BUSH IS NOW COMPLETELY AND CERTIFIABLY OUT OF CONTROL. BUT TO REMOVE THE
LAST RESTRAINT ON THE CREATION OF A NEW AMERICAN DICTATORSHIP THEY MUST
INSTALL ONE MORE LOCK DOWN VOTE ON THE SUPREME COURT, IN THE PERSON OF SAM
ALITO.

DESPITE ALITO'S EXTREME RIGHT WING VOTING RECORD AND LIFELONG IDEOLOGICAL
AGENDA, NOBODY EXPECTS HIM TO SHOW UP AT HIS HEARING SPORTING A TAIL AND
HORNS WEARING A RED SUIT. INSTEAD HE WILL LIE AND EVADE LIKE SOME WAL-MART
SMILEY FACE, JUST AS HE DID WHEN IN HIS CONFIRMATION FOR THE COURT OF
APPEALS HE PROMISED TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM CASES INVOLVING HIS OWN
INVESTMENTS. THEN HE FOUGHT TO DO PRECISELY OTHERWISE. HE WILL MAKE
ABSOLUTELY ANY MISREPRESENTATION OF HIS VIEWS AND HIS AGENDA TO TRY TO SNEAK
PAST PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY YET AGAIN, WHILE HIS RECORD SHOUTS OTHERWISE. AND
ONLY YOUR VOICES SPEAKING OUT NOW CAN TURN THE TIDE AGAINST THIS JUDICIAL
COUP.

HTTP://WWW.USALONE.COM/ALITO.PHP

WE ARE PLANNING A TWO-STAGE ACTION. FIRST WITH THE ACTION PAGE ABOVE WE
WILL BUILD A CONSENSUS THAT ANY REPLACEMENT FOR SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR MUST BE
NO WORSE THAN A TRUE MODERATE AND CENTRIST. THEN AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF
THE HEARINGS WE WILL SPEAK OUT AGAIN ON SPECIFIC QUESTION OF THE FINAL VOTE
IN THE SENATE. PLEASE SUBMIT EVERY POSSIBLE ACTION PAGE YOU CAN GET YOUR
HANDS ON, AND KEEP SPEAKING OUT UNTIL WE PREVAIL, JUST AS WE DID ON ANWR AND
THE TORTURE PROHIBITION.

BUT REMEMBER THAT ALITO WAS THE AUTHOR OF THE TACTIC OF BUSH TRYING TO SPIN
ACTS OF CONGRESS WITH SO-CALLED "SIGNING STATEMENTS" IN HOPES THAT SOME
FUTURE SUPREME COURT (INCLUDING NOW GUESS WHO) WOULD GIVE THEM WEIGHT OVER
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. AND BUSH DID JUST THAT WITH THE ANTI-TORTURE BILL,
DECLARING THAT HE REALLY DIDN'T CONSIDER HIMSELF BOUND AT ALL. EVERY DAY
FROM NOW ON MUST BE STOP ALITO DAY, OTHERWISE OUR DEMOCRACY IS DOOMED.

HTTP://WWW.USALONE.COM/ALITO.PHP

EVEN IF YOU HAVE SUBMITTED SOMETHING ELSE RECENTLY, PLEASE GO TO THE PAGE
ABOVE AND TAKE A MOMENT TO SUBMIT IT. THERE ARE LOTS OF GOOD REFERENCES IN
THE ARGUMENTS SECTION BELOW THE FORM IF YOU WOULD LIKE SOME ADDITIONAL
SUPPORT OR IDEAS FOR YOUR PERSONAL COMMENTS, OR JUST CAST YOUR VOTE WITH ONE
CLICK AND GO. WE HAVE NEARLY 100,000 PARTICIPANTS IN OUR SYSTEM AND WE ARE
COUNTING ON AT LEAST 25,000 OF YOU TO SPEAK OUT NOW. THIS BATTLE MUST BE
WON, THERE MUST BE A FILIBUSTER, OR ALL ELSE WILL BE ULTIMATELY LOST.

NEW UPDATED DESKTOP ACTION PROGRAM AVAILABLE NOW

TO HELP US GET AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO 100% SUBMISSION YIELD ON THIS
QUESTION WE HAVE MADE MANY IMPROVEMENTS ON THE DESKTOP ACTION PROGRAM SINCE
ITS INITIAL RELEASE LAST WEEK. WITH THIS PROGRAM YOU CAN SPEAK OUT DIRECTLY
FROM YOUR DESKTOP WITH JUST ONE CLICK! BASED ON YOUR INPUT WE HAVE SET THE
PROGRAM TO ALWAYS BE MINIMIZED UNLESS YOU EXPRESSLY CLICK ON ITS ICON, WE
HAVE NOW MADE THE INTERFACE DRAGGABLE, AND INCORPORATED ALL OF YOUR OTHER
SUGGESTIONS. THOUGH IT WORKED WELL FOR MOST PEOPLE FROM DAY ONE, WE HAVE
CORRECTED ALL MINOR ISSUES WITH CONTACT SETUP AND SYSTEM REBOOTS, AND ALL
THESE SMALL FIXES HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED CORRECTED. EVEN IF YOU ALREADY HAVE
THE PROGRAM, PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE LATEST UPDATE (1.05) FROM THE MAIN INDEX
PAGE AT

HTTP://WWW.USALONE.COM

RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF OR FIND US SOMEONE WHO IS

WE RECEIVED MANY INQUIRIES FROM CANDIDATES WHO WANT TO WIN, AND WE ARE
SETTING EVERYBODY UP WITH THEIR EASY-TO-USE FORMS FOR CREATING ACTION FORMS
ON YOUR OWN CAMPAIGN WEB SITE. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU CAN DO IS
LAUNCH YOUR OWN STOP ALITO INITIATIVE TO SHOW YOUR CONSTITUENTS HOW MUCH YOU
ARE OUT THERE FIGHTING FOR THEM NOW, AND NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU
WOULD DO IF ELECTED. BUILD YOUR TRACK RECORD AND PROMINENCE IDENTIFIED AS
SOMEONE OUT THERE FIGHTING TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. CONTACT US
AT ONCE AND WE WILL SET YOU UP. THERE IS NO CHARGE FOR ANY OF OUR SERVICES
EVER.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW, SO WE CAN WIN ALL VICTORIES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE
OURS, AND FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO EVERYONE ELSE YOU KNOW.

This follow up on the previous article. It seems that Above Top Secret forum has been busted.

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/homepa ge.htm" title="http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/homepa ge.htm" target="_blank"http://quantumfuture.net/quan...

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: ark@cassiopaea.org
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_Secre t_article.htm" title="http://signs-of-the-times .org/signs/Above_Top_Secre t_article.htm" target="_blank"http://signs-of-the-times .org... Is in violation of our clearly stated Creative Commons Deed, linked here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414" title="http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414" target="_blank"http://www.abovetopsecret.com... 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@abovetops ecret.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@abovetops ecret.com wrote:
It has come to our attention that your article here:
http://signs-of-the-times .org...

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

http://www.abovetopsecret.com...


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_Secre t_article.htm" title="http://signs-of-the-times .org/signs/Above_Top_Secre t_article.htm" target="_blank"http://signs-of-the-times .org...

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... ) 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@abovetops ecret.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... 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... ) 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@networkso lutions.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" title="http://www.AboveTopSecret.com" target="_blank"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.abovetopsecr... 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... 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 to 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.

(Please click title link for full article)

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)
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:

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.

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 the