Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Is the Above Top Secret website part of the disinformation campaign by CoIntelPro?

Welcome. Good to be back!

Today I would like to attract readers' attention yet again to the 911 issues, in particular to the Pentagon Strike.

Facts seem to point that no large plane actually hit the Pentagon. Something did indeed hit it, but nothing of the size claimed by the official sources. This is the message that pictures of the impact site convey as presented in the Flash video.

Recently, certain websites claiming to be searching for the ultimate truth about the Pentagon event are promoting yet again the idea that Boeing 757 did actually hit the Pentagon.

Not again! I thought that it was getting kind of clear to many people that there was no Boeing involved in the impact. I guess people seem to have short memory.

Now, one of such distinguished websites is the Above Top Secret. They actually started to hammer the same ol' lies that the government and the official media were feeding people right after 911. It wouldn't be a great deal as long as this site was open about being pro-gov. The plain fact is they are promoting the official version, but pose as being a source of factual and objective information. Have a look.

Header of the article in question on the ATS site reads:

"Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11"

Notice the first word - evidence. Never mind that the evidence points completely something else. Still they know how to use headlines to grab attention of readers, not mentioning search engines like Google that stores such headers in their indices and display them in search results on the first page, naturally.

The article carries on:

"Did a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9-11

First let's start with the factual information available on hand."


Again, bringing the subject of factual information at the beginning to make impression that this site is about facts and objective truth. However, after reading a few paragraphs the author makes such fantastic claims that one is left asking what the agenda of this person is? Check for yourself:

"Looking At the Big Picture
From facts contained above, we can all agree that:
The length of the outside wall on any side of the pentagon is 921 feet.
The wingspan of a 757 is 124 feet 10 inches.
Now, everyone can agree that 921/125= roughly 7.4 right?"


So far, so good. But check this out:

"Given the size of the 757, and the size of the Pentagon, the damaged area fits in perfectly with the dimensions of both the aircraft and the building."

Wow!!!! Wait a minute. What did he just say? That the evidence suggests that extent of the damage is a proof that Boeing 757 actually hit the Pentagon. Having watched the Pentagon Strike video several times I was grasping for air. Having it saved on the hardrive I chose to watch it again and nowhere have I spotted anything that could convince me I saw pieces of 757. I saw no pieces large enough. Apparently, I am wrong and my eyes deceive me. Or maybe not my eyes, but the author: CatHerder. Catchy name,isn't it?

After reading the article I have decided that there are 2 possibilities at hand: either the CatHerder is blind, or has some sight defect, or he is an agent of the government paid to promote disinformation and lies about the 911 known as the official story. Since he wrote this article I bet the latter is closer to truth.

I have taken some time and searched the net for some evidence that the ATS website has some gov connections and look what I have found posted by some curious fellow at belowtopsecret.com (another domain name associated with the ATS owners and even hosted on the same sever):

I did a trace route on http://www.abovetopsecret.com/, the Node Name is listed and maintained by the government.
IP Address 213.206.128 213.206.129 213.206.130
Node Name Gov-bb21-lan-14 Gov-bb22-lan-15 Gov-bb23-lan-16
Location Langley, Virginia
MS 60
Network Used whois.nic.mil (for military network information)
It was difficult to get the IP Address, It was spoofed and looped over 9 times. Anyway Langley, Virginia is where the CIA headquarters is. I'm more than concerned."


See what I mean!

As it turned out certain Joe Quinn has already written a rebuttal of the ATS article, so all those who are interested in some more in-depth analysis of the ATS claims about the 757 can go and read it. I will quote just a few paragraphs:

"Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757"

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm

"Investigation of the 9/11 attacks should be approached like any murder investigation. When confronted with a murder case (like 9/11) and a suspect that has a history of deceit and murder (like the US government and its agencies) and who had an opportunity and a motive to commit the murder, do you take as fact any claims by the suspect that he did not commit the murder? Do you seek to fit the facts around his claim that he did not commit the murder? When you confront evidence that suggests that the suspect is lying about his account of where he was and what he was doing, or you find inconsistencies and logistically impossible scenarios in his account, do you ignore these and focus only on the fact that he said he did not commit the murder and try to find and present evidence that backs up his claim to innocence? "

"The fact is that researchers coming to the 9/11 investigation after the fact, and after the case has been officially closed, are not only confronted with the task of trying to find out what actually happened - they also face the already well established public belief, by which they themselves are also influenced, that the official story is the truth. The best approach for any 9/11 researcher with honest intentions is to, if possible, wipe from their minds the official version of events and take the attitude of someone who has just returned from a 5 year trip to the outer reaches of the solar system, during which time they had no communication with planet earth. Start with a beginner's mind, turn off the sound of all the conflicting voices and their claims, and just LOOK at the evidence without prejudice."

"Now, if the person with a truly open mind is given all of the publicly available evidence and has been additionally furnished with knowledge of the effects of airplane crashes and that of missile impacts, what would such a person conclude about the most likely cause of the Pentagon damage? Of course, not all of the evidence was made available to the public, but there is still sufficient visual evidence from "ground zero" (both in terms of place and TIME), to form a pretty good "best guess". For a definitive conclusion to be reached, the "private" evidence, like the video tapes of the event that the FBI confiscated, would have to be released, and we don't expect that to happen any time soon. Of course, the fact that the definitive evidence of the videos has not been released is in itself a key piece of evidence that suggests that the official story of what hit the Pentagon is not the real story."

"The purpose of this small introduction is to prepare the reader for the fact that, in his attempted rebuttal of the no 757 at the Pentagon theory, the ATS article author, CatHerder, appears to have succumbed to the influence of the mainstream media shills that have incessantly parroted the official government story about what happened on 9/11 for the three years prior to the writing of the article. As such, he has failed to don the mantle of objective observer of the available evidence that is so crucial to finding the truth, and instead exerts a lot of effort to make the available evidence fit the government claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on the morning of September 11th 2001. Either that, or he/she is part of the "official government cover-up." After you read everything below, you can make a call on that one yourself."


Interesting reading, istn't?

Truth, as it seems, is stranger than fiction.

Olie

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home