FedEx 727 cargo plane lands using remote control technology being developed by Raytheon
BOSTON (AP) — There's little doubt that landing a plane from the ground — technology that could prevent hijackers turning a commercial jet into a weapon — could soon be feasible. Whether it's a good idea or not is another question. Raytheon is one of several companies looking to use new satellite technology that could someday allow jets to be landed by people on the ground, in much the same way that hobbyists bring in their model airplanes by remote control. The company announced Monday that its technology had guided a Federal Express 727 to a safe landing on a New Mexico Air Force base in August — all without the need of a pilot. Raytheon says the technology, primarily designed to help navigation, could be useful in a remote landing system.

Planes - Remote Control
Global Hawk
NASA Dryden Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft Movie Collection
In 1984 NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) teamed-up in a unique flight experiment called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), to test the impact of a Boeing 720 aircraft using standard fuel
with an additive designed to suppress fire. The additive FM-9, a high molecular-weight long chain polymer, when blended with
Jet-A fuel had demonstrated the capability to inhibit ignition and flame propagation of the released fuel in simulated impact tests.

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled
Vehicle Facility
. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14
flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs,
69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings
on abort runway.

Here is one site with a lot of rational disinfo challenges which don't evolve into shrieking name-calling.  I don't agree with everything from Mark Rabinowitz, but he has a good debunking page. 
almost every word following is from the following web page:

Stop Government Funded PropagandaPropaganda Patterns, a report at www.oilempire.us/propaganda.html, is an effort to analyze the patterns of disinformation used to discredit serious investigation and exposure of numerous crimes, including 9/11. This analysis shows that the best evidence is usually in the middle between the “limited hang outs” (efforts to partially expose that ensure the full truths stay concealed) and distracting disinformation (efforts that encourage those drawn to limited hang outs not to probe deeper).

Sander Hicks and 9/11 Truth

When you have a sensitive topic here, when so much political power is involved, there's going to be a series of false reports, disinformation put forth to obscure the real story, red herrings to throw off the dogs. It happened in the JFK assassination, and it's happening now.
My quick analysis on how this is happening right now would be to point out two red herrings: The Pentagon Theory and the accusations of anti-Semitism. Paul Thompson of the 9/11 Timeline was on the Morning Sedition show and host Mark Marin dismissed the entire 9/11 Truth website by saying, "Oh, it’s one of those sites that say no plane hit the Pentagon." We're being judged by our weakest link. And it is pretty weak.

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.

For instance, all the right-wing magazines (e.g. National Review) have had a field day.
I've also seen media voices dismiss the entire topic of 9/11 questioning by sweeping it all into some kind of anti-Semitic whacko camp, including

-- Sander Hicks, author, "The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistleblowers, and the Cover-Up,"

The film Horns and Haloes documents the effort in 1999 and 2000 by writer Jim Hatfield to publish his book Fortunate Son,” a biography of George W. Bush. Karl Rove was a source for Jim Hatfield’s revelation that Bush had indeed used cocaine as a younger man, but when the book was published, the media focused instead on Hatfield’s past, not Bush’s. Hatfield had served time in prison for attempted murder, and leaking the story to a writer with a criminal record was a very cynical strategy to neutralize the impact of Bush’s drug use. For details on this history, see www.sanderhicks.com (down)

Similar tactics were also used to wreck the “JFK Truth Movement,” the independent investigators who examined the assassination of President Kennedy. Perhaps the most notorious is the case of Charles Spiesel, a surprise witness for the prosecution who popped up during the trial of Clay Shaw (as depicted in the film JFK by Oliver Stone). On the witness stand, Mr. Spiesel admitted having heard Shaw discuss plans for the assassination with Lee Harvey Oswald and other conspirators. Under cross examination, he stated that he fingerprinted his daughter before she went to college and after she returned, to make sure she was the same person. Jim Garrison, the prosecuting attorney, wrote in his memoir “On the Trail of the Assassins”

I realized that the clandestine operation of the opposition was so cynical, so sophisticated, and, at the same time, so subtle, that destroying an old-fashioned state jury trial was very much like shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun. .... it was clear by now that no jury would find an eminently respectable, prominent, distinguished community leader guilty of conspiring to kill the President, especially following an unforgettable example of genuine lunatic testimony from a prosecution witness."

Meyssan and Rumsfeld manufacture the missile hoax

The "no Boeing hit the Pentagon" claim is the most important and widespread 9/11 hoax. It was probably set up before the event since government agents seized surveillance camera videos within minutes of the crash (which is evidence for foreknowledge, but not for “no plane”). It is extremely unlikely that the conspirators who allowed (and assisted) 9/11 would not have taken care to create misdirecting hoaxes before the "attack," since they are very aware that large segments of the population would have suspicions about the events and therefore they would "need" to disrupt skeptical inquiry with red herrings, hoaxes, false dichotomies, etc.

This hoax is based on misrepresentation of photos taken shortly after the crash, ignoring of physical evidence and documented reports from hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane. There is NO credible, verifiable evidence in support of ANY of the many and varied "theories" pretending that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon, and therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. 

It was first floated in early October 2001 by French author Thierry Meyssan and (mentioned in passing by) US War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Monsieur Meyssan started a webpage that suggested a plane did not hit the Pentagon on October 7, and Rumsfeld gave an interview to Parade magazine on October 12 where he said a "missile" hit the Pentagon. That "missile" quote was then used by many no plane advocates as part of the campaign to draw attention to this claim. Meyssan went on to create the "Hunt the Boeing" website and then published two books "The Horrifying Fraud" (published in English as "9/11 The Big Lie") and Pentagate. These books have been translated into a total of 28 languages, which ensures that they are the dominant version of the claim suggesting complicity or conspiracy that is seen around the world.  (After all the hullaballo, Rumsfeld simply said "he misspoke himself", matter closed. Don't believe this was an accidental Freudian slip.)

The Pentagon videos taken and withheld by FBI prove complicity, not “no plane”

Perhaps the most intriguing claim for “no plane” is the fact that the Pentagon is hiding footage from the video surveillance cameras that filmed the event. This suppression of evidence suggests foreknowledge (since FBI agents who seized the film were immediately able to grab the videos), but not "no plane." Hotel workers who watched "their" video before it was seized saw the plane. And the hundreds of commuters and other bystanders who were in the area also saw the plane, and those who cleaned up the damage afterwards saw the plane parts and remains of passengers.

The video is being withheld in a form of "reverse psychology" to get the skeptics to think the Pentagon is hiding something when they are not, which is needed to keep this hoax alive. Some 9/11 activists who disbelieve the "no plane" stuff think the Pentagon is planning to release "newly discovered" video of the plane hitting the building to discredit 9/11 truth. “No plane hit the Pentagon” is the most important 9/11 hoax, and the Pentagon is probably having too much fun watching the conspiracy people sink deeper into discrediting. They probably know if the "no plane" claims are extinguished, many of those focused on the "Pentagate" would shift their attention toward real issues such as how Flight 77 was aimed at the nearly empty part of the Pentagon and why it was not intercepted, even after the second plane hit the WTC. Publishing these videos would also make it difficult for hoaxers to continue to invent wilder and wilder nonsense.

These images succeeded in creating an endless debate, with various factions arguing for one theory versus another: the Global Hawk theory, the missile theory, the plane plus missile theory, the small plane theory (none of these claims were encumbered by actual evidence).
The debate on what hit the Pentagon is the best possible thing for the perpetrators, since it fuels speculation that makes discerning the truth(s) much more difficult.
Few people care about the plane/no plane pseudo-debate, and release of additional photos are not a priority for most US citizens. Furthermore, none of the no-plane promoters offer plausible arguments why “inside job” conspirators would have substituted a missile or drone for Flight 77.  If they had the ability to redirect Flight 77, why not just fly it into the Pentagon?

None of the "no Boeing" theorists have explained why the perpetrators would have risked certain exposure by a bystander capturing video of something that wasn't a Boeing 757. Video footage from nearby surveillance cameras was immediately seized by the FBI. Workers at a nearby hotel did get to see their film (prior to its impoundment) and did not report seeing anything other than a plane hitting the Pentagon. Keeping the film footage secret allows extreme speculation to flourish, which serves the interests of the plotters.

Washington, DC voted 90% against Bush in 2004, and Arlington County (where the Pentagon is located) is the most Democratic constituency in the Commonwealth of Virginia. (The Republicans in the DC area are more concentrated in Fairfax County and other outer suburbs, especially those outside the Capitol Beltway.) The “no plane” hoax is a primary reason why there have been very few “9/11 truth” events inside the Beltway despite overwhelming opposition to the regime.

It is interesting that both the “limited hang out” film Fahrenheit 9/11 and the disinformation film 911 In Plane Site avoided using the words "NORAD" and “war games.”

The State Department "misinformation" website lists what they call "myths" about 9/11 that focus on the hoaxes while ignoring the best evidence.

I do not 100% agree with this list, but most of the list is backed by some strong evidence and inferences, constantly promoting useless stuff. 

I think Chossudovsky is one exception. Maybe Hopsicker is just confused about Saudis.

NOTE: It is more than doubtful that any of this will EVER be proven in their courts.  Over the years, some credible people will continue to tell us what happened and what's happening, some new ones will jump on board, some will add new mainstream spins, and the confusion and din will churn.  Hopefully the public can wake up and prevent further slides into tyranny.  If not, then SOME will know the truth ... with a small "t".

The approach promoted by Mike Ruppert about putting together a legal case on 9-11 to indict Dick Cheney and others before a Grand Jury using official documentation and official timelines to disprove the govt's case and to indict them on their own provable LIES was a very useful approach in terms of understanding the legal difference btw. provable documentation vs. interpretation of physics by  'experts' or 'dueling PhDs'.  (Bush et. al. refused to speak to the 9-11 commission under oath.  CYA, just in case the coverup blew up.)

However, I don't know why I EVER believed in the possibility that actual indictments were remotely likely.  Who in power would initiate?  Who couldn't they find to suppress any action?  We couldn't even bust them on Iran-Contra!!  This will either be resolved by mass rebellion, or not at all. The "System" will NEVER resolve it and the traitors will NEVER be charged with capital murder. They will just use it to toy with us, so long as they remain in power.