Because the question of a missile now leaves the realm of a fantasy and enters the realm of a good probability I made this poll.
More information how we came to the serious suspicion of a missile in this thread:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...topic=9179&st=0

edit / last possible answer added by: Carl

COINTELPRO? Not me!

As far as I'm concerned, I'm just trying to firmly nail down the planks of Truth so the ship of Knowledge can sail proudly forth.

Welcome, tumetuestumefaisdubien

If you hang around a bit, you will soon come to the realization IMO that this sort of poll does more to divide than unify, and that that is the reason for the lack of participation. I thank you for bringing new info regarding Mach 1+ speed of the aircraft that hit the south tower, and look forward to your posts. This sort of poll however, is counterproductive.

No worries, I'm just explaining why no one is voting. Cheers

I do get what you are saying, Sanders but why should that be though? This is an interesting and perhaps profoundly philosophical question to me.

Are most people afraid of getting off the fence for some reason? Is there some deeper reason? I would love your wisdom shed on this. Maybe have a bevy or two and get back to me.

The very point in this is not if it was an airplane or a missle
that hit the south tower.

I share your doubts in several ways about the assumption of
UA 175 hit the WTC2, but I am also aware of the political difficulty
of the NPT issues:

My (and not only my) thoughts about the NPT is this:

The Truth Movements first responsibility is to wake up others to the
fact that we have been lied to. That 9/11 wasn't pulled off by Ali Bin Ladin
and his 19 Henchmen. That we all need to look into it and see the deception
and the forces that put this lies forward: The Banks, The Military Industrial
Complex etc.pp.

By knowing that this can only be accomplished when the Movement is
considered as serious and backed by scientific, financial, political, historical
and logical facts and evidence, we all should avoid to spend too much time and
energy with theories -or even facts that can be prooven only by long
explainations.

The No Plane Theory is used over and over by the perpetrators and their
henchmen, aka the MSM, to discredit the Truth Movement as nutjobby
tinfoilheadwearing conspiracy wackos. I for one can't stand to hear the
arguments of "We all saw the planes on TV, what are wrong with these folks?"
anymore.

Imagine some shepole who never questioned the official conspiracy theory
in his live and who comes across this board now - and the very first thread he
stumbles upon is about the question if a 767 or a missile hit the WTC...

Such a peron would shake his head and click back to James Randi's forum
in a second flat.

Second to this most important beef I have with NPT is that the question
if it was a plane or a missle of an energy beam or something so sophisticated
that we cannot even imagine is without any importance at this point.

I appreciate your research, FFG, Don't take me wrong.
But it can also be discussed after the truth about the background of
9/11 has reached the critical stage of widespread acceptence and steps are taken
to restore the constitution, the Media system and alike.

Because before this stage is reached, the NPT only gives "them" the opportunity
to label us "wackos". You can't jump the gun, FFG. Try to see the big picture
even if it's fascinating to do such research and feel like S. Holmes.

end of rant and my 2ct: Carl

The perps have muddied the water for NPT, without a doubt, and I believe that their intention was to program people to "shut down" at the merest mention of it.

Why would the perps do this? IMO because it is the KEY truth (along with NDT) to understanding the whole 9/11 deception.

Presuming for a moment that this is the case: Now we have a real challenge on our hands. It is one thing saying one stands for truth and trying to present that truth to the people but when you aren't certain of what that truth is, or worse, when you are mistaken about what that truth is, how convincing can you be?

In my experience, just saying someone did so and so, without being able to explain your self fully as to who that someone is or what it was exactly that they did, or why it was done, never will come across.

When I am with someone face to face and calmly present them my case, the light comes on and they get it because it makes sense. This is my experience, honestly. It is almost like a revelation to them. I'm hoping that I won't sound too presumptuous or know it all here but I believe this is because: (1) I have gotten to the truth, more or less, and (2) the light of truth shines. The trick is to get to a full understanding of the truth and then convey that understanding. Understanding is what people are hungry for as I see it. painter has a quote by William Blake at the bottom of his posts as his signature:


Do you see where I am coming from, Carl? Basically, I am talking about the ship of Knowledge that I was referring to earlier. This ship carries the important cargo of Understanding. Right now I believe the perps are trying to fool us, maybe even forcing us into sailing in a leaky ship ("us" being the people constituting the Truth Movement).

The first thing needed to make any progress with a 9/11 truth is to find the 9/11 truth.

It doesn't matter if all have seen a "B767" on the TV. The TV is just an box to show the pictures.

Especially it doesn't matter if there were people (and they were there) saying in that same TV, they just have seen a "small plane" or a "missile" or a "plane I've never seen before"...etc. - all before any "B767" was broadcasted or seen on TV - in the time between the two crashes... etc. etc.

Don't try to dismiss the possible truth with the strawman argument of "political difficulty of NPT" This is not a NPT it is a NB767T.

Politics is able to change a lie to the truth - if the people prefer the lie.

But the truth is able to change the politics not to lie.

When there were no hijackers, why there should be still the Boeings? It does'nt ad up to me. -The hijackers were the political pretext, not any planes or exploding buildings, or then the pretty confused truthers... etc. etc.

My sentiments entirely!

And anyway, I don't much feel good on the "truth forum" where the responders change the questions of polls, or open the discussion to it when the author has closed it, where the administrators close the threads, where the author had opened it and where some popes "don't much care" about the purely technical 9/11 truth, but about if that is not a ComIntelPro, or on contrary more a question of a politiacal issue.
Maybe I'm too conservative, but this reminds me again about the Orwell...

And anyway: The "Poll" about the importance of my original question is the FFG's thread - which is now realy pretty leading the most readed and replied in this section. B)

And now I was just reading some interesting post here, and it disappeared sooner, than I was able to finish the read... who is the admin?!! Is this a CoIntelPro page??

If they used a missle they would have to also employ the hologram, it seems to me.

And if an aluminum Boeing should not penetrate the tower, why in the hell should an aluminum missle, which weighs a small fraction the amount of the airplane?

I dont know, the missile could cary a DU, which would be quite unlikely the civil airliner would do so. I don't know. I just preanalyzed the RDR data and it looks like a fake or missile. It couldnt be a flightpath of a B767, seems to me... The hologram is out of the question, there possibly could'nt be a proof of something like that, so why pose the question.

That was me, I am an administrator here. I was attempting to answer FfG's direct question to me, but immediately after I posted it I thought twice, I thought that you, tumetuestumefaisdubien, might interpret my post as a direct criticism of your poll. I didn't want to offend you or criticise you, as a new member, and I welcome the new information you brought to us here. That's why I deleted my own post immediately after I posted it - I didn't want to post something critical of you.

The post is gone, but the jist of it is this:

Polls attempt to define the fence, and who is on which side of it. One of the barriers to constructive discussion about NPT-related topics here, is that people are enchouraged to identify with one side or the other, and identify anyone who discusses the topic as being an advocate of one side or the other. This whole idea of polling is an extension of our US "Democracy", which is simply mob-rule in a pretty package. The founders abhored the idea. Democracy and polls have their place, but they tend to DIVIDE. What we should be interested in, is evidence, not who is on which side or what percentage.

That was the jist of my post - While I wanted to adress FfG's question and explain myself, I decided it would might be percieved as a criticism of your poll, and so I deleted it.

I'm not disagreeing with you Sanders, merely running along with your notion. I get your points and they are well taken. As always your keen insight has proved enlightening and led me to further thoughts, so bear with me while I struggle to bring these thoughts to coherent form.

Here's how I see it: People were led to form a false opinion regarding 9/11 and have been made to feel comfortable with it, up until the reasonable and coherent presentation of certain evidences put them on the pesky fence-top of uncertainty.

A poll can be a useful tool, not to persuade as you so correctly point out, but to assess the progress of an idea, how far an understanding has developed. And yes, I make no apologies for being motivated by wanting to reach understandings here.

But if this was a poll about something less controversial we would probably see more voting going on. I think fear of the unknown is an important factor behind people's reluctance to come off the fence-top of uncertainty that this undeniable and very crucial set of evidences regarding the Boeing 767 flight Impossibility has put people on.

It's possible that maybe people deep down are wondering what people will think of them if they cast a vote for what is essentially the ridiculous notion of NPT? Or even on a deeper level, what will they then think of themselves.

The programming is deep, as Carl hints in his post. People have been persuaded to believe that NPT is unthinkable and I believe that this has something to do with why people can't even think about voting here. In that sense the timing of the poll was possibly premature, though it has led to some interesting discussion and served a valuable purpose in that regard.

In a way the fence can be seen as the barrier that the perps put up to keep people from the truth and thus from understanding, which is of course a position of power. In that case maybe the evidence of the radar returns can be seen as having lifted a number of people up on to the fence and now they are poised upon it in uncertainty. Personally, I'm hoping that more and more people will have what I see as the good sense to jump down onto the side of what I see as the side of truth and understanding, so we can be united in the strength of that position, but as you say, this will take the diligent presentation of empirical evidence and logical discussion about such.

However, as Tume so succinctly said:

"The first thing needed to make any progress with a 911 Truth is to find the 911 Truth".

The much touted notions "911 was an inside job" and "it was controlled demolition" are both so general as to be meaningless, IMO, and thus lacking in power. I believe we need to be more precise in the presentation of our understanding of what happened in order to be convincing.

I feel we are getting there though, slowly but surely, and the intelligent way this thread is moderated is a big part of that and thus, in closing, I want to thank you for taking the time to furnish me with such an eloquent and thoughtful response, Sanders.

Penetrator Missiles are designed to penetrate hard targets of steel and concrete, amazed!

Hologram technology is not feasible as a technique to explain the multiple Boeing sightings, relying as it does on strictly limited viewpoints. The use of false witnesses, either paid for or otherwise coerced, is much more feasible, IMO. It is a technique that is tried tested and proven effective in countless frauds.

Of course.

It's not a big deal, I was just trying to explain myself - (I was so convinced by my own post that I deleted it .) You (FfG) understand what I was getting at I assume.

Anyway, carry on

I haven't read the comments above. I think it was a military B767. Could have been something else, cloaked by hologram, I suppose. The idea that nothing but pixels hit the towers is something I cannot entertain.

See you later. Off to fry bigger fish. I'm looking into the inside job inside all of us.

On your last point: suffice it to say that a missile is not pixels, Oceans Flow. As for your notion that it was a military Boeing 767 that was used: are you talking about a tanker or surveillance version of the plane somehow upgraded to supersonic capability? (I will put aside the impossibility of such a plane penetrating the hard target of a steel framed building for the moment.)


"The inside job inside all of us." Hmmmm. What a very cryptic comment. Would you care to expound before you go off and fry this particular big fish?

But that post was very interesting. I don't take it as an offence when somebody criticises me. (I then realized, that the poll was maybe not a good idea even the forum offers it as a choice, and it was from my side meant more like a joke to atract people to FFG thread, than realy seriously.) I just readed your post, it was long, and then I was in meantime answering some new posts and when I came back and I just realized it disapeared, so I got a bit more angry than usualy, dont take it personaly, I feeled a bit Orwellian after all that closing of the thread and opening the discussion here...
Anyway, I don't think that the question of "NPT" should "divide" the people. On contrary I find the very concept that there is a "NPT" a ComIntelPro bogus, because most of the so called "no-planers" actually dont challenge the "planes" or something flying as not being there, they just say, it probably could'nt be a "UA175" B767-200 regular airliner. Such hypothesis anyway is not unpopular though, because UA175 was always challenged in some way by the mainstream in the 911 movement and especially by many witness reports recorded even in live TV coverage.
One should not stick the head in the sand.

One utter off topic to ilustrate the 9/11 account confusion I just have found on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVDCzymSTw8 a truck of explosives on King st. ? RC controlled plane alert before 2nd tower hit? mossad agents to "document" the events? ...the 9/11 is realy not a simple question...

Cool...

FFG

I know you've been talking about these "penetrator missles" for a while now, and I apologize if I missed previous documentation in that regard.

I've seen bunker buster bombs and all their derivatives and models, but this penetrator missle of which you speak seems a bit dubious. A missle is meant to fly, of course, and must be light and aerodynamic.

Bombs must be a bit dynamic, and they are meant to fall, not sustain level or climbing flight like a missle.

Ordinary cruise missles, conventional warhead, will blow hell out of any building it strikes. I've never heard of a "penetrator missle" until you mentioned it.

Shape charges and armor penetrating rounds, such as those employing Depleted Uranium, are common, but are not really refered to as missles, to my knowledge.

amazed!, with all due respect, "missile"-- "projectile"-- "round"-- makes little difference in the ballistic sense (especially to the target, either "hard" or "soft"). I'm certain that DoD TM's do make the distinction, though.

Here's a report on DU and Tungsten "weapons."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0301/0301059v7.pdf

Specifically, see the "Root Density Law" on p.5 and p.7 which states,

"The trouble is that the impact velocity of a cruisemissile is not as large as that of a bomb. The impact conditions are even likely to be well below the “hydrodynamic limit,” so that little benefit is to be expected from the Root Density Law. A hardened steel or titanium penetrator could therefore be just as good as a heavymetal
penetrator, and the possibility that the cruise missiles used in the Gulf War or in Yugoslavia carried a heavymetal penetrator is only a speculation since “there is no publicly available information at all that supports such an assumption” [13, p.165]." :ph43r:

Without delving in-depth into metallurgy, any alloy that makes a good drill bit, tap, or machine tool for working steel [armor] and stainless steel will likely make a good "penetrator" core (to include chrome, chrome-vanadium, cobalt, tungsten, and titanium alloys).

Although I haven't ever worked for cruise missile programs, I'm reasonably certain that Boeing, General Dynamics, KBR, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon have AT LEAST this much information. The HE cruise missiles fired by Reagan against Qaddafi, by Bush 41 against Hussein, by Clinton against bin Ladin and Milosevic, and Bush 43 against who-knows-whom all likely had some means of "penetrating" hardened structures, even if it is not DU-- IMHO. (Ballistics, both flight and terminal, has been a subject of my study for many years). FfG appears to me to know something about "hardened" targets.

Some newer, light "penetrator" weapons platforms:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/predator_kestrel/

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1463..._LOSAT,,00.html

Thank you for making us all think, sir.

Thanks dMole, that's what I'm talkin' about!

What's to be penetrated in an office building with windows?

Sure, a steel exoskeleton, but there were lots of windows. This was not an armor-clad building in any sense.

My point is that a 200,000 pound Boeing will penetrate that shell better than a 3000 pound missle.

Your point is a bit contradictory: first you talk about the windows and no armor of the buildings - then the CM with the diameter of ~52 cm would "penetrate" in through the 1m wide windows (any ~1/2m piece of stone if having at least 10mph speed would "penetrate" it as well)

then you talk about the "200,000 pound" Boeing, that it would penetrate the "shell" "better" than a "3000" pound missle. So I will use your data to ilustrate you are seriously missing the point:

I state: A civil aluminium Boeing has much lower kinetic crossection then any penetrator missile to penetrate something.

Let's make some ilustrative figures

767-222 fuselage diameter: 5.03m = 19.87m2
767-200 engine diameter: 2.74m =5.89m2 x2 (two engines) = 11.78m2
intogether 31.65m2
I ommit the wings

CM diameter: (say the 3000lb tomahawk): 52cm = 0.21m2

travel speeds are almost the same

31.65/0.21= 150 times (crossection of B767 is 150 times more than CM)

but the whole weight is just 200 000/3000 = 66.6 times

150/66.6=2.26

so the kinetic crossection of the B767-222 is at least 2.26 times lower than by the CM
- even I didn't include (because of my laziness) the crosssection of the B767 wings.

the whole kinetic energy of the CM would be concentrated to that ~52 cm diameter, a Boeing on the contrary, would have the energy dispersed on many m2 and being less solid than the CM head. So the "penetrability" of your 3000 pound CM is above any doubt much higher than the "penetrability" of your 200 000 pound B767 - at least 2.26 times.

A quick google of penetrator missiles, AGM-86 or BGM-109 will get you started. Here's a passage from another one of my threads with a couple of military guys talking before the UN about them:

Well, now read how two military experts, testifying before the NGO Committee on Disarmament in 1999, describe the pyrophoric effect of Depleted Uranium as it impacts and cuts through the material (armor) of its target:

DAMACIO LOPEZ: "When the Depleted Uranium (DU) penetrator strikes the target it will have what appears to be an explosion. There are no explosives in the slug of DU. It is the mass and speed and the energy from the radioactivity that gives the impression of an explosion. The projectile is referred to as a kinetic energy penetrator. It burns through like molten metal, and as it burns it is giving off smoke. The particles in that smoke are very tiny, somewhere between 1 and 5 micrometers in size. 30% to 70% of the slug of depleted uranium goes up as smoke into the air, and is taken by winds."

COLONEL ERIC DAXON: "Science does not support the contention that DU is a weapon of mass destruction. Science does not support the contention that the use of DU will result in an environmental catastrophe. The explosion is not due to the radioactivity of the DU. When the penetrator first hits you see something that looks like a sparkler. That is the pyrophoric nature of the DU. It self-ignites when exposed to high temperatures and high pressures. A tungsten penetrator becomes blunt. A DU penetrator will become sharper as it is penetrating armor, and that is the primary reason that we are using it, along with its density. The self-sharpening effect gives it a significant tactical advantage. "Reference

Hi FfG,

Are you familiar with Major Doug Rokke, PhD (US Army, ret.) and his work on the health effects of DU?

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Rokke-D...m-DU21apr03.htm

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/DUuse+hazard.html

http://www.ecotecture.com/library_eco/inte...okke_du_1a.html

Also see the DVD "Beyond Treason" if you have the stomach for it (it is truly GRUESOME).

I just don't want anyone getting the impression that "depleted" Uranium-238 is safe, humane, or anything close. ["Depleted" = non-"weapons grade" or "reactor" fissionable, actually, unlike U-235]. Many veterans and foreign civilians are either ill, dead, or worried about health effects from the hundreds or thousands of TONS of DU that our DoD has dumped on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thanks,
d

Quite right, dMole. It is hideous to think of the long term effect that the use of this material has on the population exposed to it.

Right, the Colonel's statement about DU is misleading to say the least. Part of the projectiles are pulverized, and that releases what is essentially radioactive dust into the air, or ground or water. The indiscriminate use of these weapons is a crime against humanity and nature.

As for TTT's statement about which can "penetrate" better, I'll happily defer to his formulae.

Point is, unless we saw a hologram, the Boeing did a pretty good job, deficient cross section and all.

It is not a question of which object can penetrate better, a missile designed to penetrate or a plane. One object CAN penetrate a steel framed building, and one CANNOT! No prizes for sorting out which one is which.

The hologram is a "red herring" issue as I see it, amazed!? Holograms cannot be "filmed" from mutliple angles.

You seem to be insisting on dismissing the possibility that witnesses could have been lying about seeing the Boeing. Do you really not regard this as a possibility, especially in light of the information presented in this thread here?

But guys... There was the MAJORITY of witnesses in the live coverage between 8:45 to 9:03 (before the TV hoax with B767 started), they have NOT seen a B767 crash in the North Tower, just go and see... the authentic records of the live coverage are here (top of the page): http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

...Ah, I just forget a homework: Count the proportion and then report here...
(don't count the anchors please)

we can then compare the results...

I dont remember the exact figure, but I think the word MAJORITY is at least right.

I'm largely referring to South Tower Impact witnesses, Tume. I believe you're right regarding the North Tower impact. The majority of witnesses were being recorded as not having seen a large plane hit. Then, as you say, the WTC2 hoax started kicking in. There were some carefully placed "media personnel" witnesses like Jennifer Oberstein who were initially recorded as saying they didn't see a plane hit Tower 1, that on air turned this around when they definitely saw a plane hit Tower 2. What a disarmingly skillfull use of the deceptive arts is at play with this factor. At one and the same time such a display underlines the confusion over Tower 1 and asserts the falsehood about Tower 2 in a very persuasive and seemingly credible way, i.e. what the perps are planting here is the idea that no-one could easily have seen the plane hit the North Tower because it was too much of a surprise (which is BS because people should have seen a large passenger plane hit if one did) but they make the point here with JO et al that the South Tower was a different issue. You see what they were playing at with JO and why they had her say she didn't see a plane hit the North Tower? Very, very clever stuff.

This is a bit of a rambling presentation of an important point but I hope you all can get ny drift. if not I'll explain more fully?

I think this poll is useful as it does provoke a needed discussion in the community.

There is very little grey area - people doing research are very attached to their pet theories,
and I bet this poll's results would change drastically on the Loosechange board or 911blogger.

Since this is a aviation based site, the questions about the planes are indeed relevant.
I don't know if the NPT would be my ice breaker for someone not familiar with the MIHOP
theory, but it might just be.

Some points to consider: (FL 175)

1 People at the scene (not watching TV) are less likely to report commercial Boeings.

2 The videos shown on TV do not depict real world crashes. There is little if any force acting on the plane to slow or shred or even change the trajectory.
The CNN footage is especially unrealistic, with the building seemingly undamaged until after the explosion even though the plane has already passed into the building.

3 The radar data shows the plane exceeded software and hardware limitations of a commercial 767

4 The news anchors seem very scripted, with different channels reporting very similar comments:

"oh my goodness... there's another one"

5 Some stations showed no plane and the anchors report an explosion. (Didn't get the memo?)

6 There has been some very good analysis of the footage of the impact, and digital video editing experts have explained how the footage could have been manufactured.

Well I guess you know what my vote was.

With the majority of the fine minds on this site.

Keep up the good work and follow the data. This isn't a popularity contest - it's science!

Peace and Blessings, Shallel

I would add another point the deniers of the no/fake plane theories don't much like:

7. There was ONLY ONE footage showing something like B767 broadcasted real time live on TV - on ABC and CNN (which was confirmed being the same shot with just other zoom, color scheme and timing adjustment) - it was taken allegedly by the chopper WABC, the shot was confirmed it was made using the WESCAM (highly sophisticated, army grade, high resolution real time digital camera system), the other RT live footages (MSNBC+CBS) actualy don't show discernable large jet, and the trajectory of the barely discernable object there is in the sheer contradiction with above two. (here is one of the sophisticated analyses: what is on the CNN video: http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/live/) In addition it was proven, there was later a tampering done with the MSNBC live broadcast record to make the object appear larger than was in the original broadcast.

The other 2nd hit footages weren't broadcasted RT live and first of them was shown on TV at least whole minutes after - which was the sufficient time to make the CGIs. Even during the live broadcast of CBS were shown two different shots, where the trajectories of the object contradict each other. So there is at least one proven fakery in the live broadcasts. It is alone sufficient to dismiss the allegation there was no TV fakery taking place.

Hypothetical situation #2:

1. Place a previously-"prepared" videocassette or videodisc in a news helicopter and/or news van with video equipment and communications links.

2. Roll tape.

3. Watch it happen "live" on CNN and ABC [after the requisite 7-second or is it 10-second delay].

Is this a far-fetched scenario or not? If so, please move this post accordingly. I'd like to remind the reader that you've likely seen traffic helicopter and cutesy ground-based "live shots" nearly every weekday in metropolitan US cities... I'd also like to remind the reader that the "scientific method" has a hypothesis as a very early step...

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/pr...ic_method.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm

Carl said:

"The No Plane Theory is used over and over by the perpetrators and their
henchmen, aka the MSM, to discredit the Truth Movement as nutjobby
tinfoilheadwearing conspiracy wackos. I for one can't stand to hear the
arguments of "We all saw the planes on TV, what are wrong with these folks?"
anymore."

I don't see that at all. It's been mentioned a few times in the MSM. That's it. The History Channel didn't touch it -- that would have been their big chance.

You're expressing a fear, not an empirical fact. I've heard this fear expressed countless times, and used as justification to suppress discussion. Been accused of spreading disinfo many times, also.

People need to understand that no planers can contribute to the debate. The questions and facts we raise may fit into other theories, and the movement is hurting itself by excluding us, especially since they are doing it based on a false fear.

So are credible the witnesses they "saw the plane":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4yIFnq1wkU&watch_response

What is this?

3-9 secs watch UFO climb on left.
17-19 secs one shoots to the left
25-27 secs two more one on left other on right.
Same but different video
Another
Very Distinct

From Loose Change
(2;33-2:48 ) accross face of S.Tower

and Goes Accross another building

Before attackNever disputed as far as I know

Another??11-14 sec mark

I realize the proplems presented by the mystery( there are more)
and
this is one reason 911 Truthers should recognize the importance
of the Disclosure Project
The Key word "Disclosure"
Disclosure Project
Peace in Space

Yeah, there is a reason indeed...as disclosure project CIA memo from 1991 - http://www.disclosureproject.org/PDF-Documents/CIAMemo.pdf the paragraph "MEDIA" a)
"PAO [Public Affairs Office] now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation. This has helped us turn some intelligence failure stories into intelligence success stories, and it has contributed to the accuracy of countless others. In many instances, we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods."... :ph43r:

Interesting document
Disclosure Project started in 2001
This is a CIA doc.
but it only related to the Disclosure Project, because of the pressure put on the CIA to release info.
whatever you were trying to relate, failed me.

The CIA document just in plain english says (even in connection with the "disclosure project") there is a very massive CoIntelPro operation in US media...

Actually Tume, this 1991 CIA memo admits to Operation Mockingbird/Mighty Wurlitzer activity in the US under the CIA's hand.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/P...ockingbird.html

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Amy_Good...ity_TV_SAG.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1016-06.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...ion_Mockingbird

http://www.cpj.org/attacks96/sreports/cia.html

http://mprofaca.cro.net/ciapress1.html

http://www.namebase.org/news17.html

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." — William Colby
former Director of the CIA

COINTELPRO is/was more of an infiltration/subversion of dissenting groups.

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Attorney General John Ashcroft cranked COINTELPRO back up after 9/11/2001.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11252003.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/113003F.shtml

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0223,hentoff2,35355,6.html

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Wake up and smell the propaganda in the USA today." -- me

Ah yes, it is just maybe a terminology misunderstanding, I use CoIntelPro (Counter Intelligence Programs) generaly as abreviation for all coordinated secret service infiltration/disinformation activities. Maybe it has in American English only that more narrow meaning: disent disruptive activities ? Now I'm confused. I'm appologizing if there was any misunderstanding, but I'm not an english native.

I saw all the CIA/Media references/connections.
The file is a plan / opperation the CIA was initiating in respone to a Disclosure Project request.
Your right
There is indeed a reason for 9/11 truth movement
and the Disclosure Project to join forces.

Yes, it is quite improbable, that CIA would infiltrate all media only because to stop some UFO secrets disclosure - many of them are anyway published long time ago and there is also quite massive activity in this sense on the internet as well since its very begginning - maybe even the aim "to stop the UFO secrets disclosure" was just a minor part of the operation or even just a cover-up?? The Mockingbird/Mighty affairs appear to me to be strongly supporting this assumption.