Above Top Secret Forum Dis-Info that started it all

Since 'lies' is what I speak about here, there is not much of more importance than the 'BIG LIE' that started us all on a downward spiral. I'm speaking of the events of 911 - specifically about the 'Official Version' of events that any normally reasonable and intelligent person who actually is 'thinking' will see is a load of horse manure!

There are MANY who are CLAIMING they are looking for the 'truth', but when their actions are examined, and here must be made a distinction between what they say and what they are doing, it is apparent they are mostly making 'noises' about looking for the truth.

Following is the article by Joe Quinn that got ATS in such a big huff.

It is pretty plain that they did not glow with 'happiness' by being 'outed' in this way!

Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on
9/11

and Neither Did a Boeing 757

by Joe Quinn

---

After
the release of the QFG Pentagon Strike Flash Animation on August
23rd, 2004, a veritable onslaught of new articles were published that
sought to dismiss the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory. One such article, that is frequently referenced by certain
'9/11 researchers' was authored by a member of the forum at the "Above
Top Secret" (ATS) website. Interestingly, the article was written just
a few weeks after the release of the Pentagon Strike Flash
animation, which by then, was winging its way around the world and into
the inboxes of millions of ordinary citizens. Perhaps you were one of
them...

The
claim that promoters of the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory were
doing immense damage to the truth/accountability movement was raised in
Mike Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon. In a stunning piece
of warped logic, Ruppert claimed that, while he is quite convinced that
it was not Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, he chose not to talk about
or deal with the subject as part of his overall case for conspiracy
because of the "implications". According to Ruppert, the "implications"
are that anyone that suggests that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon,
is then forced to answer the question as to what actually happened to
Flight 77. If that's the case, then we better just wrap up the whole
9/11 Truth Movement and go home and have a beer.

Ruppert
balks at the idea of offering an answer to this question to his readers
because, he claims, most people would be unable to accept it, and, he
suggests, 9/11 researchers serve only to alienate the public support
that they wish to attract by stretching the boundaries of the
collective belief system. What Ruppert doesn't explain is why any
member of the public would happily accept that U.S. government
officials participated in the slaughter of the passengers on Flights 11
and 175 and the occupants of the WTC towers (as he details in his book)
yet would be unable to accept the idea that the same
government officials played a part in disposing of the passengers of
Flight 77 in a much less imaginative way. Let's be honest here, in the
context of 9/11 being the work of a faction of the US government and
military, the answer to the question as to what happened to Flight 77
if it didn't hit the Pentagon is quite obvious - Flight 77 and its
occupants were flown to a specific destination and “disposed of” by the
conspirators. That's pretty simple; cut and dried; no need for much
stretching there! But, for some reason, Ruppert (and others affected by
this paramoralism) seems to think that killing thousands of citizens by
crashing airplanes is easier to accept than cold bloodedly murdering
them "in person," as it were.

Since
Ruppert's declaration about the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory, many
other "9/11 researchers", such as Mark Rabinowitz and Jim Hoffman, have seized upon Ruppert's idea and
even expanded upon it by suggesting that the "no planers" are actually
government agents trying to discredit the REAL 9/11 researchers with
the 'kooky' "no plane" theory.

In order
to really understand the insidiousness of this patronising claim that
the public could not accept the implications of the idea that a Boeing
757 did not hit the Pentagon, let's look at the "evidence" as presented
by the ATS member that it really was Flight 77 that impacted the
Pentagon that bright September morn.

First,
however, I would like to make a few observations about 9/11 research in
general.

Anyone
who takes on the formidable task of digging into the events of 9/11 is
immediately at a disadvantage because the US government has already
declared the case closed. The government knows how it happened and who
did it and have informed the entire world. As a result, there is no
possibility of access to the raw data, to the crime scene or analyses
of same. Here is where we meet the major obstacle: since the US
government is the prime suspect, we cannot simply take as truth
everything - or anything - that they say in relation to the case.

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.

Here is
the ATS article as it appears on the ATS site with my comments
interspersed in blue text.

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

by
"CatHerder", Member,
AboveTopSecret.com/forum

September
11th, 2004

Did a 757 hit the Pentagon on
9-11



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



The 757-200

As we can see from the freely available
information for the Boeing 757 (from the Boeing website). The 757 is a
midsized commercial airliner designed for short haul and medium haul
routes (Medium Range Transport (MR-TR)), although since its release,
and the subsequent discovery of the Wake Vortex it leaves behind the
FAA has classified the 757 as a "Heavy" aircraft; the FAA places the
757 in the Geometric Design Classification IV, and an ATC Operation
Class C. (source)



The 757-200 dimensions:

Tail Height: 44 ft 6 in (13.6m)

Length: 155 ft 3 in (47.32m)

Wingspan: 124 ft 10 in (38.05m)

Body Exterior Width: 12 ft 4 in (3.7m)

Fuel Capacity: 11,489 us gal (43,490l / 43,490kg)

Maximum Takeoff weight: 255,000lb (115,680kg)

Typical Cruise Speed: 0.80 Mach (573.6mph / 956kmh)

Engines used on a 757: Two 166.4kN (37,400lb) Rolls-Royce
RB211-535C turbofans, or 178.8kN (40,200lb) RB211-535E4s, or 193.5kN
(43,500lb) RB211-535E4-Bs, or 162.8kN (36,600lb) Pratt & Whitney
PW2037s, or two 178.4kN (40,100lb) PW2040s, or 189.5kN (42,600lb)
PW2043s. (source1) (source2)

Auxiliary Power Unit: Honeywell GTCP331-200







left portion: source1
right portion: source2 (height and width notation to graphic
added by me)



Next, let's look at the Pentagon.



The Pentagon



The Pentagon was designed in the early 40's and was completed in only
16 months on Jan 14, 1943. The shortages of materials required for war
production raised many design and construction problems. The use of
reinforced concrete in lieu of formed steel for the building made
possible a saving of 43,000 tons of steel, more than enough to build a
battleship. The use of concrete ramps rather than elevators further
reduced steel requirements. Drainage pipes were concrete; ducts were
fiber, interior doors were wood. An unusual wall design - concrete
spandrels carried to window sill level - eliminated many miles of
through-wall copper flashing.(Source1) (Source2)



Recent renovations and upgrades to the building were nearing completion on the side hit on 9-11 and
performed reasonably well considering they were not designed to
withstand aircraft impact. On September 11, when an American Airlines
Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon, home of the U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD),
about 20,000 people were at work in this, the largest office building
in the world. Yet according to the DoD casualty update on October 1, only 125
Pentagon employees were killed along with the 64 from the fated
airliner. (source - Architecture Week)



The exterior walls had been reinforced
with steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor. Some
of these reinforced walls very near the point of impact remained in
place for a half hour before collapsing, allowing uncounted hundreds to
escape. "Had we not undertaken this effort," said Evey
at a press briefing on September 15, "this could have
been much, much worse."



Now, I'm sure everyone can agree that the above information is a matter
of public record, and none of it is incorrect, altered, or misquoted in
any way to support either side of the case. It is all merely factual
information that we will refer to in the following sections.



[Note: I was unintentionally misleading in a previous post
when I said the Pentagon didn't use a steel beam construction - while
that is still true for the original design, it was reinforced
in various areas during the upgrades to include steel beams and columns
in some areas of the renovations.]



Quoted from ArchitectureWeek.com :


In addition to major overhauls of the mechanical and electrical
systems, the Wedge One renovation included the fire sprinklers,
automatic fire doors, and the steel which saved many lives on the day
of the attack.



The blast-resistant windows were nearly two inches (5 centimeters)
thick. Some of them remain remarkably intact and in place adjacent the
point of impact. Some were popped out of their frames by the force of
the exploding jet fuel, but they fell without breaking or splintering.



Also on the exterior walls, between the steel columns, the renovation
crew had placed Kevlar cloth, similar to the material used for
bullet-proof vests. This had the effect of holding together building
materials so they wouldn't become deadly projectiles in an explosion.



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?







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.

The above "opening gambit" is very telling since it delivers
hard facts, one after the other, all of which are accurate. It is in
this last statement that the twisting begins. The fact that the length
of the Pentagon is equivalent to 7.4 757's wing to wing, or that the
width of one 757 equals 13.5% of the facade of the Pentagon has no
bearing on the actual damage done. Indeed, given the weight and speed
of the 757 that is alleged to have impacted the building, the actual
damage done to the Pentagon is entirely inconsistent with an aircraft
of the size, weight, and speed of a 757. In other words, the argument
actually supports the "no-Boeing" theory better than it supports
"Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."

Look at the hole in the building







Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a
dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16
to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account
the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in
high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many
others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is
actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the
tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the
SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet
across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something
around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.

Here is the next twist. The Boeing 757 is not simply a 13ft
wide cylinder; if it were, then the damage to the Pentagon might be
more plausible. The reality, however, is that a Boeing 757 is a 13ft
wide, 155 ft long cylinder with a tail fin that extends 45 ft into the
air. Add to that the fact that there are two 6 ton steel engines
slung under each wing about 6 feet to each side of the cylinder body.
The wings extend out on each side for 50ft + making for a total
aircraft width of 125 feet, a total length of 155 ft and a maximum
height of 45 ft. It comes as no surprise then that this large
commercial aircraft weighs in at over 90 tons fully loaded. On
take off from Washington Dulles airport, Flight 77 weighed
approximately 82 tons.

The above nonsensical argument would have you believe that
the only thing to consider is a "13 ft wide cylinder" that just
magically lost everything else, or that everything else just "folded
up" and flew inside the building plastered to the side of that 13 ft
cylinder. Even if the wings could do that, we are still left with the
two 6 ton engines that were NOT dropped off on the lawn, and which,
together, are as wide as the cylinder body!

Look at the nose-on view of a 757 - you can see the body
is slightly less than 1/3 the size of the height of the aircraft. The
tail certainly isn't going to punch a hole through a reinforced
concrete wall; that is why there is no 40 foot hole in the front of the
Pentagon in any photos. A 40 foot object didn't hit it, a 13 foot
object did.

Again, this is not JUST a "13ft object" by any stretch of the
imagination. By now it should be obvious that the author is attempting
to subtly manipulate the reader by reducing a large, 82 ton passenger
aircraft to "a 13ft object".

Think about this.

Is "a 13ft object" a reasonable description of a Boeing 757?
Is it reasonable for the author to reduce a large plane that can carry
up to 200 adult human beings to "a 13ft object"? We could take this
unreasonable definition one step further and flesh out the image that
our author is trying to plant in our heads and say that, according to
our author, the Boeing 757 that he/she alleges hit the Pentagon, was
comparable to a large SUV, or a similar "13ft object".

While it is reasonable to state that the tail of a 757 may
not necessarily have punched a hole through the facade of the Pentagon,
can we expect to at least see some evidence of the tail
having hit the facade? More than that, we must consider the forward
momentum of those two, inescapable, 6 TON steel engines that were
neither dropped on the lawn, nor were they smashed like pancakes
against the side of the "13 ft cylinder." If I struck the facade of the
Pentagon with a sledge hammer, is it reasonable that I would be able to
cause some observable damage? The outer 6 inches of the facade of the
Pentagon is made of soft limestone, yet our author sees no problem with
claiming that such a soft surface, when struck by a piece of aircraft
weighing SIX TONS and traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, would in
no way leave any significant and observable damage.

While the "cylinder body" that our author keeps referring to
is indeed 13ft 6in high, he omits the fact that the engines extend 5
feet below the body and over six feet to either side, meaning
that, if the aircraft were actually able to successfully fly at just 1
inch above the ground (highly unlikely), the height of the "cylinder
body" above the ground would be at least 18 ft 6 inches! Let us
repeat that: if a Boeing 757 were actually able to fly at just 1
inch above the ground, the height of the "13 ft cylinder
body" would be at least 18 feet 6 inches! Now, add to that the fact
that the plane also includes those two bothersome 6 TON engines, AND a
tail fin that protrudes 25 feet above the top of the cylinder body
making for a total aircraft height of just less than 40 feet with
wheels up. Obviously then, we can reasonably expect that the damage
to the facade of the Pentagon would have extended up to this height IF
it was a 757 that hit the building.

However, according to the official Pentagon report:

"The height
of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the
height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height
was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious
visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to
approximately 25 ft above grade."

Look at this
close up of the above photo:

s.jpg" src="http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/above_top_secret_files/pent_zoom_window%5C%3Cbr%20/%3Es.jpg">

The top of the
hole in the middle of the white box is at the same level as the top of
the windows of the second floor, or about 23-25 feet from ground. The
three windows above this are the windows of the third floor. The foam
covered window to the top right is the fourth floor. As noted by the
Pentagon report, this area (above the center hole) is where the
tail should have struck, but there is no evidence of any
damage that we would expect from such an impact. What's more, the tail
fin was definitely not dropped on the lawn along with the two 6 TON
engines.

Conclusion? The
tail fin of a Boeing 757 did not strike this area.

What does that
suggest? That a Boeing 757 was not involved in the attack.

Is that logical
enough?

However, from
the point of view of the author on the ATS forum and the U.S.
government, we are not allowed to use such logic. Instead, we must give
in to emotional blackmail and then engage in implausible mental
gymnastics to try to explain how a 757 really could have been
involved in the Pentagon attack; and all because the US government
says so - a government that has made lies the core aspect of its
domestic and foreign policy from day one.

In terms of the
damage that should have been caused by the other parts of a 757 (you
know, the large aircraft that our author has reduced to a mere 12ft 4
in wide cylinder), the official Pentagon Building Performance Report stated that:

"The projected width
[of damage to the facade] was approximately 90 ft, which is
substantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft"

Indeed, but there is no explanation of why there is no
damage to the facade where the wings should logically have struck.
Could it be that an aircraft with the wingspan of a 757 was not
involved?

Conspiracy theory?

No, just the most obvious and logical
explanation.

The Pentagon report also made note of the fact that:

"With the possible exception of the immediate vicinity of the
fuselage’s entry point at column line 14, essentially all interior
impact damage was inflicted in the first story: The aircraft seems for
the most part to have slipped between the first-floor slab on grade
and the second floor."

That is impossible as the following graphic will show. Note
the pink line, where the "13 ft cylinder" is supposed to have slipped
"under."

Another 9/11 researcher, who is naturally
skeptical about the claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, produced the
above graphic and posed some obvious and logical questions about the
feasibility of the official story quoted above. Given the height of just
the fuselage (leaving out the 25 feet of tail fin), how is it
possible that the immediate damage and the debris of the plane were
"largely confined to the first floor"? And remember, we are talking
here about a scenario where the plane is flying at just one inch
above the ground!

What is more, evidence
from photos of the site show cable spools that were clearly untouched
by any incoming aircraft, suggesting that the aircraft would have to
have been flying above the maximum height of the spools (some
6 feet) when it hit the Pentagon. In this case, the damage should have
been almost entirely to the second floor!

Of course, this is not
the case, which leaves us with the logical deduction that it is highly
improbable that a 757 was involved in the attack on the Pentagon, and
that a much smaller and more nimble aircraft was used.

Among those 9/11 researchers that claim that a 757 hit the
Pentagon, much is made of the fact that the Pentagon facade was built
with "steel reinforced concrete walls". This fact is used to explain
the extremely limited immediate damage to the Pentagon facade. But how
much credit are we going to give to brick and concrete that has been
reinforced with relatively thin steel bars? Is such a wall
indestructible? If the tail fin and wings of a Boeing 757 traveling at
400mph+ hit such a wall, could we at least expect them to leave a dent?
A little scrape even?

Not at the Pentagon apparently.

Consider the picture below showing the impact hole at the WTC
North Tower:

The facade of the WTC Towers were made of prefabricated steel
yet as we can see from the imprint of the plane, these steel lattices
were in no way strong enough to stop the massive kinetic energy of the
entire aircraft impacting the building, including the wings
and tail fin and leaving a roughly 757-shaped hole in the facade.

To provide a scale reference, a survivor of the initial
impact has been circled in the above photo (click the picture for a
close up).

Given that I am no structural engineer, however, I cannot
make any claims as to the comparative strength of the steel reinforced
brick and concrete walls of the Pentagon versus the steel facade of the
WTC towers and will allow for the idea that the wall of the Pentagon was
stronger than that of the WTC. We can even theorize that it is due to
this comparative strength difference that there is not a similar
757-shaped gaping hole at the Pentagon. However, as noted, the facade
of the Pentagon was made of soft limestone 6 inches thick. Can anyone
explain why a similar shape as that in the picture above does not
appear in the soft limestone facade of the Pentagon?

In fact, there appear to be no pictures of
the Pentagon facade immediately after the attack that show a clear
picture of the exact extent of the damage. That's because all press
personnel were restricted. We only have photos because a civilian
managed to take them in spite of the "cordon sanitaire." What IS clear
is that, as the Pentagon report noted, the Pentagon facade bears NO
evidence of damage from parts of a 757 at ALL. One notable explanation
for this mysterious lack of damage offered by official government story
enthusiasts is that by some mysterious force of nature, the wings and
tail must have sheared off before impact. Of course, in such
a case, we would expect to see at least some recognisable debris of the
wings and tail section outside the building. Yet, as anyone who has
carefully inspected the evidence at the scene can attest, there is no
such debris.

bris_free.jpg">

According to official
story enthusiasts, the complete lack of any debris from the wings that
we are told somehow sheared off, is not a problem: they simply
disintegrated on impact and were rendered little more than confetti
that blew away in the breeze (I kid you not; this was actually
suggested by several "researchers"). But in
this unlikely case, how do we explain that the 125 feet long wings of a
757 disintegrated, yet a fairly slender tree standing just a few feet
from the front of the Pentagon - and in the direct path of the alleged
757 - was still standing, albeit severely charred? (Charred tree
branches visible in center of image) What's more, this explanation
completely omits mention of the two six TON engines attached to said
wings.

Can we now at least accept as a possibility the
idea that a 757 was not involved in the attack on the
Pentagon?

Why is it so difficult for our author to accept this? The
answer would seem to be that since the official government story does
not allow for such a scenario, like all good and obedient citizens, our
author feels compelled to believe what the government says, regardless
of the massive historical evidence showing that, on several occasions
in the past, the U.S. government has allowed, facilitated, or actually
carried out, attacks on its own citizens and interests in order to
achieve some specific goal, usually associated with waging war on other
nations - wars like the 2003 invasion of Iraq that was a direct result
of the 9/11 attacks, including the attack on the Pentagon. Either the
ATS author is such a "good and obedient" citizen, or we must conclude
that said author is an agent of said government.

If we peruse other postings made by the ATS author on the
subject of 9/11 in general, it seems that he/she accepts the idea that
there was some level of complicity in the 9/11 attacks on the part of
the US government. Yet he/she appears to have no problem with using the
claims of the same U.S. government to back up his argument that Flight
77 hit the Pentagon.

For the record, I have nothing against the US government per
se, and have no desire to accuse the Bush administration or anyone else
unjustly. But in the case of the 911 attacks, there is significant and
compelling evidence to suggest that something is not right with the
official version of events and that members of the US government are
lying about the true nature of those events. In this case, there is a
case to answer, and my sole aim is to get at the truth, whatever that
truth may turn out to be. In pursuing this objective, I will look at
the facts and the facts alone and draw conclusions based on what those
facts suggest, alone.

At this point, we are approaching the paradox that is at the
heart of the argument of the "no 757 " debunkers. They clearly are well
aware that there is a serious problem with the lack of damage and
debris at the Pentagon, yet that does not deter them from continuing
with their increasingly unbelievable theories in an attempt to prove
that the official government story is correct. At the same time, after
coming up with bizarre explanations for the lack of damage and debris,
they are then forced to deal with the fact that, while the damage to
the Pentagon facade is not consistent with the impact of a large
commercial airliner, the damage to the interior of the Pentagon is even
less so.

Now, let's return to the ATS forum post.

Also, as I showed earlier: Here is an L1011 (it's a larger plane than a
757 - but the basic design of how a plane body is built is the same)
being scrapped, you can see that almost ALL of the support structure is
in the bottom 2/5 of the plane. This is the part that punched the hole
in the Pentagon, the rest of the thin, hollow, top of the plane just
shredded into chunks, some of which are laying
on the lawn and around the rescue vehicles. Most of a commercial
airliner is just a thin aluminum shell, insulation, a thin plastic
inner liner, some carpet and seats. They're designed to be as light as
possible so they can carry more cargo and more people while using less
fuel and at the same time remain "safe".



It is a given that the majority of mass is going to be in the bottom
half of the aircraft - the primary structure and heaviest parts are all
located there, as is the luggage and any freight.



But lets reinforce this as fact with a
photo of a 757-300 being built. (Remember, the only difference
between a 757-200 and a 757-300 is the length of the body, and the
wings on the 757-300 are reinforced and slightly deeper - the height
and width and wingspan remain identical.)

Indeed, aircraft like the 757 are made of aluminium, for the
most part, yet that does not take away from the fact that the 757 that
is alleged to have hit the Pentagon was over 80 tons and flying at over
400mph, with two six TON steel engines flanking.

(source) We should also
make a note of the yellow primer used on the interior of the
rear section.







This image shows the light green primer used on the primary
structure components in the 757 (Boeing uses the same yellow primer and
the same green primer on almost every single part of every single 757
and 767 built).



What does the green or yellow primer have to do with
anything? Well, we'll take a look at the aircraft parts from the
Pentagon wreckage photos below.

Are we to assume that Boeing is the only aircraft
manufacturer to use green primer on the shells of its aircraft? Is it
possible that this primer is an aircraft industry standard and that
other aircraft manufactures also use green primer? If so, can the fact
that some small pieces of debris that were found inside the Pentagon be
reasonably touted as evidence that it had to be a Boeing 757
that impacted the building?

Here, I direct your attention to the fact that Epoxy Primer
37035A is just exactly that shade of yucky yellow/green. It is
available from Aerospace Coatings Akzo Nobel and is designated
as "Epoxy Primer 37035A (green)" or "Epoxy Primer 37052 (green)". It is
apparently widely used on many types of aircraft.

Again, we should note that the entire argument of the ATS
author seems to be based on the premise that the official US government
story about what hit the Pentagon MUST BE correct, despite the fact
that he/she ALSO accepts the idea that there was some level of
complicity in the 9/11 attacks on the part of the US government. Again,
that is similar to taking the word of a suspected murderer about the
very murder he is suspected of having committed. It's just not logical.
Could it be that the posts on the ATS forum where "CatHerder" claims to
believe that the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks are
examples of what is known in psychology as "malignant
pseudo-identification"?

Malignant
pseudo-identification is the process by which a COINTELPRO agent
consciously imitates or simulates certain behaviors or beliefs in order
to foster the sincere activist's "identification" with him/her, thus
increasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are
most vulnerable to malignant pseudo-identification especially during
work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to
their competency, autonomy, or knowledge. The goal of the agent is to
increase the activist's general empathy for the agent and ideas the
agent wishes to "plant" through pseudo-identification with the
activist's self-concepts. The most common example of this is the agent
who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or
value to the movement. Another is to declare identification with many
of the ideas of the activist, and then diverge on the one idea that
they have been sent in to debunk. And certainly we can see that the
issue of whether or not Flight 77 struck the Pentagon is just such an
idea that would necessitate major debunking.

Ok, but how did a hollow tube, made of mostly aluminium, manage to
punch through the Pentagon? I'm happy to try to help explain it
with the aid of the good folks at Perdue University . We'll get to
that in a moment.

This is a very good question. So which is it? You can make
the argument that a 757 was so flimsy that the Pentagon facade was
relatively undamaged by the impact, or you argue that the weight and
speed of the aircraft was such that it penetrated 3 rings of
the building, but you can't have it both ways! Any theory that attempts
to reconcile these irreconcilable claims is untenable. But that does
not seem to bother our fearless debunker. He/she has already made two
assertions (13 ft cylinder and paint color) that in no way whatsoever
"prove" any case at all, and now, with the help of the "good folks at
Perdue University", our agent - uh, excuse me, author - comes up with a
seriously far out theory to explain how a 757 could have caused the
damage to the interior of the Pentagon in spite of the fact that most
of it "just shredded into chunks" and was scattered all over the lawn.

Examining Ground
Debris



Landing Gear Evidence



Rim photographed in the Pentagon wreckage. You can clearly see it is a
double bead design as required by the NTSB, and you can also see it has
had 90% of the rim edge smashed off in the crash.











Some people have tried to claim that the rims are different from a 757
rim - well here (bottom) is a 757-200 rim from an American Airlines
757, I've outlined the exact same symmetrical holes. I think perhaps
some people are thrown off by the balancing led weights attached on the
rims in the bottom photo? Have you never taken your car in for a wheel
alignment and tire balancing? This is clearly the same kind of rim
found on a 757. (The hub-covers/grease-covers are not present for
obvious reasons - to remove one you pop it off with a flathead screw
driver... so how would you expect it to stay on in a 400mph impact with
a reinforced concrete wall?)

While we agree that the wheel rim from the Pentagon appears
to be the same as that of a Boeing 757, we need to look at the "wheel
rim" evidence firstly in the context of a massive government conspiracy
on 9/11, and secondly in context of the other - overwhelming - evidence
that points to something other than a 757 having hit the
Pentagon.

Taking these facts into consideration and the evidence for a
general 9/11 government conspiracy, is it not plausible that the
conspirators just might have "planted" evidence at some point in the
operation? After all, if CatHerder grants the possibility of a
government conspiracy and cover-up, why does he/she draw the line at
the planting of evidence?

Keep in mind that there are very few available photos of
aircraft debris inside the Pentagon: a wheel rim and a landing gear
strut, and an engine combustion chamber. The wheel rim was in the non-renovated
Wedge 2 by the AE drive hole. And despite the assertions of the
author of the ATS post, without expert analysis, no one can say that
the few recognizable airplane parts are unequivocally from a 757.

Landing gear strut - appears to be from the nose gear -
note how charred the area around it is.

This landing gear strut is inadmissible as evidence given the
fact that the CatHerder does not claim to be an expert on landing gear
and cannot verify from which aircraft this landing gear comes. As such,
it could be the landing gear strut from any number of aircraft.

The next photo is from the cover from one of the conspiracy sites
that demands "where is the plane?"- they
must not have looked very hard, there are 2 obvious chunks of it in the
photo. Another rim from the airplane on the right,
and a large chunk of bulkhead on the left.

Again the alleged "evidence" of debris from a Boeing 757 in
the above pictured debris is inconclusive. The fact that the ATS author
claims categorically that there is "a large chunk
of bulkhead on the left" is somewhat comical given his/her
admitted lack of expertise in positively identifying charred remains of
any aircraft let alone a Boeing 757. We should note that we
are not saying that "no plane" hit the Pentagon, we are simply saying
that the damage and debris is inconsistent with a Boeing 757.

Below: More parts from inside the 757 - note the Boeing green
primer on 3 parts in this photo - two circled.

Again, for anyone, let alone an amateur like CatHerder, to
claim that they can positively identify debris from a Boeing 757 from
these mangled pieces of material raises questions about the integrity
and impartiality of said individual. Can "CatHerder" be sure that these
greenish pieces of material are not from some part of the inside of the
Pentagon or from another type of aircraft? The very fact that all of
these parts and bits of "evidence" were NOT trotted out by the
government and put on display for the public and experts to examine is
more indication that if they had been, someone would have recognized
them as something else entirely.

No official explanation for the above hole in ring C has ever
been put forward, and the ATS author studiously ignores this fact. The
official Pentagon building performance report simply states that:

"There
was a hole in the east wall of ring C, emerging into AE Drive, between
column lines 5 and 7 in Wedge 2. The wall failure was approximately 310
ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of the
building..."

That's it. The fact that whatever came out through this hole
is essentially the object that hit the Pentagon and did the major part
of the damage is apparently not deemed important enough, either by the
US government or CatHerder, to deserve comment.

The fact is that the above image showing the round hole that
was left in ring C is one of the most intriguing aspects of the
Pentagon attack. While we might assume that it is unofficially claimed
that one of the engines of Flight 77 made this hole (the engine being
the only part of a 757 that could possibly be strong enough to pass
through three rings of the Pentagon, never mind that it left no
evidence of its entry on the exterior of the building), as we have
seen, a disk that is verifiably part of the engine of the aircraft that
hit the Pentagon was found at the front of the building, not
in the third ring. This fact strongly suggests that the engine that the
disk came from was destroyed in the initial blast at the front of
the building. It is highly unlikely therefore that an engine of
the plane that hit the Pentagon punched out this hole. Whatever the
object was, it had enough force to breach the main reinforced steel
concrete outer wall and then travel some 250 feet, passing through
five other double-brick walls on the way. Terry Mitchell, Chief of
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) was
one of the first on the scene at this “punch out” point. In a DOD
news briefing about the reconstruction of the Pentagon he stated:

“This
is a hole in -- there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was where
a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn’t
see any evidence of the aircraft down there.”

Indeed, it just must have been where part of the
aircraft came out, yet there was no evidence of any part of
an aircraft that could have made the hole! Never mind that CatHerder
has just told us about all the evidence of the aircraft that is just
laying all around! Later in the same briefing when referring to the
same hole Mitchell must have realised his mistake and stated:

“This
pile here is all Pentagon metal. None of that is aircraft whatsoever.
As you can see, they’ve punched a hole in here. This was punched by the
rescue workers to clean it out”.

So which was it? Was the hole punched out by some part of the
aircraft or by rescue workers? Was the pile of stuff aircraft debris,
as CatHerder claims, or was it "all Pentagon metal" as Terry Mitchell
says? Look again at the picture of the hole. We don’t need the
contradictory statements of Mr. Mitchell to conclude that, due to the
fact that the debris is on the outside of the building, the hole was
punched out from the inside, yet how could it have been “punched out”
by rescue workers when there are scorch marks at the top of the hole on
the outside? Did the rescue workers punch out this hole when the fire
was still raging inside? Hardly likely. Limiting air flow is part of
fighting a fire. You don’t make holes to let in more air while you are
trying to extinguish a fire.

Dare we suggest that the OASD chief was lying that day? That
he changed his story because the “official” version of events did not
include the idea that part of the aircraft made that hole, because it
is inconceivable that any part of a 757 could have done so?
If so, then a government official is on record as having lied about the
events at the Pentagon, yet such does not dissuade CatHerder from
trying to convince the public that the official government story about
the strike on the Pentagon is correct.

Below, another photo of a tire with the same
pattern as ones used on a 757, found in the Pentagon wreckage.

Again, for anyone to present a grainy picture of something
that vaguely resembles a tyre and then claim that this is a positive
ID of the wheel of a Boeing 757 simply gives us further cause to
believe that CatHerder either has an agenda about which he/she is not
being honest, or is so invested in his/her need to prove the government
story correct that he/she has lost any hope of being objective about
his/her analysis of the evidence.

Engine Evidence



Let’s take a look at some of the ground debris that appears to be
related to an aircraft engine. Many different sites and posts have
reported that the 757 uses Rolls-Royce engines [RB211-535E4B] - however
it should be noted, for the sake of thoroughness
(ibid), that American Airlines also use Pratt & Witney engines [PW2037] in many of their 757
fleet. You can also view this information on their website. (The 757
fleets around the world actually use over six different kinds of
engines.) The 757 that is reported to have hit the Pentagon was using
RB211-535E4B engines.



Here is are photos of some apparent engine
parts from the Pentagon crash site.







Image portion cropped from (source) - Another View



What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used
in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU
(Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft
(that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced (ibid) on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on
modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to
furnish ground auxillary power while the
main engines are shut down during ground operations. An
online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a
757/767 instrument pannel (ibid).

The reader will notice in the above something that CatHerder
does repeatedly throughout his/her analysis. When presenting his/her
argument he/she pads out the point being made with additional
information that is often irrelevant to the point being made,
but which is included, it seems, to create the impression that the
point being made is well-researched or "factual". For example, what
does a link to an online pilot training aid that lets you play around
with a 757 instrument panel have to do with identifying the disk in the
above picture?

There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk
was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for
Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo
above 'It is not a part from any Rolls
Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly
not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.'
(Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007
engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the
AE 3007H is also used in the military's
unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured
by Northrop Grumman's subsidiary Ryan
Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. A detailed view of what the turbofan that powers the
Global Hawk looks like - I'm sure you can see it's too small
to be anything in the pictures contained here or anywhere else in the
Pentagon crash evidence. Also visible in this photo, one of the
757's blue passenger seats to the left of the turbine, and possibly a
2nd seat above the other seat.

Again CatHerder reveals his/her possible agenda by selective
quoting (and without references) in the above paragraph. First of all,
the comments by Rolls Royce spokesman John Brown are taken from an American
Free Press article written by Christopher Bollyn.

Bollyn undertook the task of trying to find out what exactly
the disk in the above photo was. He called Honeywell’s Aerospace
division in Phoenix, Ariz., where the GTCP331-200 APU used on the 757
aircraft is made: “There’s no way that’s an APU wheel”, an expert at
Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be named, added: “That
turbine disc—there’s no way in the world that came out of an APU”

The first point then is that an expert form Honeywell
that makes the APU for the 757 has stated categorically that the APU
wheel in the photo is not from a 757.

As mentioned by CatHerder, Bollyn then contacted John W.
Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), asking if the disk was
from a Rolls Royce manufactured engine, perhaps the AE3007H used in the
Global Hawk. Brown’s response was:

“It is
not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with, and
certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.”

Next Bollyn called Pratt & Whitney who manufactures
parts of the 757’s turbofan jet engines:

“If
the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by
American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine”, Mark
Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP.

So we have another spokesman for Pratt and Whitney, who,
along with Rolls Royce, manufacture parts of the 757s main engines (not
the APU), who has contradicted John Brown of Rolls Royce by saying that
the part MUST be from a Rolls Royce engine, which includes the
possibility that it was the AE 3007H which is the engine in a Global
Hawk, yet it is NOT the GTCP331-200 which is the APU used on the Boeing
757 as stated by the Honeywell expert.

Bollyn then contacted John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls
Royce once more, to inform him that the Pratt & Whitney
spokesperson had stated that it must be a piece of a Rolls Royce
engine. At this point Brown balked and asked who at Pratt & Whitney
had provided the information.

Asked again if the disc in the photo was a piece of a Rolls
Royce RB211-535, or from the AE 3007 series, Brown said he could not
answer.

Bollyn then asked Brown if he was actually familiar with the
parts of an AE 3007H, which is made at the Indiana plant: “No”, Brown
said. “I don’t build the engines. I am a spokesman for the company. I
speak for the company.”



So the Rolls Royce spokesman that CatHerder quotes as an expert on the
evidence that the disk in the photo cannot be from a Global Hawk has
stated that he is not familiar with the parts of the Global Hawk engine
and is therefore not qualified to make any statement about the origins
of the the wheel in the photo.

We are left then with the likelihood that the disk in the
photo IS from a Rolls Royce engine, but NOT from the APU of the 757 as
stated by the Honeywell expert. Could it then be a part of one of the
main engines of a 757? By all accounts it is far too small to be the
disk from one of the 757's main engines, given that they are between 6
and 7 ft in diameter. The disk on the AE 3007H however is a little over
3 ft in diameter, and despite what CatHerder says, the disk in the
photo is a very good match for that of a AE 3007H, the engine used on a
Global Hawk but never on a Boeing 757.

Bollyn states:

Rolls
Royce produces the RB211-535 (main) engines for American Airlines
757-200 aircraft at a plant in Derby, England. Martin Johnson, head of
communications at Rolls Royce in Derby, said he had followed the story
closely in American Free Press and had also been notified in advance by
Rolls Royce offices in Seattle and Indianapolis. However, rather than
address the question of the unidentified disc, Johnson launched a
verbal attack on this reporter for questioning the government version
of events at the Pentagon on 9-11. ‘You are the only person in the
world who does not believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon’, Johnson said.
‘The idea that we can have a reasonable conversation is beyond your
wildest dreams’, Johnson said and hung up the phone.

While there can be no definitive statements made on the
matter, the available evidence would seem to suggest that the engine
disk in the FEMA photos is probably too small to be part of a 757
engine and, contrary to what CatHerder states, according to the
Honeywell expert that makes the APU for the 757, it is definitely not
a part of a 757’s APU. So what is it? It could very well be part of a
Global Hawk AE3007H engine.



Back to our ATS author:

Below is a significant portion of a badly smashed RB211 engine in
the Pentagon wreckage - what appears to be the diffusor
section of the compressor, one of the pumps remains partially attached,
some hoses and the familiar webbed wire wraps (to the right of the main
ring) and some of the Boeing yellow primed support structure is lying
beside it (left, with rivets - again: note the yellow primer, we'll
cover that further down). Reference: Image of the engine used on the
757 (it's the rightmost one, top row) Rolls-Royce

Yet again our non-expert author presents photographs of
mangled pieces of debris and asserts categorically that they are parts
from a 757 engine.

In this case, we are provided with a link to a picture of a
757 engine without its casing from which our author can apparently
quite easily identify things like the "diffusor
section of the compressor" and "one of the pumps" and "some hoses and
the familiar webbed wire wraps".

Ah yes! Those familiar webbed wire wraps, known and loved in
every household across the country! The photo below is the reference
that our author has used to positively match the mangled and burnt
debris above. Well? Can't you see it?! It's right there!! Clearly
the debris above is the very same 757 engine in the photo
below!

No? Well, obviously you just don't trust enough in the word
of the US government and its agent, CatHerder. If you did, you would be
able to see the truth straight away. (End sarcasm.)

Another engine part, bottom right.

Again, for the author, in his/her non-expert opinion, to
declare that the circular piece of debris in the above photo is
"another engine part" is either evidence of extreme subjectivity or a
deliberate attempt to mislead the reader. We are beginning to think it
is the latter.

Below: Evidence of the right engine impact on the side of
the building is evident on the large pillar being sprayed with fire
retardant. (click photo for huge version)

At this point, CatHerder's sweeping statements about damage
to the Pentagon and what caused it are getting to be somewhat farcical.
In this case, as in almost every statement made by the him/her so far,
the claim is spurious to say the least.

Click on the link to view a larger version of the photo. You
will see that the chunk of masonry that is missing is a the level of
the second floor windows in the Pentagon. If, as CatHerder states, the
engine of a 757 did this damage then the nose of the plane would have
impacted several feet higher around the middle of the second floor. Yet
CatHerder sees no problem with making such a claim while at the same
time presenting photographs that show clearly that whatever hit the
Pentagon struck the facade at the level of the first floor!

Again, we realize that we have been dazzled with more photos
and more unsubstantiated claims.

The hit lightpoles, and
damaged vehicles in the flightpath
(click for larger images)

Indeed, damaged light poles, but was it a 757 that did this
damage or another type of craft? We aren't saying that a plane did not
hit the Pentagon. Hardly anyone IS saying that. The only thing at issue
is what KIND of plane was it?

The debris field of small chunks of plane
witnesses said debris "rained down for minutes after the crash". (click
for larger images)

Again, (and we are sure you are getting tired of this by now)
the debris in the upper photos is extremely small and most likely to be
masonry from the facade of the Pentagon rather than "small chunks of
plane" as CatHerder states. Note yet again that he (or she) is making
sweeping assertions without providing any evidence at all for any of
his/her claims! Somehow, probably due to the abundance of photos and
the authoritative writing style that has very little content, many
people actually accept this bit of what can only be called "yellow
journalism" as a serious debunking of the "No Boeing" idea!

As noted by Thierry Meyssan in his book Pentagate,
even the American government has refused to recognise that the infamous
piece of debris in the lower photo on the left above is a part of the
Flight 77, yet CatHerder sagely affirms that it is, without doubt, a
piece of Flight 77. As for the "eyewitnesses" statements that debris
"rained down for minutes after the crash", we do not doubt that it did,
but that has little or no bearing on our investigation into whether
Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, or whether it was something else.

[Deleted part of CatHerder's analysis of the size of the
infamous "piece of plane" given that the point has already been made
that the US government officially disowns this as a part of Flight 77.]

Even the black boxes have been recovered, the reason given
for not playing the flight voice recorder for the media was that it
wouldn't serve any use other than to cause more emotional pain to
family members (I agree with them frankly).

Well, again CatHerder is being disingenuous.

Flight data recorders were found at the Pentagon on September
14th 2001. On Feb. 25, 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller stated that
Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other
information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful. [CBS]

Later, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said that the data
on the cockpit voice data recorder was unrecoverable. No further
explanation was given for these contradictory statements.

If the
cockpit voice data really was unrecoverable, it would be the first time
in aviation history a solid-state data recorder (the type used on
Flight 77) was unrecoverable after a crash.

From a
Scientific American feature article lauding the "Better
Black Box" in their [WWW] September 2000 issue:

Nearly
100,000 flight recorders have been installed in commercial aircraft
over the past four decades. The prices of the latest models generally
range from $10,000 to $20,000. Their survival rate has greatly improved
in recent years as the FAA has raised the certification requirements.
Although older recorders using magnetic tape were susceptible to fire
damage, no solid-state device has been destroyed in an accident to
date.

Lawyers
representing 9/11 victim families are attempting to use the Freedom of
Information Act to obtain transcripts of the black-box data. See [WWW] 9/11 Lawyers Seek Black-Box Data on Saudi Hijackers
by Tom Flocco, which indicates the FBI are obstructing the NTSB review
of the black box data. [Flight 77 Black Boxes]

So we see it was not the case that only the public
did not get to hear what was on the data recorders, the families of the
victims have been left out in the cold too.

So much for wanting to prevent emotional pain!

Of
course, as Flight 77 was not the plane involved in the Pentagon Attack,
its black boxes would presumably show that, and the government would be
very reluctant to allow the data to be examined, or allow the NTSB to
carry out the investigation of the crash that is required by law. [Flight 77 Black Boxes]

As an interesting aside on the black boxes, Allyn E.
Kilsheimer is the CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, the company
responsible for rebuilding the Pentagon under the Phoenix Project. He
was the head structural engineer on the rebuilding project and the
first structural engineer to arrive at the scene (at the request of the
DOD by the way). He stated:

"I
saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked
up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my
hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box."
Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane
wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held
parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts.
Okay?"

Of course, the idea that we should give any credit to the
words of someone who was immediately called by the Pentagon to come and
"assess the damage" and who went on to make millions from the
reconstruction project is laughable. Kilsheimer was also the
"government's man" at the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing and the
first WTC bombing. Coincidence?



But it doesn't end there.



Kilsheimer claimed that he "found the black box" on the afternoon of
9/11. The only problem with this statement is that it is an out and out
lie, and verifiably so.



From MSNBC:

"Carlton
Burkhammer was at work at Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Station 14
when he heard about the World Trade Center crashes. Part of Fairfax
County’s elite urban search and rescue team, Burkhammer prepared to
suit up and head to New York City. One of the nation’s most experienced
rescue teams, the squad had been deployed in disasters all over the
world: Oklahoma City, embassy bombings, the Turkey earthquake. [...]
Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Burkhammer and another
firefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near the
impact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the two
spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the
floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about
1.5 by 2 feet long."

Yet again we have a government agent openly and PROVABLY
lying about the events surrounding the attack on the Pentagon, but
that again does not give CatHerder any pause for thought before
trumpeting the official story as the truth.

Area of fence to the right of the impact area
partially flattened by the right engine of the plane. Note how a
couple of the poles are bent right over, some are sheered off at the
top, yet the pole and fence portion on the left is untouched (obviously
the right engine took out the fence to the right of those poles) and
the entire back side of the fence has been torn away. The generator was
hit by the right wing and engine before the 757 hit the building - the
damage is evidenced by other photos
of the crash area.



Closeup of generator smashed in the front
and gouged on the top - hard to image a missile accomplishing both of
these. But if the right engine of a 757 hit the front of the generator,
part of the wing could gouge the top. At the very least, something very
large, and very heavy smashed into this
extremely heavy desil generator.







Click the image on the left to view a large top-down image of the
impact area, including the large desil
(sic) generator which is visibly damaged, and actually spun ~45 degrees
from the impact! Most importantly it is spun ~45 degrees towards
the building - if this was a missile or a bomb, the explosion could
ONLY have spun it away from the building.

In the immediate aftermath of the Pentagon attack, the
Associated Press reported that a truck bomb had exploded at the Pentagon. There
were other reports that a helicopter had exploded. It certainly seems likely
then that something exploded in the vicinity of the Pentagon
before the main impact. As noted by CatHerder, there was a diesel
generator stationed just to the right of the impact point in front of
the Pentagon that was part of the Pentagon refurbishment project.
Diesel generators usually have a large fuel tank located somewhere
nearby to power them. Photos taken moments after the impact show an
already burning fire to the right of the main impact site that is
emitting a dense cloud of black smoke.

This black smoke is
consistent with burning fuel (diesel), which continued to burn long
after the flames and smoke from the main impact had died down.

If Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon, we would expect there to
be a major and prolonged fire from the thousands of gallons of aircraft
fuel that Flight 77 was carrying. But in the case that another smaller
aircraft was used, the lack of burning aircraft fuel would be evident.
It is our contention therefore that the conspirators detonated a bomb
near the generator just before or at the moment of impact in order to
augment the aircraft explosion claim (complete with thousands of
gallons of fuel) and also to provide a literal smoke screen in an
attempt to hide the fact that Flight 77 was not involved in the attack.

The Gate Camera



Some people don't seem to see perspective correctly. I've zoomed in,
and compared the two frames over and over - here is what I see as the
airplane. I will repeat, however, that this is terrible evidence due to
the horrible quality of the original images. I do believe, however,
that the white smoke in the images is caused by one or more damaged
engine from the impact with the multiple light poles on the way in (as
seen in the above image).







I stuck in a 757 that was at relatively the same angle - except it's
banking slightly to starboard instead of to
port - hence the ONE wing is out of place. If it was banking slightly
to port it would fit perfectly... However, once again - this is
entirely subjective and the image quality from the released
surveillance camera is not good enough to form a factual opinion.

The author's comment that "if it was banking slightly to port
it (a 757) would fit perfectly" is really quite humorous. The fact is
that you could "stick in" a tank or a bus or a large two-storey house
and they would also "fit perfectly".

The facts are as follows:

There were at least four video cameras capable of
recording the attack on the Pentagon. One was on the roof of the
Sheraton Hotel, a second was at a gas station across the road from the
Pentagon itself, the third belonged to the Virginia Department of
Transportation and was stationed on route 27, which the aircraft flew
over. The fourth was the Pentagon’s security camera stationed at the
opposite one end of the façade from where the plane struck.

The footage from the cameras at the Sheraton, the gas station
and on route 27 were confiscated by the FBI and have never been
released. The only footage made available to the public was that
recorded by the Pentagon’s security camera. According to the Washington
Times however, both the DOJ and the FBI denied responsibility for
releasing the footage from the Pentagon's security camera:

"The
Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras
from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman
Cheryl Irwin. A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews
taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras,
said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding
that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of
Justice."

Of course, a simple denial does not mean that someone within
the DOJ or the DOD or the FBI did not release the footage to
the public - after all, we are dealing with a massive 9/11
conspiracy and the footage is from the Pentagon's very own
security camera. We can assume with a reasonable degree of certainty
therefore, that someone within one of the arms of the American
military/ political/ industrial complex released the footage and then
denied that they did so, and for a very specific reason.

The above photo is the first still from the only video
footage of the Pentagon attack that has been made available. It is
alleged that it shows an approaching Boeing 757 in the upper right hand
corner. Do you see a Boeing 757-200 in this picture?

If we think back to the images and video footage of Flight 11
and Flight 175 hitting the WTC towers, we remember that we all saw both
large Boeing airplanes, as clear as day, even though they were flying
at over 500 mph and were over 1,000 feet up in the air when they struck
the WTC Towers. This provides us with an excellent guide on how such
commercial aircraft appear at that distance. The side of the Pentagon
is 971 feet long and the plane in the footage is no more than 750 feet
(250 yards) from the camera that is stationed near the opposite end of
the Pentagon. Remember the indelible images of those huge planes flying
into the World Trade Center towers? Even at that distance, even with
the size of the WTC towers, the image and size of the aircraft that was
burned into our minds from having seen the tapes replayed endlessly, is
awe-inspiring.

Now, look again at the above image from the Pentagon Security
camera of the plane approaching the building. Ask yourself the
question: where is the Boeing 757-200 in this image?

Next time you are at an airport, take five minutes and go and
look at some planes on the runway. Pick out a large passenger jet that
is approximately 750 feet away, preferably one in the process of taking
off or landing. Take a picture of it. Then look at this image from the
Pentagon Security camera again and ask yourself. Where is
that Boeing 757?!



The fact is that if a Boeing 757 really did hit the Pentagon,
it would stick out like, well… like a Boeing 757 in this footage, but
the simple and obvious fact is that there is no Boeing 757 there. In
fact, there is no plane of any description in the footage released by
the Pentagon.

Note that the time stamp displays a date and time of
September 12th at 5.37:19 pm. The DOD has offered no reason for this
discrepancy, which is understandable since they claim to have no
knowledge about who released the images. In the footage, the
progression of seconds jumps from 19, where it starts, to 21 and then
on to 22 and 23 where it ends, meaning that one second and an
undetermined number of frames have been cut from the film. No
explanation has ever been offered by any official sources as to why
this video footage has clearly been “doctored”, why one second and
several frames have been removed – frames that would likely show just
what it was that struck the Pentagon. Of course, this is very
convenient for exponents of the official story. The footage shows something
flying into the Pentagon and exploding, and since we were all
immediately told that that "something" was a 757, the case is closed,
right?

Not really.

Quite apart from the fact that the doctoring of the video
strongly suggests that someone released this footage in an attempt to
provide "evidence" to the public that a 757 hit the Pentagon, while at
the same time removing the incriminating frames and denying the public
the right to actually see what it was, in the images above we
see a stream of white smoke that is entirely inconsistent with a
commercial jet aircraft at ground level and much more in line with the
trail left by a missile launch. Please note however that I am not
saying that only a “missile” struck the Pentagon.

Note also the picture of actual impact and explosion.

Have you ever burned oil, or car gas or diesel? It burns with
a dense black smoke, as does oil (see above picture of claimed truck
bomb). The flame is predominantly red, which, I am told, is due to the
low burn temperature of oil-based fuel (see picture of flames from
plane explosions at WTC). While there are few bomb or explosive experts
willing to weigh in, there have been a few who claim to know about bomb
detonations who affirm that this white flame is clear evidence of
explosives detonating. In fact, several eyewitnesses to the attack made
it very clear that they knew that the explosion involved explosives, not
a mere aircraft full of fuel.

Eyewitness
to the Pentagon attack and Pentagon worker Don Perkal, was on the scene within minutes:



“Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. Then I knew
explosives had been set off somewhere.”

He also stated:

“Hundreds
of F.B.I., Secret Service and Defense Department plainclothes
investigators were deployed in the parking lot, recording witness
statements.”

Another eyewitness, Gilah Goldsmith said:

“We
saw a huge black cloud of smoke”, adding that it smelled like cordite,
or gun smoke.

Witnesses
inside the Pentagon, mostly military men, described a shockwave and
a blast.



The Washington Post ran a story where it was stated:

Air
Force Lt. Col. Marc Abshire, 40, a speechwriter for Air Force Secretary
James Roche, was working on several speeches this morning when he felt
the blast of the explosion at the Pentagon. His office is on the D
ring, near the eighth corridor, he said. “It shot me back in my chair.
There was a huge blast. I could feel the air shock wave of
it”, Abshire said. “I didn’t know exactly what it was. It didn’t
rumble. It was more of a direct smack.”



Donald R. Bouchoux, 53, a retired Naval officer, a Great Falls
resident, a Vietnam veteran and former commanding officer of a Navy
fighter squadron, was driving west from Tysons Corner to the Pentagon
for a 10am meeting. He wrote:

“At
9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the
side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards (should
be more than 150 yards from the impact) in front of me and impacted the
side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about
two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to
the right when the shock wave hit.”

John Bowman, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel
and a contractor, was in his office in Corridor Two near the main
entrance to the south parking lot.

“Everything
was calm”, Bowman said. “Most people knew it was a bomb.
Everyone evacuated smartly. We have a good sprinkling of military
people who have been shot at.”

Stars
and Stripes reporter Lisa Burgess was walking on the Pentagon’s
innermost corridor, across the courtyard, when the incident happened.

“I
heard two loud booms - one large, one smaller, and the shock wave
threw me against the wall”, she said.

Anger
and guilt still sear Lieutenant Colonel Michael Beans who shakes his
head ruefully and asks himself why he survived: "Why you, not them? Who
made that decision?" (…) Inside the Pentagon, the blast lifted Beans
off the floor as he crossed a huge open office toward his desk. "You
heard this huge concussion, then the room filled with this real
bright light, just like everything was encompassed within this bright
light," said Beans. "As soon as I hit the floor, all the lights
went out, there was a small fire starting to burn."

So we see that several witnesses, both inside and outside the
building, described a shockwave that knocked them to the
ground. Several described it as a concussion. Such a shockwave cannot
be explained by the impact of an aircraft or the combustion of jet
fuel, and indicates the detonation of an explosive. Explosive
detonations produce blast pressures thousands of times stronger than
hydrocarbon fireballs because explosives are oxidized by chemicals
intrinsic to them whereas hydrocarbons rely on oxygen in ambient air
for combustion. Consequently the chemical reaction proceeds at a much
higher rate in an explosive.

Hydrocarbon fireballs can produce detonation waves if the
fuel and air are mixed prior to ignition, but such detonation waves are
comparatively weak. The violence of most plane crashes precludes such
pre-mixing. In the Twin Tower jet collisions, the columns of the
curtain walls diced the fuel tanks in the wings, assuring fuel and air
mixing about as optimally as could be imagined in a collision, and yet
there were no reports of detonation shockwaves from any
survivors from the floors below the impact point.

Cordite is an explosive compound used in aircraft gun
ammunition. Several witnesses with the benefit of military experience
recognized the smell of this compound. Cordite N consists of three main
explosive compounds: nitroguanidine, nitrocellulose, and nitroglycerin.
It is cool-burning, and produces little smoke and no flash, but, like
other explosives, produces a strong detonation wave.

Back to ATS forum post:

Lets look at the physics involved

Here CatHerder takes us off on a tangent that is wholly
irrelevant to the task of analysing the likely physical impact of 80
tons of metal and other solid matter on the Pentagon and therefore to
answering the question of whether or not Flight 77 hit the Pentagon,
because, despite the above heading, the only physics that is employed
by the people at Purdue University is that pertaining to the physics of
liquid, i.e. the fuel in the wings of the plane and its hypothesised
effect on the Pentagon facade and interior. It therefore has little to
do with the job of ironing out the problems of the claim that an 80 ton
Boeing aircraft hit the Pentagon. We can only assume that it is an
attempt to confuse the reader and detract from the main issue - that
the totality of evidence at the Pentagon crash site is entirely inconsistent
with a Boeing 757 having hit the Pentagon that day.

Engineers, computer scientists and graphics technology experts at
Purdue University have created the first publicly available simulation
that uses scientific principles to study in detail what
theoretically happened when the Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon
last Sept. 11



Using simulation software called LS-Dyna, the smart
folks use the physically accurate simulation results as input to
animations and visualizations to produce a vivid reenactment of the
impact of the aircraft on the Pentagon building and provide the larger
team with the necessary data to construct these using 3D Studio Max,
AutoCAD, and research tools.

Again the author is being less that transparent and omits to
specify that the referenced research looks at the impact of the liquid
in the fuel tanks and its effect on the Pentagon. In fact it
is a testimony to the fact that even those that hold to the official
version of events have had to resort to the idea that, in their own
words:

"a
basic hypothesis, informally confirmed with engineers knowledgeable in
this subject, is that the bulk of the impact damage is due to the body
of fuel in the wing and center tanks."

And why? Because the damage to the Pentagon, including the 8
feet wide circular hole punched out in ring C is ENTIRELY inconsistent
with the impact of an 80 ton 757 jetliner.

The Purdue folks further state that:

"The
purpose of this simulation is to understand the response of a
reinforced concrete column subjected to high-speed impact of the fuel
in the aircraft tanks."

But CatHerder conveniently leaves the details out.

Now we can see, through a very competent and valid
simulator, what happened in the attack on the Pentagon.
Click
here to view a video generated by the simulator. Or, click here to read the white paper.

Again, this simulation does not show us "what happened in the
attack on the Pentagon"; it shows us the
hypothesised effect of the FUEL in the wings on the Pentagon and is an
example of the desperate attempts to find an explanation, ANY
explanation, for why the impact damage is NOT consistent with the
impact of a 757 when the government says it was a 757. In fact, the
study above is contradictory if one wants to stick with the "13 ft
cylinder" and "confetti-ized" wings theory. You can't have it both
ways.

In layman's terms the crash
dynamics worked like so: A large hollow tube, with a belly full of
luggage, a passenger bay with 60 people, and wings full of fuel smashed
into the side of an almost solid object while moving at a tremendous
speed (somewhere around 350-400mph). When the 225,000lb+ plane hit, it
smashed apart with such force from the crash that it became like one
massive column of liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn into
liquid, it just acted like one physically - mountainslides
act the same way, a million tons of rock acts like a large field of
liquid during a landslide even if no water is present). All the small
parts, luggage, people, seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds
of fuel acting like a massive river came crashing into the wall of the
Pentagon. This force burst through the outside wall and flowed through
the inside to the next wall, and momentum carried this mass until it
finally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring.



Plane hitting WTC (another example of crash fluid
dynamics) - RealAudio Required - note how
the 767 "liquifies" and flows through the
WTC tower.



Please do read the information on the Perdue website yourself - I don't
do it justice with my one paragraph of paraphrasing!

Indeed, not only does the author's paraphrasing and selective
use of data not tell the truth about the real nature and reason for
this "simulation", it attempts to distract and confuse the reader by
suggesting that an 80 ton solid aircraft was little more than a column
of liquid! Again, you can't have it both ways. If you are going to
include the wings and fuel tanks, and twin 6 TON engines, then the hole
is way too small for all of this together to have created it.

For anyone to try and compare the effects of an 80 ton
aircraft crashing into a building at 400mph to the effects of a
landslide of rocks and soil is far-fetched at best, yet it is testimony
to the extreme lengths that CatHerder must go to to try and prove that
a 757 hit the Pentagon when there is simply no evidence to stand on.

If a 757 really did hit the Pentagon then there should be no
need for outlandish theories about columns of water. The evidence
SHOULD be all there, and it should be a breeze to present facts that
would quickly dismiss any attempts to suggest otherwise.

But we see that this is not the case - in fact the exact
opposite is true! CatHerder is finding it very difficult to prove
something that should be easily provable if the evidence was there for
ALL to see.

Please read again his/her claim that the plane:

"smashed apart
with such force from the crash that it became like one massive column
of liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn into liquid, it just acted
like one physically) [....] all the small parts, luggage, people,
seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like a
massive river came crashing into the wall of the Pentagon. This force
burst through the outside wall and flowed through the inside to the
next wall, and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out of
inertia at the 3rd ring"

It is amazing to observe CatHerder suggesting that, on impact with
the Pentagon, all of the parts of a 757 broke into pieces - flew
everywhere as confetti - then somehow formed themselves into a 9 foot
wide 20 feet tall concentrated column of energy (or water-like
substance) that broke through 5 walls of the Pentagon leaving a neat 8
ft by 12 ft round hole in the final 6th wall. Understand also that it
is to such outlandish lengths that anyone, not just CatHerder, must go
to if they want to make a 757 "fit" as the object that struck the
Pentagon on September 11th 2001.

(Removed two aerial images of Pentagon before and
after impact due to a lack of any stated reason for inclusion. See ATS
website to view them.)

Eye Witness Testimony




Lets look at some eye witness testimony sticking only to people
who saw a plane hit the building, and not look at people who saw an
airliner, but didn't see an airplane hit the building because they
looked away or were too far away (behind a hill, behind a building,
etc) to see it actually hit the building.



"Aydan Kizildrgli,
an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner
bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided
building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was
a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the
car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"


- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA
Today, 11 Sep 2001

Note that in the above, the statement that this eyewitness
saw an "airliner" is made by the USA reporter who wrote the story, not
by the eyewitness himself who only heard a "big boom".

"Frank Probst, an information
management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his
office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept.
11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial
airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77
reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst
dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired
Officer Magazine, January 2002

Again, the comment that this eyewitness saw a "commercial
airliner" is made by the reporter, not the eyewitness. In any case, an
information management specialist working on the Pentagon Renovation
Program is hardly a credible witness.

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean,
was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew
over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways
plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the
grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The
whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never
imagine I would see anything like that here.'"- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts."The Guardian, 12
Sep 2001

As I have said,
I am not suggesting that no plane hit the Pentagon, I am suggesting
that no 757 hit the Pentagon. I believe a plane did hit the Pentagon,
because there is evidence of aircraft debris, (however scant that
debris might be) and that it was dressed up in American Airline colors,
complete with fake windows, in which case, it is possible that
eyewitnesses may have concluded it was a passenger plane. Of course, a
passenger plane is also the description of an aircraft the size of a
twelve or twenty seat private jet, or something about the size of such
a jet painted with AA colors.

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but
stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew
over.'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the
plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It
was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit
some lampposts on the way in.'"- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian,
12 Sep 2001

This testimony is consistent with an aircraft hitting the
Pentagon, but not necessarily a 757. The comment that a "huge screaming
noise" was heard is contradicted by other testimonies (below)

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian
Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that
Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low
over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke
and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said." -
"Hell on Earth." UU World

This eyewitness
did not explicitly say that he saw AA Flight 77. His actual testimony
is prefaced with the comment by the reporter that "American Airlines
Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car". What the eyewitness
actually saw was a "puff of white smoke", which is very interesting.
One naturally wonders why the reporter did not quote the witness
entirely instead of putting words in his mouth that he may never have
said.

"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan
Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were
stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they
saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off
the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing
more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see
the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening
thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels
up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News

If this testimony is truthful, then there is little doubt
that this eyewitness saw a plane, but was it a 757? Notice that he
never says that it was a Boeing 757. More "selective quoting."

Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the
woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her
face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of
our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn't
until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind
us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon.
The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible
moment." Massachusetts News

If this testimony is truthful, then there is little doubt
that this eyewitness saw a plane, but was it a 757? Having said that,
we note that Gary Bauer was a presidential candidate in 2000 and is an
avowed right-winger and Bush supporter, for what it's worth.

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller
and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and
the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit
the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground
and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the
building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001

CatHerder must be completely unaware of what constitutes a
credible witness. Perhaps it escaped him/her that we are dealing with a
government conspiracy to murder and the testimony of a Pentagon
official can hardly be called impartial.

"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that
we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was
obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The
distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the
fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA
bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked and
took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina
said. Captain Defina was the shift
commander [of an aircraft rescue firefighters crew.] NFPA Journal November 1, 2001

Captain Defina may well have seen pieces of a nose gear, or
some aircraft part that looked like a nose gear, but to which aircraft
did these pieces belong? Having said that, it is somewhat surprising
that the nose gear from any aircraft would be visible inside the
Pentagon if we are to believe that the nosegear took the full force of
the initial impact. After all, the nose gear is one of the most fragile
parts of a Boeing aircraft, being made out of carbon rather than
aluminium, and would undoubtedly be destroyed beyond recognition by the
time it reached the interior of the building. Of course, if the nose
gear of the plane that struck the Pentagon was not the first
thing to impact, then it is possible that some nose gear debris might
be found inside.

That's just a small smattering of people who have
gone on record as seeing the plane, and the plane hit the Pentagon. I
could have included the dozens of people who saw the plane, but didn't
see it hit (because it went behind a bridge, a hill, or some trees),
but I choose only to post the ones that sounded the most valid and
actually saw the plane hit the building. (I included the one firechief who states he saw some plane wreckage
during firefighting/rescue attempts.) There are most likely twenty
times more that either haven't been publicly recorded as seeing the
crash, or simply don't want the attention. You can't honeslty sit there and deny the witnesses, the
photographs, the facts, the science, and the reality that there was a
terrorist attack on the Pentagon if you look at everything available
and not one single tidbit of information at a time.

If that's the best CatHerder can do in assembling testimony,
it simply proves our point about the overly anxious and desperate
efforts being made to prove something that, if it were true, would not
require such efforts.

Notice the subtle suggestion that CatHerder's analysis
includes "everything available". Notice also that the two testimonies
from Pentagon employees are included in those that CatHerder believes
to be the "most valid". Also, having presented us with some dubious and
inconclusive eyewitness testimonies, we are told that we cannot deny
that these testimonies are proof conclusive that a 757 really did hit
the Pentagon! What is true, as CatHerder states, is that there are
indeed many more eyewitness testimonies that he/she could have
included. However, once you read some of them, you will understand why
he/she did not include them.

For example:

Lon Rains, an editor of Space.com, was also an eyewitness to the
Pentagon attack. He commented:

“In light
traffic the drive up Interstate 395 from Springfield to downtown
Washington takes no more than 20 minutes. But that morning, like many
others, the traffic slowed to a crawl just in front of the Pentagon.
With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 o’clock on the dial
of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for
my appointment. At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing
sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to
my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion.
The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was a
missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.”

Allen Cleveland
of Woodbridge Virginia looked out from a Metro train going to National
Airport, to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. "I thought,
'There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,' " Before
he could process that thought, he saw "a huge mushroom cloud. The lady
next to me was in absolute hysterics."" . . a silver passenger jet, mid
sized"

Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching
television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a
silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in
Pentagon City:

“The plane was
about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the
ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the
high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetery so
low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. It was flying so
fast that he couldn’t read any writing on the side. The plane, which
appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the
Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent
runway"

“I was right
underneath the plane”, said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for
Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of
Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon.
“I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying.”

Kirk Milburn - who was driving his vehicle at the time - said
he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon, and because he saw
it he also said, “I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying”.

What he said next, however, is not in keeping with a 757:

“I guess it was
hitting light poles”, said Milburn. “It was like a whoosh whoosh, then
there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion.”

Notice that the witness says, “I guess it was hitting the
light poles”. One suspects that he couldn’t see it if he was
guessing. What is most interesting is that he said, “It was like a
WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second
explosion”. No doubt he saw something, but since he was also
driving at the time, it is not certain exactly what he saw.

Two early, primary witnesses have described a sound of a
“whoosh”! The second one, when he couldn’t see it, said it was like a
“WHOOSH whoosh”, just like the other man who couldn’t see it, but then
he has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane. But what he
described was most definitely not a 757 flying low over his head.

A 757, under no circumstances makes a sound of “whoosh”, and
if the “whoosh” sound was being made by the hitting of light poles, it
is a certainty that if a 757 was doing it, you would not hear the
“whoosh” of hitting light poles over the roar of the jet engines. If
there’s a 757 right overhead that’s hitting light poles, and it’s going
460 mph, it would not be “whooshing”! Anyone that has ever spent any
time at the end of an international airport runway knows that the sound
of a large commercial jet flying low overhead would be more accurately
described as a deafening ROAR!

It is true that
eyewitness testimonies are notoriously unreliable. Take ten witnesses
to an event and it is likely that you will get ten responses that will
differ from each other in one aspect or another.

Memory Conformity: Disentangling the Steps towards
Influence during a Discussion



(Amina Memon & Fiona Gabbert, Aberdeen and Dan Wright, Sussex
University).



It is human nature for people to discuss their shared experiences,
especially of extraordinary events such as witnessing a crime. Recent
studies of several high profile cases have shown that even a single
erroneous eyewitness can have a significant negative influence on the
accuracy of another eyewitness’s testimony if the witnesses come into
contact with one another and discuss the criminal event. Although it is
natural for people to discuss their experiences, it is highly
problematic for the legal professionals, and our system of justice, if
evidence – in the form of witness statements – becomes contaminated.



Our previous research (funded by the Economic & Social Research
Council) investigated how peoples’ memories can become influenced
during a discussion about a mutually experienced event under controlled
laboratory-based conditions. When people discuss an event what one
person says is often adversely incorporated into the other person’s
report. ...

Having said
that, given the nature of the events that are alleged to have occurred
at the Pentagon on 9/11 - a large commercial airliner crashing into a
large building, we might expect most people to concur at least on the
basic details. But, as we have seen, that is not the case with the
Pentagon attack.

I am of the opinion therefore that the very conflicting
nature of the testimonies of the eyewitnesses to the Pentagon
attack are important clues revealing the true nature of what happened
that day. Imagine that a significant number of people are witness to a
large commercial airliner flying extremely low and at high speed over
an urban area and crashing into a building. Imagine also that, not long
thereafter, all eyewitnesses to the event are told by authorities and
the media that it was indeed a large commercial airliner that flew into
the building. Now ask yourself: in such a case, how likely is it that
there would be any serious discrepancies between the
testimonies of those eyewitnesses? How likely is that any of
the eyewitnesses would report that what they actually saw was a small
aircraft or something that sounded like a missile? Unlikely, I would
suggest.

Now imagine that
a significant number of people are witness to a drone aircraft like the
Global Hawk for example, which also flies very low and very fast over
an urban area. While the wingspan of this drone craft is quite large,
it is much smaller in overall size to a large commercial aircraft.
Imagine also that this drone is painted with the colors and logo of a
well-known airline that are only ever seen on large commercial
aircraft. Imagine that there are even “windows” painted on the side to
make the illusion all the more convincing. Imagine that, not long after
witnessing the incident, all eyewitnesses to the event are told by
authorities and the media that what they saw was a large commercial
airliner flying into the building. Now ask yourself: in such a case,
what are the chances that there would be seriously conflicting reports
between eyewitness accounts of the incident? Very good, I would
suggest.

Eyewitness
accounts are indeed useless when one must rely on them as the sole
evidence. This is not, however, the case with the Pentagon attack.
There is already much evidence - the facts on the ground - to
suggest that it was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon on
9/11. The fact that there are serious conflicts in eyewitness accounts
merely serves to back up this other evidence that it was NOT a Boeing
757 that hit the Pentagon. We might also
wonder why there are no conflicting WITNESS reports of what hit the WTC
towers? All eyewitnesses to the event in New York concurred that two
large passenger plane hit the North and South towers. Of course, we
were all treated to ad nauseam repeats of the video footage of that
event, leaving no one in any doubt about what happened. So why not
treat us all to the video evidence from the Pentagon?

There is one very obvious answer to this question: the video
footage, held by the US government, would disprove the official story.

911 Tape of EMV responding to the Pentagon -
includes video outside and inside the building in some areas. (Real
Audio Required)

The above video
and audio of EMV responding is completely inconsequential to the
investigation at hand, and I can think of no reason why CatHerder would
include it, other than to attempt in some subtle way to drive home the
official claim that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Conclusion



I highly doubt that local firefighters would be involved in any
sort of a coverup. I highly doubt
that local police officers would be involved in any sort of a
government cover up. Cops and firemen are just average Joes like you
and me, who go home to the wife and kids, and just try to make a living
and have a good life for their families (I have many friends in both
professions - of course the firemen are usually more stable
marriage-wise because of their job but that doesn't make the cops any
less human than you or I). The men and women who pulled over a hundred
people (dead and alive) out of that building would more likely than not
have noticed somebody carrying over 60 bodies into the middle of the
fire they were fighting. To say that the plane that hit the Pentagon
was not filled with every single person who died in this terrorist
attack (not counting the unfortunate people inside the building) is one
thing and one thing only - ignorant.

Oh, LORD! Not the dreaded "malignant pseudo-identification"
again! You know, the process by
which a COINTELPRO agent consciously imitates or simulates certain
behaviors or beliefs in order to foster "identification" with him/her,
thus increasing the vulnerability to exploitation. Yes indeed,
CatHerder is just an "average Joe" like "you and me." And just to make
it hit home, the emotional hooks of "family," a "good life," "making a
living," and "stable marriages" are tossed in there followed by the
final tear jerker, an outrageous reference to the people who died that
day. It is outrageous because it is finally clear that CatHerder is,
indeed, an agent of disinformation and using such emotional ploys, as
this is truly malignant pseudo-identification.

Having said that, let's return to the fact that the point is
not that firefighters or police officers were involved in the cover up
as CatHerder slickly suggests is the claim of anyone who says that
Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but rather that any of them that
saw something they were not meant to, could have been easily silenced.
The most obvious way to silence the "average Joe" who is honest,
hard-working and normally patriotic, is to impress on such a person
that they must not talk about something due to "national security". If
they were to persist in wanting to talk about what they saw, more
persuasive methods can be used like threats to their livelihood etc.,
up to and including murder. But murder is seldom required. A simple
letter with details of family and friends and an order to "keep your
mouth shut" is more than enough for most people. As CatHerder says:
"cops and firemen are just average Joes like you and me, who go home to
the wife and kids, and just try to make a living and have a good life
for their families." They are not likely to risk their livelihood, or
the lives of their children for 5 minutes of fame on national TV. They
keep their mouths shut. And that's a tragedy that CatHerder doesn't
seem to be able to understand.

As regards the
"carrying of 60 bodies into the middle of the fire". This is simply
more evidence of CatHerder's attempts to confuse and manipulate the
reader. I know of no site that suggests that the bodies of the
passengers on Flight 77 were carried into or out of the Pentagon after
the attack. The identification of the bodies was carried out off site
by the state pathologist. We were never shown footage nor did we hear
reports about anyone picking up pieces of passengers from Flight 77
from the attack site, we were simply told that all passengers were
identified from their DNA from body parts that were in the possession
of the state pathologist. It is simply assumed that the state
pathologist got the bodies parts from the Pentagon site, because of
course, the government told us that Flight 77 crashed there - where
else would the body parts come from!? But as I have shown, it is
extremely unlikely that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, which
makes the question of how the state pathologist got hold of body parts
from the passengers a very interesting question.

Of course, we have not even touched on that most bizarre
aspect of the Pentagon strike - the alleged final approach of Flight
77. Think about this:



The hijackers are a few thousand feet up in the air, they spot the
distinctive shape of the Pentagon and decide, "that's our target". What
do they do next?



Well, logic would suggest that they take the easy and most effective
option and nose-dive the plane towards the center of the Pentagon,
thereby maximising the chances of actually hitting the building at such
high speed and also causing the most damage.

But no, our
intrepid "Arab terrorists" have a much more complicated plan:



They are going to fly the airliner at maximum speed just a few feet off
the ground into the facade of the Pentagon; but not just any part of
the facade. No indeed, these guys have a plan. Their specifically
chosen "bull's eye" is the section of the facade of the Pentagon that
had recently been reinforced and, due to the ongoing internal work, had
a significantly reduced number of people in it. These nutty hijackers,
consumed with rage and anger at America, its government, its military
and its citizens, and determined to inflict as much carnage as
possible, had somehow chosen the strongest part of the Pentagon which
at the same time had the lowest concentration of people!

Now how's that for bad luck!



To carry out their bizarre plan, which appears designed to minimise
death and destruction at the Pentagon rather than maximise it, and
given that they realise that they are very poor pilots, failing to possess the skills to
master the controls of a single-engined cessna, our intrepid
"terrorists" decide that they will execute a difficult fast descent
from 7,000 feet combined with a 270 degree turn.



This done, they are now at a few hundred feet and in "line of sight" of
the Pentagon up ahead of them. The only problem is that they are now
confronted with a veritable obstacle course of cars, roads, bridges,
buildings, trees etc between them and their target. Not to worry - they
have Allah on their side after all. By some miracle they manage to
navigate the massive hulk of the 757 through down town Washington while
flying at 500 mph and just a few dozen feet off the ground, getting
lower all the time. They make just a little booboo and clip a couple of
light poles on the way in, but despite this and the fact that their
massive manual missile is just feet of the ground, they politely avoid
messing up the Pentagon lawn and finally slam into their target at
ground floor level.

Now that is one fantastical magical mystery of a story,
worthy of inclusion in any children's fairy tale.

Review the facts

·
Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building -
somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)

Initial hole only fits the size of a 757 if you subtract the
wings, twin 6 TON engines, and tail fin which somehow did not hit the
building. Even then the fuselage would have had to slip into the
building leaving a round hole that exactly conformed to the diameter
and height of the cylindrical tube. In short, highly unlikely, not to
mention the fact that the two 50 feet long wings with twin 6 TON steel
engines somehow disappeared and could not be found in the wreckage
outside the building.

·
Rims found in building match those of a 757

Rims - IF they were 757 rims - were quite possibly planted or
were the rims from another type of aircraft.

·
Small turbine engine outside is an APU

Indeed, it may well be an APU. But as noted previously, a
Boeing spokesman has confirmed that the APU was NOT the APU from a 757.

·
Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk
engine

This is simply not true. No one has come forward to confirm
or deny that the disk seen in photos from outside the Pentagon could
have come from a Global Hawk. Given the small size of the disk, it is
likely that it did not come from a large 757 engine but rather a
smaller-engined aircraft. Like a Global Hawk.

·
Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos

The mangled blue
debris could be anything and is inadmissible as conclusive "evidence"
of any part of any aircraft.

·
Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo

The only piece of debris showing part of lettering that appears
similar to lettering on American airlines craft is pristine, no
smoke or explosion damage and has not been accepted by US government as
coming from Flight 77. It seems that CatHerder is not only pushing the
government line but is going so far as to accept evidence that even the
US government wont touch due to its obviously suspect nature.

·
Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211

Our author is a self-proclaimed non-expert in such matters
yet sees fit to pronounce conclusively that mangled pieces of aircraft
material are definitely parts of a specific aircraft engine. This alone
should make any reader of this fine piece of disinformation wary.

·
Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing
paint primer schemes

The primer is used on many aircraft.

·
Large deisel (sic) generator in
front of building hit by a large heavy object

Diesel generator was probably moved by initial explosion as
reported in early news releases.

·
Large deisel (sic) engine outside
is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb
blast or missile explosion

Nonsense. See previous comment.

·
Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner

Multiple eyewitnesses say they saw a private jet sized
aircraft, others said it sounded like a missile.

·
Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon

Multiple eye
witnesses who announced that they saw an American airliners passenger
jet were also government and mainstream media employees and their
testimonies are therefore unacceptable.

·
60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster
identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

60+ bodies were
not identified. DNA from all of the passengers was identified, which is
actually an interesting point. How can it be that the impact and fire
were allegedly so intense that they shredded into tiny pieces and
disintegrated much of the plane, although not all of it, yet body parts
from all passengers were recovered and identified?

Conclusion:

It is unlikely that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon because the
available evidence is not consistent with the impact of a 757 airliner.

As I have already stated, the best approach for any 9/11
researcher with honest intentions would be to 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.
If such a person were given all of the publicly available evidence and
furnished with knowledge of the effects of airplane crashes and that of
missile impacts, it is highly improbable that such a person would
conclude that a 757 caused the damage at the Pentagon.

Why?

Because the evidence suggests otherwise.

Again I will state that it is only because of the claim by
the government and the media that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon that anyone
would ever try and suggest that a 757 did the damage. The evidence that
Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon is so abundant that we continue to
be amazed that apparently intelligent people are nevertheless very
capable of ignoring facts and concocting elaborate (and often absurd)
theories to avoid having to accept that which is right under their noses.

In the months
that followed the 9/11 attacks, it was web sites like Signs
of the Times that took on the job of debunking the clearly false
official story about 9/11, in particular the attack on the Pentagon.
While we certainly expected a response to our efforts from mainstream
newspapers and other government shills, it came as somewhat of a shock
and disappointment to realise that other alleged 9/11 researchers
joined the attack and attempted to debunk our debunking of the official
story. The result is that many honest 9/11 researchers are having to
engage in the type of "third level" debunking that I have presented
above - a debunking of a debunking of a debunking as it were.

Of course, over
the course of the past 4 years, we have become much more familiar with
the disinformation tactics of government CoIntelPro. In modern day
Iraq, it is generally understood that one of the main roles of US and
Israeli intelligence agencies is to foment ethnic strife among the
Iraqi people. The logic behind this is that if the Iraqis are fighting
themselves, they have less time and energy to fight American soldiers.
It should come as no surprise then that the same tactics have been used
by US intelligence agencies to deal with honest 9/11 research. But the
task of getting honest people who share a common goal to fight with
each other is not easy. It requires infiltration over a long periods of
time coupled with subtle manipulation of the parties involved.
Thankfully for the intelligence agencies, there is another much easier
way: you simply have one of your own operatives pose as a Sunni
Insurgent or an honest 9/11 researcher and have him attack his fellow
insurgents/researchers. Hey presto! You've just created "division" and
"infighting" which distracts and confuses the enemy. In the case of
9/11 the "enemy" are the honest 9/11 researchers and the members of the
public who look to them for information.

The question then is: are we dealing with such a
manufactured group in the Above Top Secret website and forum?

It's hard to tell. There are without doubt many sincere U.S.
and other citizens and web site owners who promote the official story
about 9/11 because they believe (or perhaps need to believe) that the
government is telling the truth. Equally certain is the fact that there
are many US citizens and website owners who know for sure that the
government story is false, yet have been consciously recruited to push
this story on the public. Members of the latter group are simply doing
their job, but their influence is most directly felt among members of
the former group who want to believe the official story.

Having said that, after reading through the long ATS thread
that followed the posting of "CatHerders" article, I have come to the
tentative conclusion that the ATS website is just one more
government-funded damage control operation, albeit a very subtle one. I
will explain why I came to this conclusion.

CatHerders article was received with much fanfare on the ATS
forum, and much debate and analysis ensued with the thread finally
reaching 125 pages. As the discussion and debate raged, it became
apparent that many were convinced by CatHerder's article, but just as
many were not. On the 8th page of the thread, two of the three owners of
the ATS website weighed in and attempted to silence the naysayers with
some large fonts and guilt trips. For example, "SkepticOverlord", "one
of the three ATS amigos and co-owner of Abovetopsecret.com" wrote:

"It's very disappointing to see ignorance embraced like this
[referring to those who were not embracing Catherders article as "the
truth"]



Why? Because the real information is not wrapped up in an exciting
Flash animation with angry metal grind? [referring, undoubtedly, to our
Pentagonstrike Flash]



Shall we change our motto?



Ignorance Embraced [the ATS motto is "deny ignorance" which seems to be
a twist on the QFG motto: Knowledge Protects, Ignorance Endangers.]



I still remember speaking to my brother (who was on the highway at the
time) calling me that evening, haunted by the memory of a brief glimpse
of faces in the windows of the 757. Especially when he discovered his
friend was on the flight later that day.



This is a sad moment for ATS. I feel like I now see faces."

Very moving. Very manipulative, too. "Springer", another
Co-owner, then added the following:

PITIFUL... "CH" (Catherder) has proven his/her POINT beyond
much of anything that even comes close to logic... But ALAS, as S.O.
(other ATS co-owner) Points out, it is NOT wrapped up in a pretty flash
animation filled with BUNK so it must NOT be beleived... [another
obvious reference to the Pentagon Flash.]



Sad Day for ATS indeed..."

Yes indeed, there's nothing like subjecting your subscribers
to a little guilt trip to get them in line.

What is clear from reading the thread is that the owners of
the ATS site and the author of the article in question are of the
opinion that Arab terrorists, as they are presented by the US
government, are real and that a group of them hijacked four planes and
attacked the US on 9/11. The only "9/11 conspiracy" that these people
hold to then is that the US government may have let 9/11
happen, and the fact is that there are many self-described 9/11
investigators who promote the same idea. You could call it "9/11
conspiracy lite", designed for those who lack the stomach for the
unsavory reality of what 9/11 actually meant and where it is taking us.

The problem with such an explanation is that it subtly
suggests that, in 9/11, what we are dealing with is nothing more than
corrupt government or a few corrupt men, and we all know governments
are often a little corrupt, right? The obvious solution, of course, is
to simply remove the corrupt government or the few men and we can then
get on with the job of fighting those damn "terrorists".

What is missing, however, is the awareness that the
"terrorist threat" that came front and center after 9/11 is crucial to
the entire conspiracy. It is Bush's "war on terror" that plagues the
world to this day, long after 9/11 has lost its edge and drifted to the
back of the collective consciousness. It is the threat from "Islamic
terrorists" that has led the US military to massacre 100,000 Iraqi
civilians over the past two years, and you can be sure they are only
getting started. Proponents of such a theory expect us to believe that
the fact that terrorist hijackers gifted the Neocons with the
justification to accomplish their long-held goals is just a matter of
good luck!

Anyone that
researches the 9/11 event and, most importantly, the background to
American and Israeli plans for the Middle East and Israeli government
penetration of the American political system, cannot but come to the
conclusion that the 9/11 attacks, in their entirety, must
have been stage-managed by those who stood to benefit most from the
attacks. The fact is, if your goal is to sell the lie that 'Arab
terrorists' hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, you don't
need to involve real Arab terrorists or real hijacked planes. Indeed,
it would not even be advisable to do so given the logistics of getting
Arab hijackers, or people masquerading as Arab hijackers, to give their
lives in service to your plot and avoid the distinct possibility that
details of the plot would be leaked. No, all you need to do is to make
it appear that way with some well placed evidence and then
claim that it is so.

We notice that very few items of so-called "conspiracy
theory" have rattled the "Bushes" quite like our Pentagon
Strike Flash did. The Pentagon Strike video came out on August 23rd
2004. Probably nobody really noticed it at that point, but it hit a
chord of response in the hearts of millions of people around the world.
They began to madly download and forward it to their friends and
relatives. Latest stats on how many people have viewed it to date are
500 million!

Apparently it
even landed in the email box of the Editor of the Washington Post,
which is why Carol Morello sent us an email asking for an interview. Or
so she said. My suspicion was that the Post was instructed to
do "damage control", albeit oh, so gently!

Now, look at this mini-timeline:

August 23rd 2004: Pentagon
Strike Video which propagates wildly for a month.

September 11,
2004: CatHerder post to Above Top Secret forum.

September 21st 2004: First contact by Carol Morello of
the Washington Post

October 7th 2004: Washington Post article

It was an interesting feeling to know that if they hadn't
seen the Pentagon Strike before, certainly George and Dick, Karl and
the gang were watching it after the Washington Post wrote an
article about it.

October 19th 2004: George Bush visits New Port Richey - a previously
unscheduled "whistle-stop" on his campaign trail. NPR is very small,
not likely to be a major target of any presidential candidate, but it
just happens to be Laura Knight-Jadczyk's hometown. It was our initial
reaction that Dubya's visit to Laura's little home town - certainly of
no importance on the campaign trail - was deliberately done to send a
message to her. Fact is, her daughter's ex-boyfriend wrote to tell her
that he had been among those selected to shake the hand of George W.
himself! Now, how's that for a coincidence?

As to exactly what Carol Morello of the Washington Post
wrote to Laura, here is the pertinent passage which is actually quite
revealing:

A couple of
editors here saw the video/film, and I was asked to find out what I
could about it. As you can imagine, we continue to have an intense
interest on the attack on the Pentagon and the people who were
affected.

I've just begun
reporting, so it would be premature to tell you what "perspective" my
story would have.

My initial
impressions are that the questions and theories expressed in the video
got a spurt of attention in early 2002, after the publication of a best
selling book in France, then the furor died down for a while, and now
they have re-emerged with the extraordinarily wide dissemination of
this video on the Internet.

The 911
Commission report appears to have done little to dampen the
controversy. I hoped to speak to you about how and why you posted it on
your web site, what kind of response you've received and what you think
about it. […]

Notice that she attributes the resurgence of interest in the
"Pentagate" problem to the Pentagon Strike video. Can we say "damage
control"?

And if there is damage control, then that means there is
damage.

Up to this point in time, the only acknowledgement the
administration ever gave to such issues was to refer vaguely and
dismissively to "conspiracy theories". Now, suddenly, it seems that
dealing with the "conspiracy theories" in a direct manner was seen to
be imperative. "9/11: Debunking the Myths" came out in Popular
Mechanics Magazine in March of 2005, just five months after
the Washington Post article. That's pretty fast work.

Under the tutelage of Editor in Chief Jim "Oh look, a tank!"
Meigs, Popular Mechanics assembled a team of researchers,
including "professional fact checkers" (impressive eh?) to debunk the
16 most common claims made by conspiracy theorists about 9/11.
Unsurprisingly, the PM editors claim that, in the end:

"we were able to
debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose
of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something
as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the
byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and
animosity into public debate."

In fact, a careful analysis of the article shows that at
most, just three of the sixteen claims could have been the result of
"reporting error", forcing us to assume that, in the razor-like,
emotionally unclouded cerebrum of Jim Meigs, at least 13 of the
conspiracy claims about 9/11 are the result of "cynical imaginations
aiming to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate".

The sad fact is that, while Popular Mechanics claims
to be interested in understanding what really happened that day, their
rebuttal of sixteen of the most common claims by so-called "conspiracy
theorists" about 9/11 isn't worth the $3.57 of server space that it has
so far cost them to publish it.

If there is one glaring hole in the arguments put forward by
9/11 conspiracy "debunkers", it is the fact that such people have never
come up with a reasonable argument to explain why, in the wake of 9/11,
so many obviously intelligent citizens became gripped by the
uncontrollable urge to continually waste their time recklessly and
fecklessly "injecting suspicion and animosity into public debate" for
no apparent reason. It really is a mystery. Maybe they're trying to
take over the world or something.

On the other hand, it doesn't take a degree in psychology to
understand the primary motivations of the conspiracy debunkers. You
see, the very last thing that many Americans (and others) want to
believe is that their government would attack its own people. For 9/11
"debunkers", logic and intellect have no part to play in investigating
the question of what really happened on 9/11. It's pure emotion all the
way.

In the beginning, on the morning of September 11, 2001 we
were all united in our emotional reactions: shock, horror, grief - (and
not to forget: jubilation from a bunch of Israeli Mossad agents).
As the emotion subsided, most went on with their lives, but a few stood
on, brows furrowed, scratching their heads. After considerable digging
and research, it became obvious that the official story did not
satisfactorily answer all of the questions, and the fact that officials
were refusing to answer those outstanding questions, gave rise,
logically enough, to a "conspiracy theory".

Not long thereafter, the debunkers stepped in, not because
they had the answers to the outstanding questions, but because they had
their emotional buttons severely poked by the fact that someone was
saying that their government was lying! Sadly, the editors at PM are no
different, and their little fear-inspired rebuttal of 9/11 conspiracy
theories is of little actual use to anyone, least of all to those who
really do want to know the truth of 9/11. Far from approaching the
matter with an open mind (which is crucial in any attempt to find the
truth), it is clear that Popular Mechanics' "professional
fact checkers" began with the premise that the US government was not
lying about the main events of 9/11, despite all of the evidence to the
contrary. From there, the objectivity and integrity of their research
went sharply downhill as they busied themselves with hunting down the
very same sources that provided the official story to confirm that the
official story was in fact correct. Apparently, in "debunkerland", it
is completely reasonable to ask U.S. government representatives to
testify that the U.S. government is squeaky clean and then present that
evidence as "fact". It is also kosher, we assume, to have a murder
suspect double as a credible court's witness in a murder trial.

For those of you who have looked unemotionally at the events
of 9/11, it is not unusual to be left wondering how those members of
the US government who were clearly complicit in the murder of 3,000 of
their own citizens can remain so smug and seemingly self-assured. To
find the answer we need look no further than the Jim Meigs' of this
world. You see, it is people like Meigs who lack any love or
appreciation for the truth and worship only their subjective view of
the world that make it so easy for big government to commit big crime.

At present there are millions of Americans and others around
the world who, aided by the years of social conditioning and media mind
programming, drew a very clear line around what they would and would
not believe about their government and country. Most of what was inside
the line was "feel good" stuff about "greatest democracy on earth" and
other jingoistic nonsense, with perhaps a few admissions that
"sometimes bad things happen" and "not everyone is a saint". This
mindset provided (and continues to provide) a perfect opportunity for
unscrupulous US politicians to literally get away with the murder of
which most of the US public refuse to believe they were, and are,
capable.

The result is that, for all intents and purposes, today there
are two Americas:

- The America of the average American citizen which is little
more than a government-provided dream world.

- The real America of the corrupt politicians and the select
few who run the country, and much of the rest of the world.

Luckily for the select few, this second, real America just
happens to lie outside of what many ordinary Americans are willing or
able to believe is possible. Lest anyone think otherwise, the setting
up of any accusation against government as being the domain of
"conspiracy nuts" is not the result of pure coincidence. Conspiracy
theories are as old as the first lie ever told and the subsequent
attempts by the liar to avoid exposure.

Most people think that "conspiracy theories" are made up by
"conspiracy theorists", but the term "conspiracy theory" is most often
used by those people who have most to gain from the ridicule of the
allegations that are directed at them. The tactic has been used to such
great effect over the years that certain high crimes committed by
government have become the touchstone by which all other "conspiracies"
are measured.

Take the folks at Popular Mechanics. In dealing with
9/11 they simply couldn't resist referencing that other most despicable
crime committed by a US government - but of course, to them it's just
another "theory":

"Don't get me wrong: Healthy skepticism is a good
thing. Nobody should take everything they hear--from the government,
the media or anybody else--at face value. But in a culture shaped by
Oliver Stone movies and "X-Files" episodes, it is apparently getting
harder for simple, hard facts to hold their own against elaborate,
shadowy theorizing."

Did you catch it? The reference to Oliver Stone can mean only
one thing: Jim's "fact checkers" contacted the CIA, and they told him
straight up that some bullets really can do magic things.

So far, we have been generous to the people at Popular
Mechanics. We have assumed that they are simply well-intentioned
but misguided souls. However, it appears that there is a more sinister,
and dare we say it, "conspiratorial" side to Popular Mechanics'
"innocent" debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories. You see, it
turns out that one of the main contributors to the article is one
Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of the new Dept. of Homeland Security Chief
Michael Chertoff.

American Free Press' Christopher Bollyn, who dug up
the information, also claims that Ben Chertoff's mother was a Mossad agent. While there
is, as of yet, no evidence of any working relationship between the two,
it is certainly noteworthy that the cousin of the current Homeland
Security Chief, (who, in his previous incarnation as head of the
Justice Department's criminal division was instrumental in the release
of obvious Israeli spies before and after 9/11), happens to be behind a
high-profile attempt to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories.

So if you happen to stop by the sorry article in question,
don't be fooled or intimidated by the word "science" in big bold
letters on the Popular Mechanics page. In Europe, McDonald's
drink cups have the words "I'm loving it" emblazoned across them in
various languages, regardless of what you put in them. Credit by
association or juxtaposition is one of the oldest tricks in the book of
mass mind programming. Just because "they" say it, doesn't make it so.
This simple, logical statement is a salient lesson for us all in these
heady days where disinformation masquerades as truth and even
"innocent" fun-loving "boys with toys" have become obedient workers in
the lie factory.

According to another 9/11
researcher:

"The editors of Scientific American followed in
the footsteps of Popular Mechanics in exploiting a trusted
brand in order to protect the perpetrators of the mass murder of
9/11/01. The column by Michael Shermer in the June, 2005 issue
of Scientific American, titled Fahrenheit 2777, is an
attempt to deceive the magazine's readers into dismissing the
overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without ever looking
at that evidence. More specifically, Shermer attempts to inoculate
readers against looking at the decidedly scientific refutation of the
official story… […]

Shermer's column exhibits many of the same propaganda
techniques as the ambitious feature article in the March issue of Popular
Mechanics by Benjamin Chertoff, for which Shermer professes
admiration:

'The single best debunking of this conspiratorial
codswallop is in the March issue of Popular Mechanics, which
provides an exhaustive point-by-point analysis of the most prevalent
claims.'

Comparing the two attack pieces is instructive. Both
pieces mention a similar range of issues, with Shermer adding
Jewish conspiracy rumors and UFOlogists to the mix...

This last is undoubtedly a direct
reference to Signs of The Times, while avoiding giving a direct
link to our website out of fear that the reader might be influenced.

Shermer uses an array of deceptive methods to persuade the
reader that challenges to the official story of the 9/11 attack are
worthy only of ridicule and should not be scrutinized. His primary
technique is to use hoaxes and unscientific ideas to "bracket" the
valid ideas that he seeks to shield the reader from.

That Shermer went to such great lengths to thoroughly
misrepresent the painstaking, scientific, evidence-based work of many
researchers is a testament to the success of the Pentagon Strike Video!
It really stepped on a sore toe. And that tells us something important,
the same thing Carol Morello of the Washington Post wrote:

"…the questions and theories expressed in the video got
a spurt of attention in early 2002, after the publication of a best
selling book in France, then the furor died down for a while, and now
they have re-emerged with the extraordinarily wide dissemination of
this video on the Internet."

We notice that
never, in any of the two major "debunking" articles that followed fast
on the heels of the Pentagon Strike video, was the video ever even
mentioned by name, nor was our
website mentioned. Other books, other researchers, other web sites
were mentioned, but the deliberate avoidance of Signs
of The Times - the origin of the Pentagon Strike, was conspicuous.
We notice the same trend in the Above Top Secret forum.

Again we point out: debunkers are sent in only when damage
control is needed. And damage control is only needed when it is thought
that there might be damage. That means that the Pentagon Strike is
understood clearly, in the minds of the perpetrators, to be the weak
link in their chain of lies.

Debunkers are sent in not to give answers to the outstanding
questions, but to push the emotional buttons of the public, to reassure
people who really want "a reason to believe" that their government is
not lying to them.

It should be clear by now that I am suggesting that there is
much more to the 9/11 attacks than most people are aware and what
really happened is very, very different from the official story.

Now we get to the interesting part.

If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon what did, and how?

Two emails received by Signs
of the Times about one year ago, (identities concealed to protect
the correspondents) are quite informative:

Email #1

Greetings, I
have stayed out of this arena for a reason, but can no longer. I am a
Maintenence Mechanic here in the assembly plant in [XXX] where we build
these great aircraft. 747's-757's and 767's.

Lets do some
math for a minute, because those who believe a 757 hit the pentagon,
must also believe in the tooth fairy.

The melting temp
for brake shoes on a 757 is about 3000 degs., the landing gear struts
are solid cast aluminum; the center shafts for the engines are solid
titanium. The flame temp for low grade kerosene, (jet fuel) is around
800 degs.

If the 757 was
full of fuel, thats 14 pounds of aircraft per one gallon of fuel. Its
impossible to "completely incinerate" a 757 at that fuel-to-material
ratio. It would be the first time in history it did, and would defy the
laws of physics, period.

No 757 hit the
pentagon. Where's the engines, landing gears, APU's, stringers, fuel
cell walls, wing join assemblies? These are impervious to fire,
and, all have survived the worst fires ever seen on aircraft, and I've
seen them all.

Oh by the way,
if the 757 was "completely incinerated" as the gov't would have the
lemming masses believe, how did they come up with DNA from the ashes
for every passenger on board. DNA from ASHES!!!?? What a crock of shit.
Once you do the math, you'll quickly know that no 757 hit that
building, those who say one did, are liars, or have been told to be
liars lest they end up like Vince Foster and a few hundred others like
him.

Email #2

[...] I am
probably one of the most qualified people that you will meet to judge
some of the info about the Pentagon attack. I have served in the U.S.
Army for a number of years now, I have not only dealt with weapons of
every type you can imagine, I have also had a great deal of experience
with aircraft, not to mention my brother is an analyst for the military
who deals with a great many things.

First of all I
can guarantee that no missile did this (damage to the
Pentagon), none of the patterns add up for such a thing to work, damage
ratio is wrong, flight path is wrong, style of impact is wrong. Also
think of the item it was hitting, a hardened building made of concrete
and steal, all reinforced. Also I can tell you no large aircraft
did this [...]

I'm starting to
think that maybe it was a TL AM type 2 block 4, better known as a
tomahawk type 2 bunker buster with booster and hardened warhead.

While most would
say this is absurd because a weapon like that would have completely
leveled the Pentagon and a good deal around it, I am however still
inclined to believe that this might possibly be what did it. This is my
thinking on the matter: the new TLAMs are programmable to pick
entry point and detonation point, the hardened warhead on them
allows them to penetrate the hardest of buildings and they hit going
much faster than the old type 1s that are commonly seen in war footage
and test footage.

I think that
somehow one of our new type 2s found itself set on a guided path to the
Pentagon with a side impact and center detonation programming,
but for some reason the warhead didn't go off. That would give it the
energy to do the damage and drive through the walls like it did, but by
never exploding, it would still leave most of the building perfectly
intact like what was seen at the pentagon. The only problem I can see
with this scenario is there would have been no fire had this happened,
unless something inside the building started burning.

Now they could
have just mounted a much weaker warhead on the thing for the sole
purpose of starting the fire. If this is what happened though, then
someone wanted it to happen like this, to mount a type 2 with a weak
warhead not to mention set it on a path with the parameters that would
be needed for this. For no one to use the "safety" and blow it up mid
flight, it would have to be pretty damn deliberate.

Also the type 2
matches closer to the size proportions of the object that was captured
on video. I'm still only going on speculation here as are most of the
people who know that they are being lied to.

To tell you the
truth, I don't even think that the fire was at the low burning temp of
800 degrees, a fire that hot would have gone farther to bursting the
windows and distorting the structure of the building. The more I look
into and use my knowledge of missiles, the more I'm starting to think
that maybe it was something we haven't seen before and to not take the
risk of disclosing to the public that a test project went wrong or that
someone did this with something new of ours. They made up the
entire pentagon part of 911, at the very least, and went through a
whole lot of trouble doing it.

From the
evidence presented, we can propose that, due to its suitability for the
task in hand, it was a global hawk-type craft complete with a payload
of one missile with a shaped charge hardened war head and secondary war
head that struck the Pentagon on September 11th 2001. The first shaped
charge war head opened the main hole in the Pentagon facade, the second
war head detonated inside doing the rest of the damage and creating the
'T bar' of the final inverted T shape in the facade. The global hawk
was swallowed by the hole and the war head explosion. The hardened war
head continued on through the other 5 walls coming to rest in Ring C,
leaving that neat 8ft wide hole. The war head was then confiscated,
much like the various tapes that were witness to the event.

For its part, Flight 77 landed, probably at a military
airfield in Ohio around the same time that the Global Hawk and missile
struck the Pentagon. All passengers and crew on board Flight 77 were
dead by that time, except for one, two or three people. The bodies were
"disposed of", and some of the remains were used for identification by
the state pathologist.

Shocked? Outraged? You have every right to be, but not at us,
or anyone else that points out the logical explanation of the problem.
There exists overwhelming evidence to show that, as a general rule,
corrupt people in positions of great power do not flinch at murdering
their own citizens if it serves their purposes to do so. In some cases,
they will murder their citizens - and others - because it gives them
pleasure. Such people also, historically, are advocates and
practitioners of torture. If you disagree then you disagree with
historical fact. Welcome to the real world.

As Laura Knight-Jadczyk notes
in her book 9/11:The Ultimate Secret, the attack on the
Pentagon is the Achilles Heel of the entire 9/11 coverup, and for one
very good reason: while we all saw repeated footage of Flight 11 and
Flight 175 crash into the WTC towers, and we all saw the wreckage of
Flight 93 and have hundreds of eyewitness testimonies that a commercial
airliner did indeed crash in Pennsylvania, there is no
reliable evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on September 11th
2001. No one has seen any footage that shows Flight 77
hitting the Pentagon, and the tapes that actually exist that could
easily and immediately prove what did hit that day, have been
confiscated by the FBI and the U.S. government studiously refuses to
release them.

The US government claims that
a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon on 9/11, many people dispute this,
yet the same American government refuses to release video tapes that
would put the matter to rest and show once and for all what hit the
Pentagon. Use your head and ask yourself, "why?"

There is one very obvious
answer.

I realise that this theory presents more questions than
answers. But since the complete answers to what really happened on 9/11
(and much more) are contained in the book "9/11: The Ultimate Truth", it would be remiss of
me to present them here. Suffice to say that Truth is much
stranger than fiction.

Above Top Secret Forum 'Outed' !!

Scanning back to re-read the article posted at Laura Knight Jadczyk blog I found that it had been up-dated with some really HOT new info regarding the deceit (which really appears to be Purposeful for the reason of dis-informing and mis-leading all of us) at the Above Top Secret 'discussion' board and website.

This is SO HOT that I can not even think of anything to say about it personally!

It seems that the only thing I can do is to re-post it here...
So... Here goes:


07 January 2006
COINTELPRO Updates: Above Top Secret Forum

Things have been pretty interesting around here in the past week. Seems that Joe Quinn's critique of the Above Top Secret forum posting about the 757 that did NOT hit the Pentagon has hit a nerve.

The first indication that we had that something was up was the fact that the Signs of The Times site statistics had a bit of a surge.

Now we keep a pretty good eye on our site statistics because we like to know what subjects really interest our readers. So when there is a surge, we know we are doing our job. This is most particularly true with the publication of the Pentagon Strike video: obviously, so many people "resonated" to the facts presented in this video that the current number of viewers is approacing 600 million.

Yes, that's right: 600 MILLION. It will soon be one of the most widely disseminated items ever to be published on the internet.

For the "Powers That Be," that's a problem.

Enter: Above Top Secret Forum.

Well, actually, we hadn't really paid too much attention to the ATS forum until it became almost a daily event for someone to send us, or post to our modest discussion forum, the link to this ATS post by "CatHerder." Gee, even the name of the poster gives a COIINTELPRO impression; imagine someone trying to herd cats?! That's probably how the PTB view people - a bunch of disorderly cats that need to be herded in a particular direction.

Anyway, after the first time or two that the link was posted to our forum, then people began to try to post the entire article. Well, the fact is, we are in the news publishing business because we intend it as a teaching tool, and we try to check material for validity and to weed out as many lies as possible so our readers don't have to waste a lot of their valuable time reading garbage. Unlike sites such as Rense.com and others, we DO try to publish responsibly. If we utilize mainstream articles that we suspect are "agenda slanted," we try to add comments pointing out the obvious, or at least publish such an article juxtaposed against another that makes clear the agenda. We also use flashbacks to remind readers that a current article may be sayig something exactly the opposite of what was said a few weeks, months, or even years ago. In short, our idea is to help readers learn to think, to spot the deceptions, and to develop or refine their own internal BS meters. So, as a result of our approach, we DO keep a close eye on our statistics so that we know what items interest the greatest number of people which then prompts us to do more research on those items so as to bring to our readers more material that will satisfy that desire for information.

The result of this statistical analysis is the fact that we KNOW that hundreds of millions of people do NOT believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon. They would not be avidly sharing the Pentagon Strike video with their family, friends, acquaintances, to the extent that they have done so if they were not trying to use it as a way of communicating something that is difficult to put into words, not to mention dangerous considering the Fascist takeover of America by Bush and the Neocons.

Getting back to Above Top Secret Forum: as I said, we hadn't really paid a lot of attention to them at all up to this point in time when a cadre of what we think of as COINTELPRO "floaters" hadn't been repeatedly trying to force us to publish the ATS CatHerder piece on our own website. Based on our assessment of the piece, it would have been the same thing as publishing - and giving credibility to - disinformation. We simply weren't going to do it - without commentary as we do when we publish any piece that we consider to be "agenda directed."

In the end, that was exactly what we did: we published it with commentary.

I rather think that if we had published it as a regular news piece on the Signs of The Times daily pages with NO comment, what happened next would not have happened.

But first, let me mention that we did get a lot of positive feedback on the article from readers, including several entries to our discussion forum, one of which really made us laugh:

I want a bumper sticker and a t-shirt that reads....
Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757

We just may see what we can do about that! I expect that such an item would sell in the millions based on the popularity of the Pentagon Strike video dissemination stats!

Now, off to the side, I was, at that moment in time, involved in a discussion with a couple of well-known Anti-war activists about my previous blog post: How to Spot COINTELPRO Agents I had written on Jan 3rd:

I have been thinking about a lot of things over the past few days and decided to make an experimental post to my blog. It was an interesting exercise because re-reading and re-thinking always leads to new understanding.

One of the things that stood out for me in the section about Rick Ross and his "cult awareness network" was this from the Cletus Nelson piece I included (published on The Lew Rockwell site):

**********

"Evidence suggests that these unsubstantiated claims which continue to shade
our perception of the events at Mt. Carmel can be attributed to a small cadre of para-political "watchdog" groups.

.....

... in the lucrative realm of public policy activism lurk a number of pro-
government advocacy groups whose very existence rests upon the notion that
cult activities, political extremism or some other unnamed evil constitutes a dangerous threat to state power.

In order to identify the alleged thought criminals in our midst, operatives
aligned with these private surveillance networks infiltrate unconventional
spiritual or religious movements, maintain files on American citizens, and
work closely with both media and law enforcement to target individuals and
organizations whose beliefs run counter to establishmentarian beliefs.

In essence, these ersatz defenders of human rights act as de facto spokesmen
for our emergent surveillance society. It’s COINTELPRO redux, only this time
with help from a network of dubious, yet-well compensated agents.

***********

Even though I already *knew* that it was so at some level, I hadn't really given much conscious thought to the fact that so-called "watchdog groups" that rant "cult, cult, cult" [or a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon] are evidently aligned with the National Security State as this article suggests.

In short, any group or individual who goes around with the kinds of rants that Weidner, Bridges (and his buddy Storm Bear Williams and gang)do, are clearly "operatives" that work closely with media and law enforcement to target individuals and organizations whose beliefs run counter to the state sanctioned Mind Control System.

We have to learn how to sort the true from the false.

Nobody was greener than I was back in summer 2001 when it all began... and if it hadn't been for the C's, I would already be toast. But I learned a lot while skirting the edges of disaster and one of the things that has stood me in good stead is a little hint from Gurdjieff:

"A decent man will behave decently even if he thinks that he has been treated unjustly or wrongly. But many people in such circumstances show a side of their nature which otherwise they would never show. And at times it is a necessary means for exposing a man's nature. So long as you are good to a man he is good to you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little?"

When dealing with COINTELPRO, you don't even have to treat someone unjustly or wrongly, generally just disagreeing with them will do. Or doing something they don't want you to do. Just small "scratches" usually sort people out.

The very next thing that happened was that we received an email from Above Top Secret as follows:

Mark - mark@abovetopsecret.com From : USA wrote :

I am disgusted by your accusation that AboveTopSecret.com, LLP is a "Government funded damage control outlet" I ask that you retract that lie.

My partners and I have spent the last several years building that site and have NEVER received a nickel from ANY government, never been asked to do ANYTHING for or by ANY government and NEVER WILL.

The fact we attract logical members who present THIER analysis and ask that other members treat them with COURTEOUSNESS and keep the discussion at an ADULT level sans flames and rediculous off topic commentary does NOT make us anything more or less than what we are. The number ONE destination on the internet to FREELY Deny Ignorance.

It is truly SAD that when a site allows ALL sides of an issue to be heard people like YOU who believe hook line and sinker there is a conspiracy where there may or may not be one, feel the need to falsely accuse us of being crooked. It makes me SICK and SAD for you.

You obviously haven't read the THOUSANDS of posts that actually SUPPORT your perspective on our site, no that would be too much work wouldn't it?

Much easier to cast a negative light upon our site in the hopes of getting yourself some attention isn't it?

Thoroughly disappointed in and DISGUSTED with YOU.

Springer...

Partner,

AboveTopSecret.com, LLP

Note: the IP that was logged from this post tracks back to Geary,Oklahoma.

I forwarded the email to the group of Anti-war activists I was discussing COINTELPRO with along with the following comments:

...here is a perfect example of the principle I mentioned last night: how
a person behaves when you "scratch" him a little.

"A decent man will behave decently even if he thinks that he has been
treated unjustly or wrongly. But many people in such circumstances show a
side of their nature which otherwise they would never show. And at times it
is a necessary means for exposing a man's nature. So long as you are good to
a man he is good to you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a
little?"

Yes, we have read the posts that supported the conspiracy view of 9/11 on
their site, but we also read their own posts where they worked very hard to
make those who supported the insider complicity argument feel stupid.

This [email from AboveTopSecret reveals the same kind of outrage that comes from people like Vinnie and Jay and the gang... they are "outraged" and "sick and sad" for us and so on and so forth. Smoke and mirrors.

And of course, we are "invited" to feel guilty by accusing us of us "casting
a negative light" in order to "get attention."

What he is most exercised about seems to be the suggestion that Above Top Secret is a
"government funded damage control outlet." Methinks he protests too much.

Now, what would have happened if he had written to me and said: "Hey, I read
your piece and even though we disagree on the subject, I would like to
object to being labeled a disinfo source. I set up the site for the same
reasons you have your site: to find the truth. I just don't see any
evidence of what you are saying... " etc etc...

But, since he is not there to argue the evidence, but rather to promote the
lies, he can't do that. And people like that only know one way to function:
to seek to destroy the other views by ridicule, shaming, playing guilt
cards, aggressive insults, etc. Even if they try to mask their behavior by
platitudes about being adult and courteous, they belie it by their own
words. In other words, they know the words, but not the music. They are
blind to their own lack of courtesy to the truth.

Or, they are disinfo...

My money is on the latter.

Ark responded to Mark/Springer of AboveTopSecret as follows:

To: mark@abovetopsecret.com

Date sent: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:10:18 +0100

Subject: Re: Your false accusation

On 4 Jan 2006 at 0:08, mark@abovetopsecret.com wrote:

> You obviously haven't read the THOUSANDS of posts that actually SUPPORT your

> perspective on our site, no that would be too much work wouldn't it?

>

> Much easier to cast a negative light upon our site in the hopes of getting

> yourself some attention isn't it?

>

> Thoroughly disappointed in and DISGUSTED with YOU.

Well, if you are welcoming posts supporting our perspective, than you should be
also happy (rather than disapointed and disgusted) that there is another view
supporting our perspective - namely OUR view.

Regards,

ark

##################################################

Dr Arkadiusz Jadczyk

http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/homepage.htm

The next day, an email came from another AboveTopSecret "partner" - to Ark's private email address rather than the site address. Obviously, he got this from Mark/Springer, above.

To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk

Subject: Your 9/11 article on your website...

Send reply to:

From: "SkepticOverlord"

Date sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:56:16 -0600

Greetings...

It has come to our attention that your article here:

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm Is in violation of our clearly stated Creative Commons Deed, linked here:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414 You have developed a derivative work (your content, integrated with our content) for commercial purposes (to promote the sale of a book.)

This is in clear violation of our stated license. The concept of "fair use" does not apply in this case since your current utilization of our material is in clear violation of our stated use rights.

However, in the interest of balanced debate on this subject, we do not necessarily desire the material to be removed from your site. We would be happy to see it to remain if you would kindly make the following changes: 1) Comply with the "BY:" attribute of our Creative Commons Deed (proper link and attribution). 2) Alter the HTML file name so that it does not contain our site name. 3) Alter the images directory so that it does not contain our site name. 4) Remove the text link at the
bottom that promotes the sale of a book in context with your article (the banner link at the left for the same book can certainly remain since it is not in context with the text of your article).

Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation.

Bill,

aka "SkepticOverlord"

Community and Technology Director

Partner in AboveTopSecret.com, LLP

Note: Skeptic Overlord's email came from Tulsa, Oklahoma. Nothing unusual about that.

Since there was already clear identification of the author and source of the article in the first paragraph of our article, including an ACTIVE LINK to same, it seemed to us that the primary issue that AboveTopSecret had with us was the naming of the file and images folder on our website. Anyone familiar with our website knows that there are thousands of files, most of which are named after the subject matter they contain, which is the easiest way for us (or anyone) to keep track of them. If we want to find a file and make a correction, addition, or whatever, that's how we find it in the list.

Now why, we asked ourselves, would AboveTopSecret be concerned about the name of the file and the name of the images folder on our website?

There was only one obvious answer: they were concerned about search engines, that a search engine would display a link to our damning analysis of their Pro-government agenda among the returns given to anyone searching for "Above Top Secret." In short, they wanted to "own" the phrase and to monopolize the views of readers.

Not a very good example of their claimed desire to present "all sides of a question," now is it?

So, Ark replied:

To: skepticoverlord@abovetopsecret.com

Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article

Date sent: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:14:36 +0100

On 5 Jan 2006 at 14:16, skepticoverlord@abovetopsecret.com wrote:

> It has come to our attention that your article here:

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

>

> Is in violation of our clearly stated Creative Commons Deed, linked here:

>

> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414

>

Hi,

Sorry to say, but what you say does not make any sense whatsoever.

Can you explain? Do you mean that it is your policy to be a governement
agency? Or what?

Regards,

ark

Skeptic Overlord was fast on the draw. He responded:

From: "SkepticOverlord"

Copies to: simon.gray@abovetopsecret.com

Date sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 11:54:17 -0600

For now I'll ignore the insult and try to remain cordial.

From our vantage point, the manner in which you presented the content of your article here:

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

Appears to be designed to capitalize on our content both for commercial purposes (the selling of a book) and user confusion (file and directory names "above_top_secret").

For now, we're hoping to assume that non-compliance with our Creative Commons License (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414 ) is accidental. And that no malicious intent is behind using our unique site name in the naming conventions of your content.

(More information on creative commons here: http://creativecommons.org/ )

The non-compliance is related to two issues:

1) Your author, Joe Quinn, and has developed a derivative work based on our material. This is not allowed under the terms of the linked CC deed. 2) Our content is used in conjunction with solicitation for the sale of a book titled, "9/11: The Ultimate Truth". This is also a violation of the terms in our linked CC deed.

The CC deed link is provided at the bottom of every piece of content on our site, and clearly provides information on how our material can be reused.

In addition, including our site name as a part of the naming system for the HTML file and subdirectories is indicative of potential malicious intent to confuse web surfers and search engines. We hope this is accidental.

We believe our request for changes to be in the spirit of collaborative debate on these important issues. Rather than insist our content be removed (which is within our rights under the clearly stated usage guidelines), we're asking for the following: 1) Comply with the "BY:" attribute of our Creative Commons Deed (proper link and attribution). 2) Alter the HTML file name so that it does not contain our site name. 3) Alter the images directory so that it does not contain our site name. 4)Remove the text link at the bottom that promotes the sale of a book in context with your article (the banner link at the left for the same book can certainly remain since it is not in context with the text of your article).

Thank you.

"SkepticOverlord"

Community and Technology Director

Partner in AboveTopSecret.com, LLP

So, we were right: there is was, explicitly stated: "including our site name as a part of the naming system for the HTML file and subdirectories is indicative of potential malicious intent to confuse web surfers and search engines. We hope this is accidental."

They apparently do NOT wish for any alternative view of what they are promoting to be available. Control of search engine results is what they are after. That suggests some serious COINTELPRO thinking has gone into the website AboveTopSecret, especially in terms of vectoring websearches and seekers of information. Ark was curious about these two approaches, the "good cop, bad cop" routine. So, he wrote back to "Skeptic Overlord," (geez, that "handle" is sure suggestive too!)

Notice also that a CC of the above email has been sent to a "Simon Gray." Hmmmm.... Who is Simon Gray? We'll get to that soon enough...

From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk

To:

Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article

BCC to: sott@signs-of-the-times.org

Date sent: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:20:21 +0100

> For now I'll ignore the insult and try to remain cordial.

Hi,

Does that mean that you do not agree with the Mark (mark@abovetopsecret.com ) who
wrote to us:

"Much easier to cast a negative light upon our site in the hopes of getting yourself some attention isn't it?

Thoroughly disappointed in and DISGUSTED with YOU."

I undestand from his letter that he (or you?) was not happy with our criticism, but
he did not provide any argument why our tentative conclusion was incorrect.

Now you seem to provide arguments that our tentative conclusion was correct, right?

So, if I am correct, in a sense you are arguing with mark@abovetopsecret.com.

Can't you guys solve these problems within your institution?

Regards,

ark

Skeptic Overlord replied:

From: "SkepticOverlord"

Copies to: simon.gray@abovetopsecret.com

Date sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:41:10 -0600

I'm not aware of what Mark had sent you. However, is has no bearing on the reality that your article violates our published usage rights.

In my position as Community Director, I have no desire to debate which point of view is more valid or not, only to resolve the issues I've outlined in both of my emails.

Pleased indicate your intent specific to the concerns I've communicated.

Thank you.

Ark forwarded the comments of Mark/Springer to Skeptic Overlord who then responded:

From: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk"

To: "SkepticOverlord"

Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 06:01 PM

Subject: Your 9/11 Article

> I'm not aware of what Mark had sent you.

OK,


Here it is:


[Mark/Springer's email snipped]


And here is what I wrote back to him:

"Well, if you are welcoming posts supporting our perspective, than you should be
also happy (rather than disapointed and disgusted) that there is another view
supporting our perspective - namely OUR view."

I still keep the same attitude. Only through an open discussion and analyzing
all the available data there is any hope of ever getting to the truth.

Kind regards,

ark

One thing that was becoming abundantly clear was that AboveTopSecret.com was NOT the least bit interested in really searching for the truth of anything. So far, their only issues were commercial and suppressing competition of information. We next received an email from another stranger who wrote:

Date sent: 5 Jan 2006 18:23:38 -0000

To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk

From: computerbball23@yahoo.com

Subject: ATS catherder article rebuttal

Amar - computerbball23@yahoo.com From : USA : California wrote :

I was wondering if you would please comply with ATS's terms of service and creative commons license so that we can discuss your debunking article of Catherder's Pentagon plane crash article. I am not a government agent and neither is Skeptic's Overlord of AboveTopSecret. I am just a normal human being that is wanting a fair argument on what really happened at the pentagon and using your article to discuss the controversy at ATS will help a lot, but we can only use your website if you comply
with ATS's rules.

thank you,

Amar

Well, since we had, as far as we knew, from the beginning, complied with the legal requirements of Fair Use for criticism and analysis,(including source and link), it seemed that the AboveTopSecret forum Overlords were putting pressure on members of their own forum to put pressure on us so they could discuss our analysis of CatHerder's disinfo piece in the forum that claimed to be willing to discuss all sides of an issue! Ark decided to see if he find out what was really going on:

To: skepticoverlord

Date sent: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:26:10 +0100

Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article

On 5 Jan 2006 at 13:05, SkepticOverlord wrote:

> As requested, please focus on the issues I've itemed in my emails.

>

> Thanks.

Hi,

Just a while ago I got the following:

[Amar's message, quoted above, snipped]

Can you tell me who is "Amar"? Or is it you in disguise? The IP suggest the
second conjecture...

ark

At the same time, we decided, in the spirit of cooperation, to see if we could come to an agreement. Ark wrote the following:

From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk

To: skepticoverlord@abovetopsecret.com,
mark@abovetopsecret.com,

computerbball23@yahoo.com

Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article

Date sent: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 21:13:44 +0100

Hi,

here is the more technical part:

On 5 Jan 2006, at 11:54, SkepticOverlord wrote:
>
> >From our vantage point, the manner in which you presented the content of
> >your article here:
> http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm
> Appears to be designed to capitalize on our content both for commercial
> purposes (the selling of a book) and user confusion (file and directory names
> "above_top_secret").

The intent of the article is self-evident: education and, to some extent,
parody.

>
> For now, we're hoping to assume that non-compliance with our Creative Commons
> License ( http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414 )
> is accidental. And that no malicious intent is behind using our unique site
> name in the naming conventions of your content.

"Above Top Secret" is a common phrase, long in use.

>
> (More information on creative commons here: http://creativecommons.org/ )
>
> The non-compliance is related to two issues:
> 1) Your author, Joe Quinn, and has developed a derivative work based on our
> material. This is not allowed under the terms of the linked CC deed.

Joe Quinn's work is not "derivative." It is transformative commentary and
parody. In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized Transformative in
Character as being a primary indicator of fair use.

* Has the material been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?

* Was value added to the original by creating new information, new
aesthetics, new insights and understandings?

In a parody, for example, the parodist transforms the original by holding it
up to ridicule. Purposes such as scholarship, research or education may also
qualify as transformative.

All of these apply in this instance.

2) Our
> content is used in conjunction with solicitation for the sale of a book
> titled, "9/11: The Ultimate Truth". This is also a violation of the terms in
> our linked CC deed.

It is not a violation of copyright law.

>
> The CC deed link is provided at the bottom of every piece of content on our
> site, and clearly provides information on how our material can be reused.

Thanks. We'll stick with standard copyright law.

>
> In addition, including our site name as a part of the naming system for the
> HTML file and subdirectories is indicative of potential malicious intent to
> confuse web surfers and search engines. We hope this is accidental.

From our point of view, it is the simplest way to identify the file in the
many thousands of files on our website(s).

>
> We believe our request for changes to be in the spirit of collaborative
> debate on these important issues. Rather than insist our content be removed
> (which is within our rights under the clearly stated usage guidelines), we're
> asking for the following:

1) Comply with the "BY:" attribute of our Creative
> Commons Deed (proper link and attribution).

As soon as the webmaster returns from Ireland, we'll have him make the
requested changes.

2) Alter the HTML file name so
> that it does not contain our site name.

Sorry, but that is not possible. As noted above, it is the easiest way to
identify the file among the many thousands of files on our website(s).

3) Alter the images directory so that
> it does not contain our site name.

Sorry, but that is not possible. As noted above, it is the easiest way to
identify the files among the many thousands of files on our website(s).

4) Remove the text link at the bottom that
> promotes the sale of a book in context with your article (the banner link at
> the left for the same book can certainly remain since it is not in context
> with the text of your article).

In the spirit of cooperation, we will agree to this request.

Regards,

ark

The only response was the following:

To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk

Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article

From: "SkepticOverlord"

Date sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 21:40:13 -0600

Please confirm if this is your correct mailing address:

Laura Jadczyk

Dluga 40 m3

Castenau Barbarens, 32450

FR

(Obtained from the public domain record)

Thank you.

Now, let's come back to the all-important question: Who is Simon Gray???

As it happens, a little investigation produces the following WhoIs information about AboveTopSecret.com:

Registrant:

Gray, Simon

1 Sackville Close

Swindon, Wiltshire SN3 3EJ

UK

Domain Name: ABOVETOPSECRET.COM

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:

Gray, Simon simon.gray@abovetopsecret.com

1 Sackville Close

Swindon, Wiltshire SN3 3EJ

UK

+44 1793 486619 fax: 999 999 9999

Record expires on 19-May-2013.

Record created on 18-May-1997.

Database last updated on 6-Jan-2006 08:22:18 EST.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS4.DNSMADEEASY.COM 216.88.44.132

NS3.DNSMADEEASY.COM 64.246.42.123

NS2.DNSMADEEASY.COM 66.80.146.131

NS1.DNSMADEEASY.COM 69.10.137.166

NS0.DNSMADEEASY.COM 66.80.146.130

What is MOST interesting is that the information on this WhoIs entry was updated on 6 January 2006. Wonder what triggered that? I also wondered what it said before January 6, 2006?

There happens to be an interesting post on a discussion forum named BELOWTopSecret.com (thread name: ABOVETOPSECRET.COM CIA)as follows:

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.

The discussion on that board is interesting because we notice "Springer" there and a general "ha ha that was a great joke" attitude about the above quoted "find." More interestingly, we discover the raw whois output for belowtopsecret.com:

Registrant:

Gray, Simon

1 Sackville Close

Swindon, Wiltshire SN3 3EJ

UK

Domain Name: BELOWTOPSECRET.COM

Administrative Contact:

Gray, Simon simon.gray@abovetopsecret.com

1 Sackville Close

Swindon, Wiltshire SN3 3EJ

UK

+44 1793 486619 fax: 999 999 9999

Technical Contact:

Network Solutions, LLC. customerservice@networksolutions.com

13200 Woodland Park Drive

Herndon, VA 20171-3025

US

1-888-642-9675 fax: 571-434-4620

Record expires on 21-Oct-2013.

Record created on 21-Oct-2003.

Database last updated on 7-Jan-2006 06:48:53 EST.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS3.DNSMADEEASY.COM 64.246.42.123

NS4.DNSMADEEASY.COM 216.88.44.132

NS2.DNSMADEEASY.COM 66.80.146.131

NS1.DNSMADEEASY.COM 69.10.137.166

NS0.DNSMADEEASY.COM 66.80.146.130

Again we notice that the WhoIs database was updated just today, January 7, 2006. Seems that the issue of whether or not AboveTopSecret may be COINTELPRO has provoked a flurry of "updating" activity.

Again we wonder: Who is Simon Gray?

On the AboveTopSecret website you will find the following:

ATS Weekly: Edition 001
July 19, 2005

A Word From Our Founder
This is a fantastic time for AboveTopSecret.com. Over the past few years we have seen tremendous growth in many ways, most notably in terms of the sheer amount of people who visit the ATS websites. These people have formed together into a collective virtual community, and together have expanded the wealth of information on our website to nearly a quarter of a million accessible pages, making us one of the most highly regarded websites of our genre.

Moderator's Musings
When thinking about what to write here, the first thing I thought about was how much I personally appreciate ATS. So this little article is a BIG thank you to everyone that makes ATS what it is. Thanks to Simon for creating ATS. Thanks to SkepticOverlord for the continued work to improve and protect the site. Thanks to the Staff who do a wonderful job keeping the quality of input here the best on the Net.

The Council Report
Hi! This is the first of a series of short columns the Council staff will be contributing in the coming months. Here we will seek to give you an overall view of what the Council is up to. I've volunteered to kick off the column with my thick prose, but other Council staff members will be presenting their comments in future columns.

What's New at ATS
ATS is happy to announced a long anticipated foray into the incredibly divisive and heady world of the Creationistm and Evolution controversy. Many threads relevant to creationism, evolution, and origins in general have been moved out of their original forums and transplanted into this new forum, where they have been actively revived, while new threads on new subjects are adding up at a great pace.

From the Front Office
Welcome to the first edition of the newly tooled and re-imagined ATS newsletter. Just twelve days ago one of your board adminstrators, William One Sac, thought it might be a good idea to resurrect Simon's old email newsletter. It ended up being such a good (and obvious) idea, several people worked diligently behind the scenes to make sure it happened in a way everyone could be proud of. And for members of the AboveTopSecret.com discussion board community, there's a great deal to be proud of.

Interestingly, a search on google for Simon Gray brings up the following result:

Who besides Simon Gray and the 'Bildebergers' can you source regarding US concentration camps stowing & drugging 2 million americans? & tell us Simon's credentials? TIA

Registrant:

Gray, Simon (ABOVETOPSECRET-DOM)

1 Sackville Close

Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Domain Name: abovetopsecret.com

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:

Gray, Simon (SG2699) simon@ABOVETOPSECRET.COM

1 Sackville Close

Swindon

Wilts

SN3 3EJ

UK

(01793) 486619

Record expires on 19-May-2001.

Record created on 18-May-1997.

Database last updated on 24-Aug-2002 12:09:13 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS.LIQUIDWEB.COM 64.91.224.2
NS1.LIQUIDWEB.COM 64.91.228.2

Did you notice that Sackville Close is partly in California and partly in UK? How interesting! Well, we are not going to criticize anyone for fudging on their home address. Considering the kinds of attacks that we have experienced in this "business," we don't hold it against anyone for wanting to protect themselves from lunatics.

Figuring out just who Simon Gray is has actually been turned into a promotional enterprise at AboveTopSecret.com. It looks like they are trying to create a legend.

WIN 10,000 POINTS! "Who is Simon Gray?"

William posted on 26-8-2003 at 09:50 PM

Now that we have a nice shiny new points system... let's have some fun!

Who is Simon Gray?

What does he do? What does he look like? What are his hobbies? What does he eat? Does he shave? Perhaps he fancies a certain kind of ladies under-arm deodorant?

These are the burning questions that have tormented the denizens of Above Top Secret for years-on-end.

Well, now is your chance to add the fiction that has become legend that will become myth. Help us paint the complex tapestry of the person known as, "Simon Gray" so that the legend may become larger than life... nay, larger than the planet... nay, larger than the solar system!

Post your best prose. Find your best photos. Describe your best "Simon Gray".

The winner, as judged by forum staff, will receive 10,000 bright shiny new points directly from the ATS mint. These points are good for any merchandise in the ATS store and may not be redeemed for ladies under-arm deodorant.

Well, AboveTopSecret.com begins to look like a dramatically STAGED "experiment." And I use the word "staged" deliberately. Have a look here:

Deja vu, all over again

2005 has been a year of the sequel, the remake and the revival - and no bad thing for all that

Mark Lawson

Friday December 30, 2005

The Guardian

Was 2005 the year when art ran out of ideas? December always encourages retrospection but looking back at the culture of the last 12 months constantly involves a double jump as every new idea seems to have an old one behind it.

[...]

Looking at these pictures of familiarity across television, film and theatre, it's possible to argue that imagination has come to a standstill and that, from now on, writing is rewriting and the job of director becomes truly deserving of the French word répétiteur.[...]

But a more optimistic view would be that good artists have a sense of the history of their medium and that these old stories are often retold with originality: Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, though a continuation of a franchise, saw the series through new eyes, while Spielberg's War of the Worlds was a conscious post-9/11 take on alien invasion rather than a case of a film-maker borrowing inspiration from the video-shop.

A similar generosity is possible towards the number of repeats in theatre this year. These were not lazy restagings but exuberant rediscoveries, including an improbable pair of Schiller hits (Don Carlos and Mary Stuart), little-known Ibsens (Pillars of the Community) and John Osbornes (Epitaph for George Dillon), and a neglected Simon Gray (Otherwise Engaged.) All of these productions imbued the word "revival" with an almost medical meaning.

Is the Simon Gray of AboveTopSecret.com the playwright, Simon Gray?

Encyclopedia Brittanica tells us:

Simon Gray
born Oct. 21, 1936, Hayling Island, Hampshire, Eng.

in full Simon James Holliday Gray British dramatist whose plays, often set in academia, are noted for their challenging storylines, witty, literary dialogue, and complex characterizations.

Gray alternately lived in Canada and England, attending Westminster School in London; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (B.A., 1957); and Trinity College, Cambridge (B.A., 1961). While working as a university lecturer in both countries, he wrote satiric novels and farcical plays for stage and television. His first stage play was Wise Child (1968), which features a criminal transvestite.

Gray's first international success was Butley (1971; filmed 1974), a play about a petulant university professor whose venomous wit masks an inner emptiness. Similarly, Otherwise Engaged (1975) concerns a sardonic publisher who strives to isolate himself but is prevented from doing so by a series of dramatic interruptions. Quartermaine's Terms (1981) is the sadly comic story of a gentle, ineffectual English teacher. Among Gray's other plays are Spoiled (1971), The Rear Column (1978), The Common Pursuit (1984), Hidden Laughter (1990), Cell Mates (1995), Fat Chance (1995), and Simply Disconnected (1996).

But actually, as I pursue the man, I come to the idea that the playwright, Simon Gray, is NOT the "Simon Gray" of AboveTopSecret - unless he is having a good laugh at everyone's expense:

Disgruntled drollery

Saturday March 5, 2005

The Guardian

The Smoking Diaries, by Simon Gray (Granta, £7.99)


It may be hopelessly vulgar to bring up the subject of a successful television programme when discussing this book, but when reading The Smoking Diaries there are times when it seems impossible not to think that Simon Gray is the Grumpy Old Man's Grumpy Old Man. Take, for instance, his impatient eye-rolling when he describes how a Frenchman who smacked his unruly son on the bottom in Edinburgh was jailed for a few days to teach him a lesson. "Some good may come of this," he writes; "it might teach the French to stop romanticising the Scots". Half-Scot himself, he wonders how to describe this inheritance in the most offensive manner, so disillusioned is he with them. And if disillusionment with one half of yourself is not enough, he is even impatient with synonyms: "if a synonym will do instead of the word you're using then you're probably not using the right word."

Of course, there is much more to The Smoking Diaries than grumbling. One expects a man who has, shall we say, lived fully (three bottles of champagne a day for how many years?) to be dissatisfied with the state of his hands, but there is more than one note here. In these apparently free-floating pensées-cum-memoirs (they are presented as having been written straight off - Gray loves the line "When this warm scribe my hand is in the grave" from "Hyperion", conjuring up as it does the very act of writing, the physical immediacy of it) we are also given, as well as a little snapshot of his state-of-the-nation address, any number of memories, from pederastic teachers, to childhood crimes of his own, to the closing down of his favourite restaurant.

Previous memoirs of his, such as Enter a Fox and Fat Chance, have been more theatrically minded; Gray is, after all, a playwright. Dramatists can sometimes be more fascinated with the details of their profession than non-dramatists - this is what makes Fat Chance, about Stephen Fry's disappearance from Gray's Cell Mates, more interesting to us than Enter a Fox, which has not so dramatic an incident at its core. But The Smoking Diaries is much more about what it is to be a 60-something human being than a 60-something dramatist.

There is something splendidly universal about this, and it is the core of its charm and success. One can entertain a healthy scepticism as to how off-the-cuff this stuff is, compared to how much it declares it is. In her review of the book for this paper, Jenny Diski said it was "fashioned to within an inch of its life. Not untrue, by no means untrue, but carefully formed to appear naturalistic." I am not quite so sure: it has all the fresh tang of immediate and expert recall, and there is no smell of the lamp about it.

Neither did I find this book as laugh-out-loud funny as many of the reviewers quoted on the back claim it is. To make people, well, me, laugh out loud you have to fashion jokes - which takes time. Yet it is by some way the most substantial of Gray's memoirs, with a continuous tone of disgruntled drollery that is hugely and consistently entertaining. If you were hearing him reading this out, or better still, coming out with it in real time round a dinner table, for instance, then you would, I'm fairly certain, be gasping from laughter long before the end.

Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter if it is artless or artful, as it is so full of life, even as Gray stares mortality, his own and his friends', in the eye. At times his sentences gain the dizzy momentum of Burton's in The Anatomy of Melancholy or of Beckett's more accessible prose, and if a reminiscence that starts at point A suddenly leaps to point Q without having rested anywhere near point B, then we are happy to be taken on the journey. Pace Richard Sheridan, the easy writing's not vile hard reading. It's a book to curl up with.

Then there are excerpts from a review of the play mentioned in the above quoted Guardian article:

Otherwise Engaged

By Simon Gray

Criterion Theatre

Review by Philip Fisher (2005)

In his notes in the programme, Simon Gray is at pains to deny that the protagonist in Otherwise Engaged, Simon Hench is autobiographical. Apparently, the choice of the name Simon was made because it was "the first name that came into my head". One imagines that Freudian psychologists might quite easily explain why this was the case.

One hopes that the denial really is correct as this self-centred - or, more accurately, self-obsessed - publisher is not the pleasantest of men and with 30 years perspective, the writer might reasonably be embarrassed if he really did behave like this.

There is at least one big difference between writer and subject in this production, as on opening night, Gray was to be seen just outside the theatre fervently puffing away on a beloved cigarette while Richard E Grant playing the other Simon was abstemious in this respect, if in no other.

Revivals of plays from this period are currently in vogue, especially those that look at middle-class sexual freedom amongst the intelligentsia. There is clearly a nostalgia for the 1970s which is perhaps fitting as the main players of the day are now approaching or just beyond retirement age.[...]

Director Simon Curtis is brave to take on this play in view of the fact that it was so successful when it launched in 1975 with Alan Bates playing Simon under the direction of Harold Pinter, who then took it to Broadway a couple of years later for a long run with Tom Courtenay taking over from Bates.[...]

Eventually, one realises that Simon Gray views people very much in black-and-white. His men are either happy-go-lucky philanderers, for whom success is a given, or struggling workhorses who can be used as the butt of jokes or a reminder that society has an underside. The women fare little better, being either brazen sex objects offering one night stands or sensitive but downtrodden victims.

Richard E Grant plays Simon as a cold fish who is absolutely indifferent to human kindness and has an air of permanent boredom as the world revolves around him. Humanity only begins to impinge on this man's outward impassivity towards the end of the play, following Beth's appearance.

Otherwise Engaged is beginning to show its age and some of the jokes miss completely before a 21st century audience. As a piece of social history, it may well prove successful and with well-known names in the leads and some very funny moments, could run for some time.

So much for Simon Gray, the playwright. He lives in London, as one source mentions, not Sackville Close. Problem is, NO Simon Gray lives in Sackville Close that I could discover.

So, just WHO is Simon Gray???

We find tracks of AboveTopSecret's Simon Gray rather early on the web:

Topic in alt.magick.sex

Simon Gray

Jul 6 1999, 8:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.magick.sex

From: "Simon Gray"

Date: 1999/07/06

Subject: GREAT WEBSITE

www.abovetopsecret.com !!!

Under "free.uk.info" we find another:

Newsgroups: free.uk.ufo

From: "Above Top Secret"

Date: 2000/03/22

Subject: www. Above Top Secret .com - The UK's ultimate website for US conspiracies

http://www.AboveTopSecret.com

This is the UK's ultimate conspiracy website for those interested in Area
51, secret government projects, aircraft programs including a very detailed
Aurora page, agencies, and even hacking information.

Multi-award winning information.

--
Simon Gray - Webmaster/Researcher of www.AboveTopSecret.com
E-Mail - s...@abovetopsecret.com

And so on. If you go to the above links, you can click "find messages by this author" and you will get 184 returns, among which are the following:

Movies
http://www.hotmoviez.com -- Simon Gray - Webmaster/Founder of http://www.AboveTopSecret.
com E-Mail - s...@abovetopsecret.com Get Paid For Nothing! ...
alt.2600.hackerz - Jul 13 2000, 8:10 pm by Above Top Secret - 6 messages - 6 authors

Cheat AllAdvantage
If you're interested in getting paid for NOTHING, then
check out http://paid4surf.abovetopsecret.com
alt.2600.hackerz - Jul 13 2000, 10:53 am by Above Top Secret - 3 messages - 3 authors

Make $100s surfing the net!!!
How would you like to earn $100sa month by surfing the internet? A brilliantly
simple form of income that requires no effort at all. ...
alt.best.of.internet - Apr 1 2000, 7:21 am by Above Top Secret - 1 message - 1 author

Earn $100s surfing the web!!!
How would you like to earn $100sa month by surfing the internet? A brilliantly
simple form of income that requires no effort at all. ...
alt.make.money - Apr 1 2000, 6:27 am by Above Top Secret - 2 messages - 2 authors

Make money surfing the net!!!
How would you like to earn $100sa month by surfing the internet? A brilliantly
simple form of income that requires no effort at all. ...
free.uk.ufo - Mar 31 2000, 9:01 pm by Above Top Secret - 1 message - 1 author

www. Above Top Secret .com - The UK's ultimate website for US ...
http://www.AboveTopSecret.com This is the UK's ultimate conspiracy website for those
interested in Area 51, secret government projects, aircraft programs ...
free.uk.ufo - Mar 23 2000, 3:27 am by Above Top Secret - 1 message - 1 author

www. Above Top Secret .com
Check out this website for information about Area 51, UFOs, secret facilities,
organisations, government projects, the New World Order, and more. ...
alt.paranet.ufo - Mar 21 2000, 3:43 pm by Above Top Secret - 1 message - 1 author

MYSTERIOUS CALIFORNIA TEST FACILITIES
McDonnell Douglas "Llano" Facility Lockheed "Hellendale" Facility Northrop
"Tejon Ranch" Facility www.abovetopsecret.com/southcal.html
alt.alien - Jul 26 1999, 5:07 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

MYSTERIOUS TEST LOCATIONS
McDonnell Douglas "Llano" Facility Lockheed "Hellendale" Facility Northrop
"Tejon Ranch" Facility www.abovetopsecret.com/southcal.html
alt.alien.wanderers - Jul 25 1999, 5:07 pm by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

29 PROTOTYPE STEALTH AIRCRAFT
BLACK PROJECTS , SECRET UNDERGROUND DULCE FACILITY , 29 PROTOTYPE STEALTH PLANES ,
ALIEN/GOVERNMENT COLLABORATION http://www.abovetopsecret.com/lecture.html
alt.alien.wanderers - Jul 22 1999, 3:56 pm by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

ET Exposure Law (page now updated)
www.abovetopsecret.com/etlaw.html !!!
alt.alien.visitors - Jul 9 1999, 5:29 am by Simon Gray - 2 messages - 2 authors

AURORA in detail !!!!!
The following website has been updated an incredible amount, including an Aurora
page with an amazing amount of detail !!! www.abovetopsecret.com !!!
alt.conspiracy.area51 - Jul 8 1999, 9:20 pm by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

GREAT WEBSITE
www.abovetopsecret.com !!!
alt.magick.sex - Jul 7 1999, 3:05 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

COOL WEBSITE
www.abovetopsecret.com , now hugely updated !!! -- Simon
Gray - Webmaster www.AboveTopSecret.com
alt.alien.visitors - Jul 7 1999, 2:07 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

AREA 51 and RELATED PAGES
go to www.abovetopsecret.com
alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters - Jun 21 1999, 2:18 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

COOL WEBSITE
www.abovetopsecret.com has some cool information which may be of interest !!!
alt.fans.chat2 - Jun 16 1999, 11:10 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

COOL WEBSITE
www.abovetopsecret.com is a very interesting site. Why not check it out!
alt.sport.air-guns - Jun 15 1999, 5:56 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

COOL WEBSITE
Great website at www.abovetopsecret.com ! ! !
alt.sport.table-tennis - Jun 15 1999, 1:13 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

COOL WEBSITE
www.abovetopsecret.com ! ! !
alt.sport.horse-racing - Jun 15 1999, 12:41 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

COOL WEBSITE
www.abovetopsecret.com !!!
alt.sport.darts - Jun 14 1999, 4:14 pm by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusion about whether or not AboveTopSecret was set up to make money, or to be a "vacuum cleaner" operation. Of course, the two objectives are not mutually exclusive! One thing is certain, this "Simon Gray" was way too busy and energetic to be the playwright. Whoever it was, it looks like he's out to make a million bux one way or the other.

I would also suggest that the reader go to the webarchive and go back over the history of AboveTopSecret.com and notice that it is quite obviously set up to draw in alternative researchers. Why? Obvious answer is to vector ideas. Re-read my post on COINTELPRO.

I'm still amused at the idea that Simon Gray of AboveTopSecret.com - obviously a Brit "specializing" in American conspiracies - being Simon Gray the dramatist. It seems that this is not exactly an isolated case. In recent times the Pentagon's contract with another Brit, for the purposes of spreading disinformation, came to the attention of the mainstream media. Let's look at the strange case of "Christian Bailey.":

So, just who is Christian Bailey?

A 30-year-old Oxford graduate with no public relations experience was the recipient of a $100m (£56m) contract from Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defence for buying space in Iraqi newspapers to place deliberately one-sided stories written by US "psy-ops" troops, at a time when the chaos of Iraq makes genuine journalism all but impossible and when journalists risk their lives on a daily basis to report the truth.

The office building situated at 1420 K Street NW has nothing obvious to commend it other than its prime location. Just a couple of streets from the north-west gates of the White House, it sits in the heart of lobbying land - the K Street corridor that represents one of the most crucial centres of power, influence and money in the United States.



This grey building, neighboured to one side by an off-licence and to the other by a travel agent, is home to the Lincoln Group, a previously little-known "business intelligence" company headed by a heretofore little known young Briton, Christian Bailey, an Oxford graduate and consummate net worker. He is at the centre of a mounting storm of controversy surrounding the Bush administration's covert propaganda war in Iraq.



It was recently revealed that Bailey's company was the recipient of a $100m (£56m) contract from Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defence for buying space in Iraqi newspapers to place deliberately one-sided stories written by US "psy-ops" troops, at a time when the chaos of Iraq makes genuine journalism all but impossible and when journalists risk their lives on a daily basis to report the truth.



As part of the project - in which the US military hid its involvement - Lincoln Group staff paid Iraqi journalists to write similarly misleading stories about US forces and the Iraqi government that ignored anything negative about the occupation. One headline read: "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism."



The revelations have created a furore. President Bush is said to be "very troubled" by the news, while on Capitol Hill members of both the Senate and House armed services committees demanded inquiries. The Pentagon said it would launch an immediate investigation.



Much is unclear about the Lincoln Group, its youthful executive vice-president and his string of previous companies that have left only the faintest paper trail. Indeed, Christian Bailey may not be his real name: a number of student associates said at some point during his four years that he changed his name from Yusefovich - an unlikely surname for someone called Christian.



The Independent has been unable to confirm this. Yet the details known about Bailey and the contract his company won provide a remarkable insight into the way influence and power operate in Washington. Just two years after arriving here, Bailey, 30, who has a penchant for socialising, has apparently developed contacts both within the Republican establishment and the world of private intelligence.



Senator John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said of the false news operation: "I remain gravely concerned about the situation." Since the controversy broke Bailey has kept a low-profile and has offered just the fewest public words about his organisation and what it does. (He failed to respond to requests for an interview.) It also appears a number of internet references linking him to the Republicans can no longer be found.



Yet it is clear the Lincoln Group and its contract with the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element, part of the Pentagon's Special Operations Command, is inextricably linked with Bailey. He apparently named the company and its various offshoots after Lincoln College, Oxford, from which he graduated in 1997 with an MA in economics and management. [abovetopsecret.com was registered in 1997]



Many observers have been surprised Bailey, from Surrey, has been awarded such a sizable contract, give that he appears to have no experience in public relations. Indeed, since he moved to the US in the late 1990s, he has spent much of his time in private finance, working in hedge funds in San Francisco and New York.



It appears he has been especially interested in new technology markets. A brief biography presented by the organisers of a conference held earlier this year in Dubai at which Bailey was listed as a speaker, said he had worked in Palo Alto, California, "where he advised portfolio companies and identified, evaluated and developed emerging technology investments".



The Briton has always enjoyed a reputation for business. Several Oxford associates said it was rumoured that the popular student kept two computers in his room to monitor the stock markets. Bailey has said he founded and sold two companies while an undergraduate. "He was quite enterprising, I believe," said Graham De'ath, of Winchester, who was in the same year.



Kate Smurthwaite, who is now a stand-up comic but shared a flat with Bailey in his third year, told The Independent that the young entrepreneur hired a personal assistant to work for him in his student digs as he ran an operation selling self-help advice on cassettes.



He also had a reputation as a hard-working networker. While in New York he became treasurer of the Oxonian Society, a club for graduates of Oxford and other universities, which invites high-profile figures to speak. He was involved in at least one charity fundraising effort with other hedge-funders. Perhaps of more significance, Bailey became the co-chairman of the New York chapter of Lead21, a networking group for young Republicans. At least a dozen of its members have gone on to work for either the Bush administration, Congress or the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.



During a Lead21 trip to the Republican National Convention in New York last autumn, Bailey said of his colleagues to one reporter: "These are going to be the big supporters, the big donors, to the Republican Party in five years."



According to other members, Bailey was very popular. Auren Hoffman, chair of Lead21 and chairman of the Stonebrick Group, a San Francisco-based consulting firm, said Bailey was a good friend. "Christian is a terrific guy personally. Everyone I know that has ever met him instantly likes him. He is very likeable and charming. Very intelligent. Very interesting."



When he moved to Washington, his reputation as a networker continued. He often hosted parties at home and mixed with a set of young, up-and-coming journalists and congressional staffers. He enjoyed a reputation as a good cook, a welcoming host and for making cappuccinos with a machine in his kitchen. He also enjoyed flying: Federal Aviation Administration records show that he is qualified to fly aeroplanes and helicopters.



How and when did Bailey make the switch from hedge funds to private intelligence and PR? One clue is provided by the Alternative Investment News newsletter of 1 March 2003, just weeks before the invasion of Iraq. It reported Bailey's hedge fund, Lincoln Asset Management Group, had launched a buyout fund to start buying companies in the defence and security industries. Bailey said he had obtained commitments of $100m from six institutional investors, whom he declined to name.



Apparently with an eye to the preparations for war being made in the deserts of northern Kuwait, he added: "[The] timing is extremely good to look at defence companies." Shortly afterwards, a subsidiary called Lincoln Alliance Corp was established, offering what it called "tailored intelligence services [for] government clients faced with critical intelligence challenges".



By last autumn Bailey had formed another Lincoln subsidiary, called Iraqex, which seems to have formed a partnership with another American PR firm called Rendon, famous in Washington for having promoted Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress.



At some point Bailey also went into business with Paige Craig, 31, a former US Marine who served in Iraq and elsewhere. [Bailey and Craig are flatmates in a fashionable part of Washington, close to U Street. The flat is just yards away from Café Saint- Ex, popular with young professionals.]



In September, Iraqex won a $6m Pentagon contract to design and execute "an aggressive advertising and PR campaign that will accurately inform the Iraqi people of the Coalition's goals and gain their support". It appears one project was an attempt to persuade the Iraqi and US public that Iraqi troops played a vital role in last year's effort to clear Fallujah.



A strategy document obtained by ABC News revealed the Lincoln Group was seeking to promote the "strength, integrity and reliability of Iraqi forces during the fight for Falujah". In reality, most assessments suggest the small number of Iraqi troops present were minimally involved.



But the real breakthrough came this summer when Bailey's company, having again changed its name to the Lincoln Group, secured a $100m contract for information and psychological operations. Part of the contract was for placing "faux" news stories in some of the 200 Iraqi-owned newspapers that now exist.



Pentagon officials have said that, while not factually incorrect, these stories only presented one side of the story and would not include anything negative about the occupation. It was reported this week that the $10Om was part of a larger $300m "stealth PR effort" in a number of countries around the world.



One PR consultant with experience of the private-intelligence sector, said: "Doctrinally, this is all part of what the military calls information superiority. It is part of the plan for what they call, rather upsettingly, full-spectrum dominance. The truth is that it is just propaganda. And there has always been propaganda in a war. And this is a war, so ... thus runs the thinking."



According to reports from former Lincoln employees, their main task was to take news dispatches, called storyboards, which had been written by specially trained psy-ops troops, have them translated into Arabic and then distribute them to the newspapers. They would also deal directly with members of the Iraqi media through something called the Baghdad Press Club, a group of journalists who were paid to write and publish positive stories. Typically, Lincoln paid newspapers between $40 and $2,000 to run the articles as either news or adverts.



To help it carry out its work, Bailey and Craig - the latter is apparently responsible for most of the Iraq-based end of the business - have reached out to some of the foremost specialists in security and intelligence. Among "advisers" listed on their website is Andrew Garfield, a former British military-intelligence officer and specialist in psychological warfare who has advised the Ministry of Defence. In an e-mail to The Guardian Garfield confirmed his collaboration with Lincoln but gave no details.



Another adviser is Colin Rees Mason, who two years ago received an OBE for his service as a lieutenant-colonel in the Territorial Army, and who for almost 20 years has been a consultant to the Centre for Operational Research and Defence Analysis, a subsidiary of BAE Systems.



The Lincoln Group also has Republican links. Among lobbyists registered to represent it are Charles Black, an adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr and Marlin "Buzz" Hefti, who served as a director at the Pentagon.



Lincoln Group also lists as a partner the Virginia-based private intelligence group WCV3 Security. Last year that company's executive vice-president took unpaid leave to produce Stolen Honour: Wounds That Never Heal, a film that, at a critical time in the presidential election campaign, condemned the Democrat John Kerry and questioned his version of events in Vietnam.



Despite the concern on Capitol Hill about the placing of false stories in foreign media outlets - a practice that dates back to the Cold War - it is unknown what will be the outcome of the Pentagon's investigation. It is also unclear how the controversy has affected the ability of the Lincoln Group or Bailey to fulfil its contract. In a statement the company said: "Lincoln Group has consistently worked with the Iraqi media to promote truthful reporting across Iraq. We counter the lies, intimidation, and pure evil of terror with factual stories that highlight the heroism and sacrifice of the Iraqi people and their struggle for freedom and security."

The London Times had more revelations about "Christian Bailey."

British geek made millions running the Pentagon's propaganda war in Iraq

IT WAS astounding enough for Washington’s political elite: last month they discovered that the man at the heart of a scandal over the planting of US propaganda in Iraqi newspapers was a dapper but unknown 30-year-old Oxford graduate who had somehow managed to land a $100 million Pentagon contract.

What is even more remarkable however, after an investigation by The Times, is that just ten years ago Christian Bailey, whose US company is under investigation for planting fake news stories in Iraqi newspapers, was a nerdy, socially awkward English school-leaver called Jozefowicz.

The transformation of the geeky but ambitious Christian Jozefowicz, who just a few years ago was growing up in a modest terraced house in Godalming, Surrey, to the charming, baby-faced multimillionaire Christian Bailey now rubbing shoulders with some of the most powerful figures in Washington — and who next year will probably face questions on Capitol Hill about his company — is one of the more extraordinary stories to have emerged from the Iraq war.

This month it was revealed that Mr Bailey’s US company, the Lincoln Group, was the recipient of a Pentagon contract to help to fight the information war in Iraq. It then emerged that the company was paying Iraqi journalists to plant optimistic news “stories” in Iraqi papers that had been written by the US military.

Interference with the press touches a raw nerve in America. The fake stories revelation provoked a furore among Republicans and Democrats. President Bush said he was “very troubled” by it. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, has promised a Pentagon investigation. Congress plans hearings into the scandal.

The journey from the Royal Grammar School, Guildford, which Mr Bailey left in 1994, to the heart of K Street in Washington, the centre of money and influence in the US capital, has been remarkably rapid. Today he has a reputation in Washington for being a socialite with links to influential Republicans. He is a helicopter and aircraft pilot and his home is in a fashionable area.

Through a Lincoln Group spokesman, Mr Bailey answered questions from The Times to help to explain how, at just 30, he landed the Pentagon as an important client. He was born Christian Martin Jozefowicz on November 28, 1975, in Kingston upon Thames, to Jerzy and Anne Jozefowicz.

His father, a Polish architect, died in April 1998. His mother, who has since reverted to her maiden name of Seifert, was born in West Germany. The family lived in East Molesey, southwest London, before moving to Godalming, Surrey.

Mr Bailey’s Royal Grammar School contemporaries recall a business-obsessed, “geeky” individual with few friends. “He was a nerd at school,” one told The Times. Another described him as a “school joke” who told everyone he was going to be a millionaire. He was the first at school to have a mobile phone and was interested in early versions of the personal computer.

He founded a Young Enterprise company, Chameleon, which led to his selection as one of the top six Young Enterprise participants in Britain.

His school yearbook records Christian Jozefowicz as “Mr Business himself” and that he was elected vice-president of the International Student Forum, a business gathering in the US. In 1994 he won a place at Lincoln College, Oxford, where he read economics and management. He kept computers in his room, thought for monitoring the stock markets.

In his third year at Oxford he hired an assistant to help him to run his first proper company, Linck Ltd, which sold self-help tapes. In 1998, he changed his name to Bailey. “Following his father’s death, Bailey assumed the name for family reasons, something which children commonly do,” a Lincoln Group spokesman said.

In the late 1990s he moved to San Francisco to try his hand as a dotcom entrepreneur, and then to New York, where he became treasurer of the Oxonion Society, a club for intellectual Anglophiles. He became co-chairman of a networking group for young Republicans. With his Republican contacts growing, Mr Bailey moved to Washington, where he spotted a golden business opportunity: the looming war in Iraq. He formed a partnership with Paige Craig, a former US Marine who served in Iraq.

In early 2003, just before the invasion, Mr Bailey formed a Lincoln subsidiary, the Lincoln Alliance Corp, offering “tailored intelligence services [for] government clients faced with intelligence challenges”. He also formed another subsidiary, Iraqex, which won a $6 million Pentagon contract to launch “an aggressive advertising and PR campaign that will accurately inform the Iraqi people of the coalition’s goals and gain their support”.

The big breakthrough came in June this year when the Pentagon awarded the Lincoln Group a contract worth up to $100 million over five years to support the US military’s “joint psychological operations”, known as “psyops”.

Lincoln group defended the planting of stories and the company has emphasised that none of them were factually incorrect. “By not speaking through the local media, the coalition would allow a vacuum for rumours and untruths perpetrated by the insurgents’ thuggery and threats,” a spokesman said.

LIFE AND WORK

November 28, 1975: Born Christian Jozefowicz, Kingston upon Thames

1987-94: Attends the fee-paying Royal Grammar School, Guildford

1993-94: Listed on electoral roll as Christian Jozefowicz-Seifert

1994-97: Obtains a 2:1 in economics and management from Lincoln College, Oxford. While at university, runs Linck Ltd.

October 1998: Founds Linck Corporate Finance under the name of Christian Bailey. Fails to declare previous surname or other directorship

1999: Moves to America

2003: Co-founds Lincoln Group, now subject to investigation into planting of US military propaganda in Iraqi newspapers

We consider it a possibility that someone is using the name of the playwright, Simon Gray, to "dramatize" disinformation via the AboveTopSecret.com website and that someone may be "very close" to "Christian Bailey." Looking at all the clues, comparing the dates, we notice that abovetopsecret.com domain was first registered in 1997, on May 18. The site was unused throughout 1997 and 1998. "Christian Bailey's" father died in April 1998. That gave him the freedom to change his name, to launch all kinds of activities that he otherwise might not have been able to do under the watchful gaze of his parent.

Bailey traveled to the U.S. "in the late 90's" and we notice that abovetopsecret.com finally gets an "entry page" in 1999. Later in the year, a very professional looking website suddenly appears sometime between February and October of 1999.

"Simon Gray" was off to a running start...

To finish of this little survey, let's look at one of "Christian Bailey's" co-horts in crime which will show that setting up AboveTopSecret.com as far back as 1997 is entirely in character with the "way things are done."

See: The Man Who Sold the War: John Rendon, Bush's general in the propaganda war

"Rendon is a man who fills a need that few people even know exists. Two months before al-Haideri took the lie-detector test, the Pentagon had secretly awarded him a $16 million contract to target Iraq and other adversaries with propaganda. One of the most powerful people in Washington, Rendon is a leader in the strategic field known as "perception management," manipulating information -- and, by extension, the news media -- to achieve the desired result. His firm, the Rendon Group, has made millions off government contracts since 1991, when it was hired by the CIA to help "create the conditions for the removal of Hussein from power." Working under this extraordinary transfer of secret authority, Rendon assembled a group of anti-Saddam militants, personally gave them their name -- the Iraqi National Congress -- and served as their media guru and "senior adviser" as they set out to engineer an uprising against Saddam. It was as if President John F. Kennedy had outsourced the Bay of Pigs operation to the advertising and public-relations firm of J. Walter Thompson."

I reckon I'll put my money on Christian Bailey and his gang being the "Simon Gray" behind "AboveTopSecret.com".