History of the "no planes on 9/11" hoaxes
repost | 15.12.2005 01:04 | Analysis | Technology | London | Oxford
"In September 2004, the American Free Press newspaper published an article implying that there wasn't a plane crash in Pennsylvania (even though a lot of people saw and heard it happen). This publication is part of an ultra right-wing media group that also publishes the "Barnes Review," a Holocaust Denial publication that has praised Hitler. AFP / Barnes, by their own admission, works closely with KKK leader David Duke. Perhaps their motto should be "No Planes on 9/11 and No Gas Chambers in the Holocaust." The AFP acronym is also used by Agence-France Press, one of the world's leading media organizations, which could cause confusion and undeserved legitimacy for the American Free Press, which promotes (and creates) hoaxes that misdirect serious investigation into 9/11 complicity."
Flight 93 Crash Cloud
History of the "no planes on 9/11" hoaxes
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#history
-------------
Flight 77
crashed into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon
9:38 am
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 seizing of surveillance camera videos within minutes of the crash. 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. See http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html for details.
(continued)
-------------
Flight 11
crashed into North Tower
(first to be hit)
8:46 am
Due to the success of the "no plane at Pentagon" claim, several successor stories were created to deny the other crashes but none were as popular as the original hoax. The first of these was the idea that a plane did not really hit the North Tower, but was really a missile camoflaged by a King Kong sized hologram of a plane. This bizarre creation came from a website called "the webfairy," and took advantage of the fact that there is only one, low quality video publicly available of the North Tower attack. This hoax is easily disproved by the most obvious "physical evidence" - the hole in the side of the North tower was the size of a 767.
The "webfairy" campaign didn't fly and was of limited utility in discrediting the 9/11 truth movement. It is probable that this wasn't intended to attract supporters, but merely make 9/11 skeptics look silly.
The webfairy hoax is exhaustively debunked by this report:
The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html
(continued)
-------------
Flight 175
crashed into South Tower
9:03 am
The third "no plane" claim stated that the plane that hit the South Tower was swapped in mid-flight with military plane that crashed into the tower, carrying a "pod" under the plane that fired a missile at the building just before crashing into it.
The "pod" hoax seemed to have been test-marketed in 2003 on obscure websites in England and Spain. But the hoax got a much bigger promotional effort in mid-2004, shortly after the International Inquiry into 9/11 in San Francisco and as the "election" campaign entered full steam. A website called "letsroll911" started up with "new video footage" claiming to show a missile fired from the plane into the South Tower, but without presenting any documentation to prove that this footage was not merely manipulated with digital photographic software such as "Photoshop." Without any "chain of custody" this "evidence" is useless and irrelevant -- and any "new footage" magically appearing years after the event must be considered bogus until proven authentic.
One consequence of the staged timing of the tower attacks is that the second crash was seen and photographed by countless people from every possible perspective. If there had been a missile fired at the WTC, or an anamoly on the plane that suggested plane swapping, it would have been revealed shortly afterwards. (This is a reason why the "no plane hit the Pentagon" claims are not true -- too many people saw it happen to believe that it did not happene.)
While the footage of the "missile" looked fake, the "pod" claim was much more subtle. It was not added to the photos of Flight 175 -- it was merely a carefully chosen image of the normal "fairing" connecting the wing to the fuselage.
A film focused on the "pod" claim released in the summer of 2004 called "911: In Plane Site" tacitly admitted that the "pod" was really just a picture of the fairing. Shortly before its release, a participant in the "911 Truth Alliance" email list posted a photo of a 757 showing the bulge between the wing and fuselage, noting that the "pod" claim was not true. The producers of this movie chose the exact same photo (of all of the photos ever taken of Boeings) to use as part of a montage on the cover of their DVD. A bad joke "hidden in plain sight."
(continued)
-------------
Flight 93
crashed in Pennsylvania
10:06 am
The official story of Flight 93 is that the heroic passengers brought down the plane to spare the country the tragedy of a fourth attack, a tremendous sacrifice to save others. However, while it seems true that the passengers were revolting against their hijackers, the evidence shows that Flight 93 was actually shot down. Debris from the plane was spread out over 8 miles, which suggests major trauma to the plane while it was still in the air. Some media coverage of this crash in the first couple days strongly suggested a shoot-down, most of this is archived at the website http://www.flight93crash.com
It is probable that most citizens, regardless of their political philosophies, would have been able to accept the sad necessity to shoot down the fourth plane to avert a worse tragedy -- if the pilots were dead and the passengers doomed, the shoot down could have been easily justified to a traumatized nation. While it is easy to suggest that the "heroes of 9/11" story was a much happier message to tell the public, there are deeper reasons to cover up the shoot down.
(continued)
See also:
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#history
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#history -------------
Flight 77
crashed into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon
9:38 am
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 seizing of surveillance camera videos within minutes of the crash. 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. See
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html for details. (continued)
-------------
Flight 11
crashed into North Tower
(first to be hit)
8:46 am
Due to the success of the "no plane at Pentagon" claim, several successor stories were created to deny the other crashes but none were as popular as the original hoax. The first of these was the idea that a plane did not really hit the North Tower, but was really a missile camoflaged by a King Kong sized hologram of a plane. This bizarre creation came from a website called "the webfairy," and took advantage of the fact that there is only one, low quality video publicly available of the North Tower attack. This hoax is easily disproved by the most obvious "physical evidence" - the hole in the side of the North tower was the size of a 767.
The "webfairy" campaign didn't fly and was of limited utility in discrediting the 9/11 truth movement. It is probable that this wasn't intended to attract supporters, but merely make 9/11 skeptics look silly.
The webfairy hoax is exhaustively debunked by this report:
The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html (continued)
-------------
Flight 175
crashed into South Tower
9:03 am
The third "no plane" claim stated that the plane that hit the South Tower was swapped in mid-flight with military plane that crashed into the tower, carrying a "pod" under the plane that fired a missile at the building just before crashing into it.
The "pod" hoax seemed to have been test-marketed in 2003 on obscure websites in England and Spain. But the hoax got a much bigger promotional effort in mid-2004, shortly after the International Inquiry into 9/11 in San Francisco and as the "election" campaign entered full steam. A website called "letsroll911" started up with "new video footage" claiming to show a missile fired from the plane into the South Tower, but without presenting any documentation to prove that this footage was not merely manipulated with digital photographic software such as "Photoshop." Without any "chain of custody" this "evidence" is useless and irrelevant -- and any "new footage" magically appearing years after the event must be considered bogus until proven authentic.
One consequence of the staged timing of the tower attacks is that the second crash was seen and photographed by countless people from every possible perspective. If there had been a missile fired at the WTC, or an anamoly on the plane that suggested plane swapping, it would have been revealed shortly afterwards. (This is a reason why the "no plane hit the Pentagon" claims are not true -- too many people saw it happen to believe that it did not happene.)
While the footage of the "missile" looked fake, the "pod" claim was much more subtle. It was not added to the photos of Flight 175 -- it was merely a carefully chosen image of the normal "fairing" connecting the wing to the fuselage.
A film focused on the "pod" claim released in the summer of 2004 called "911: In Plane Site" tacitly admitted that the "pod" was really just a picture of the fairing. Shortly before its release, a participant in the "911 Truth Alliance" email list posted a photo of a 757 showing the bulge between the wing and fuselage, noting that the "pod" claim was not true. The producers of this movie chose the exact same photo (of all of the photos ever taken of Boeings) to use as part of a montage on the cover of their DVD. A bad joke "hidden in plain sight."
(continued)
-------------
Flight 93
crashed in Pennsylvania
10:06 am
The official story of Flight 93 is that the heroic passengers brought down the plane to spare the country the tragedy of a fourth attack, a tremendous sacrifice to save others. However, while it seems true that the passengers were revolting against their hijackers, the evidence shows that Flight 93 was actually shot down. Debris from the plane was spread out over 8 miles, which suggests major trauma to the plane while it was still in the air. Some media coverage of this crash in the first couple days strongly suggested a shoot-down, most of this is archived at the website
http://www.flight93crash.com It is probable that most citizens, regardless of their political philosophies, would have been able to accept the sad necessity to shoot down the fourth plane to avert a worse tragedy -- if the pilots were dead and the passengers doomed, the shoot down could have been easily justified to a traumatized nation. While it is easy to suggest that the "heroes of 9/11" story was a much happier message to tell the public, there are deeper reasons to cover up the shoot down.
(continued)
See also:
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#history
repost